Tragedy, Progress and the International Order: A Response to Frost
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Author | James Mayall |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117803174006 |
| Subject Matter | Other |
International Relations Copyright © 2003 SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), Vol 17(4): 497–503
[0047–1178 (200312) 17:4; 497–503; 038935]
Tragedy, Progress and the International Order:
A Response to Frost
James Mayall, Cambridge University, UK
Abstract
This response describes the circumstances that led Professor Mervyn Frost to write his
article on tragedy in international relations. In examining his argument, it identifies
several points of agreement but two points of disagreement. The first is over the
evidence for the evolution of a global human rights culture; the second over the weight
to be attached to the impediments to progress represented by the external world. These
points are illustrated by reference to international developments since September 2001.
The conclusion is that the modern world, despite its public commitment to the pro-
gressive idiom of democratic politics, and enlightened attempts to promote a democratic
world order, cannot easily escape tragic outcomes.
Keywords: 9/11, democracy, human rights, international ethics, progress, tragedy,
world order
It is a familiar axiom that many of the best ideas for writing and research are
generated after hours, over a drink or a meal away from the formality of the
seminar room or conference panel. Mervyn Frost’s powerful article is a case in
point. It had its genesis in a Chicago diner during the 2001 International Studies
Association (ISA) Conference and an earlier version was presented at the same
conference in New Orleans the following year. According to him, I threw down a
challenge by suggesting that his constitutive approach to international ethical
theory is ‘too progressive, optimistic and teleological’. The occasion was a con-
vivial one and in truth I cannot remember the exact terms of my challenge. In the
cold light of day, I think his claim is partly right and partly wrong.
He is right in thinking that I believe that much of the writing about inter-
national relations since the end of the Cold War – and, in the early years, much of
the practice also – was unduly optimistic and that the willingness of the United
Nations Security Council, strongly supported by many intellectuals, to will liberal
ends was not matched by an equal willingness to provide the means of delivering
them. I am not sure that I had constitutive theory particularly in my sights,
although it is true that the favoured post-Cold War liberal project – the protection
of human rights, democratization, and the rule of law – corresponds closely to
what he describes as the core values of Global Civil Society (GCS).
He is wrong to infer that my emphasis on the tragic dimension of international
relations implies opposition to the idea of progress or to efforts to improve the
quality of international life. Indeed, the immediate background to my late-night
challenge was a conclusion that I had reached in World Politics: Progress and its
Limits:
r
i
To continue reading
Request your trial