Teori Politik Internasional Week 1 Pengantar Teori Politik Dan Hubungan Internasional (PDFDrive)

Teori Politik Internasional
Week 1 Pengantar
Teori Politik dan Hubungan Internasional
Teori Politik Internasional
Semester I, Silabus 2012/12
Muhadi Sugiono & Luqman Nul Hakim
Selasa, jam 07:30, R. BA203
Dalam upaya untuk menggapai status sebagai ‘ilmu’, aliran-aliran utama studi hubungan
internasional telah menyingkirkan topik-topik maupun isyu-isyu normatif dan
menekankan pada aspek-aspek empiris dalam studi mereka. Akibatnya, pembahasan
tentang teori politik hampir tidak pernah mendapatkan perhatian serius dan dianggap
terpisah dari Hubungan Internasional.
Pengabaian dan pemisahan teori politik dan ilmu hubungan internasional ini jelas sangat
ironis karena, sebagai respon terhadap kehancuran yang ditimbulkan oleh Perang Dunia I,
perkembangan ilmu hubungan internasional sebenarnya sangat terkait dengan komitmen
normatif untuk menjamin perdamaian abadi. Mata kuliah Teori Politik Internasional (TPI)
merupakan upaya untuk mengembalikan komitmen terhadap aspek-aspek normatif dalam
studi hubungan internasional. Seperti halnya teori politik, teori politik internasional juga
mengimplikasikan adanya upaya-upaya manusia untuk mencapai good life. Tetapi,
berbeda dengan asumsi-asumsi teori politik dan Hubungan Internasional, yang membatasi
konsep politik dalam kerangka organisasi politik umat manusia yang paling besar dan
paling berpengaruh — negara, teori politik internasional tidak pernah membatasi peluang
untuk mencapai good life hanya dalam kerangka atau batasan-batasan teritorial. Good life
adalah tujuan yang ingin dicapai oleh umat manusia: siapapun dan di manapun. Batasan-
batasan teritorial oleh karenanya, tidak relevan dalam Teori Politik Internasional.
Tujuan
Mata kuliah Teori Politik Internasional ditujukan untuk membekali mahasiswa dengan
kemampuan untuk melihat fenomena-fenomena hubungan internasional secara lebih
kritis dengan memberikan perhatian pada perdebatan nilai, dan bukan semata-mata pada
isu distribusi baik material maupun non material. Di akhir perkuliahan, mahasiswa
diharapkan memiliki tambahan kemampuan sebagai berikut.
1. Mampu memahami pemikiran-pemikiran teoretisi politik terkemuka

2. Mampu memahami pentingnya aspek nilai (etika, moral dan norma) dalam
hubungan internasional
3. Mampu menganalisis secara kritis aspek nilai dalam hubungan internasional
4. Mampu memberikan penilaian terhadap fenomena-fenomena maupun melakukan
advokasi nilai
Organisasi dan Metode perkuliahan
1/7
Perkuliahan dilakukan dengan dua metode yang berbeda. Metode pertama adalah
ceramah. Dilakukan untuk membahas tema-tema yang menjadi kerangka bagi tema-tema
yang lebih spesifik. Metode kedua adalah diskusi. Diskusi digunakan untuk membahas
tema-tema yang secara spesifik membahas tentang seorang teoretisi politik internasional
dan karya-karya mereka. Dalam diskusi, peserta dibagi menjadi kelompok-kelompok kecil
untuk membahas sebuah karya. Hasil diskusi kelompok kecil ini kemudian didiskusikan
bersama dengan hasil diskusi dari kelompok lain di dalam diskusi kelas.
Kuliah TPI diselenggarakan secara konvensional, dalam pertemuan kelas, dan secara
online melalui eLisa. Pertemuan kelas dilakukan untuk perkuliahan dengan metode
ceramah sementara diskusi dilakukan secara online. Penyelenggaraan diskusi secara
online dimaksudkan untuk meningkatkan partisipasi mahasiswa. Diskusi dilakukan baik
selama jam perkuliahan yang ditentukan maupun di luar jadwal yang ditentukan. Teknis
pelaksanaan diskusi online akan disampaikan secara khusus.
Topik Bahasan Perkuliahan
Minggu Topik Bahasan Sub-topik dan Bacaan

ke
1 Pengantar 1.Penjelasan Silabus dan rencana kegiatan

perkuliahan
2.Aturan main dalam perkuliahan
3.Literatur-literatur yang digunakan
Bacaan:
Beitz 1979, Introduction; Schmidt 2002, Silabus
Teori Politik Internasional 2012-13
2 The Four Horsemen of 1.Hubungan Internasional dan ilmu sosial positivis

the Apocalypse – Teori 2.Isyu-isyu normatif dalam Hubungan
Politik dan Image Internasional
tentang Politik 3.Teori Politik dalam Hubungan Internasional
Internasional
Bacaan:
Beitz 1979, Introduction; Dürer ca 1497-1498
Jackson 2005, Chapter 1, Schmidt 2002; Watson
1996
3 Skeptisme Moral 1. Politik internasional sebagai perjuangan untuk

Realisme kekuasaan
2. Ketidakrelevanan moralitas dalam politik
internasional
3, Prinsip keharusan vs pilihan
Bacaan:
Donelly 2000, Chp 3; Boucher 1998, Chp 3; Beitz
2/7
1979, Part I Chp 1.
4 Thucydides 1. Esensi pemikiran Thucydides

2. Thucydides dan realisme
Bacaan:
Boucher 1998, Chp 4*; Thucydides 2009, Book V
Chp XVII
5 Thomas Hobbes 1. Esensi pemikiran Hobbes

2. Hobbes dan realisme
Bacaan: Boucher 1998, Chp 7; Hobbes 1651, XIII-

XVI
6 Reinhold Niebuhr 1. Esensi pemikiran Reinhold Niebuhr

2. Reinhold Niebuhr dan realisme
Bacaan:
Elsthain in Harries and Platten 2010, Chp 3;
Niebuhr 1932, Chps 1,2,3;
7 Negara, otonomi dan 1. Sejarah perkembangan negara modern

moralitas 2. Peran dan fungsi negara
3. Negara dan hukum internasional
4. Negara dan warga negara
Bacaan:
Beitz 1979, Part II Chps 1 - 3; Patterson 2001;
Philpott 2001, Chp 4.
8 Hugo Grotius 1. Esensi pemikiran Hugo Grotius

2. Hugo Grotius dan hukum internasional
Bacaan:
Boucher 1998, Chp 9 (Hanya bagian tentang
Grotius)*; Grotius 2005, Book I, Chps 1-2
9 Samuel von 1. Esensi pemikiran Samuel von Pufendorf

Pufendorf 2. Samuel von Pufendorf dan hukum internasional
Bacaan:
Boucher 1998, Chp 10; Pufendorf Book I Chps 1-6,
Book II Chps 1,7,11,13,15-18
3/7
10 Emerich De Vattel 1. Esensi pemikiran Emerich De Vattel
2. Emerich De Vattel dan hukum internasional
Bacaan:
Boucher 1998, Chp 11 (Hanya bagian tentang
Vattel)**; de Vattel 1758, Preliminaries, Book I Chp
1-2, 5, Book II Chp 1,4,5,6,8,9,11, Book III Chp
1,3,8,11
11 Kosmopolitanisme 1. Kemanusiaan dan solidaritas kemanusiaan global

dan solidaritas 2. Gagasan kosmopolitanisme
kemanusiaan global 3. Politik global kosmopolitan
Bacaan: Boucher, 1998, Chp 11 (Bahan minggu ke-

10); Bowden, 2004; Brock 2002, Introduction; ,
Fine 2007, Conclusion; Sugiono 2012.
12 Immanuel Kant 1. Esensi pemikiran Immanuel Kant

2. Immanuel Kant dan kosmopolitanisme
Bacaan:
Boucher, 1998, Chp 11 (Bahan minggu ke-10, hanya
bagian tentang Kant)*, Kant 2006, Idea for a
Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of
View (1784), (in Kleingeld, ed.); Kant 2006,
Toward Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch
(1795).
13 John Rawls 1. Esensi pemikiran John Rawls

2. John Rawls dan kosmopolitanisme
Bacaan:
Freeman 2012; Rawls 1972, Chps 1-3.
14 Adam Smith 1. Esensi pemikiran Adam Smith

2. Adam Smith dan kosmopolitanisme
Bacaan:
Forman-Barzilai 2009, Introduction; Smith
1759/1984, Part I, Sections 1-2, Part VI Sections 1-3;
Sugiono 1996*
4/7
Bahan Bacaan
Kecuali untuk topik-topik pengantar, baik pengantar umum maupun pengantar khusus ke
masing-masing pemikiran, bahan bacaan berasal dari sumber-sumber primer, yakni karya
asli pemikir-pemikir yang dibahas dalam setiap topik. Untuk memudahkan mahasiswa
memahami, dalam setiap topik selalu disertakan bacaan-bacan pendaming, yakni dari
sumber sekunder (dengan tanda sterik, *). Sumber-sumber sekunder ini merupakan
bahan-bahan yang direkomendasikan dan tidak diwajibkan. Mahasisw bisa menggunakan
bab-bab dalam buku ini jika dan hanya jika anda memerlukannya, yakni setelah membaca
karya-karya asli yang diwajibkan tetapi mengalami kesulitan untuk memahaminya.
Bahan-bahan sekunder bukan pengganti bacaan-bacaan primer!.
Beitz, Charles, R., 1979, Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Boucher, David, 1998, Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to
the Present, Oxford: oxford University Press.
Bowden, Brett, 2004, In the Name of Progress and Peace: The "Standard of Civilization"
and the Universalizing Project, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 29/ 1
Brock, Gillian, 2002, World Citizenship: David Miller versus the New Cosmopolitans,
International Journal of Politics and Ethics, 2/3
Donelly, Jack, 2000, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Dürer, Albrecht, 1497/8, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Image.
Fine, Robert, 2007, Cosmopolitanism, New York: Routledge.
Fonna Forman-Barzilai 2009, Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy:
Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, Samuel, "Original Position", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring
2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/original-position/>.
Grotius, Hugo, 2005, The Right of War and Peace, Book 1-3, Liberty Fund Inc.
Harries, Richard and Stephen Platten, eds., 2010, Reinhold Niebuhr and Contemporary
Politics: God and Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, Thomas, 1651, Leviathan, Electronic Text available at The History of Modern
Philosophy 1492-1776, Oregon State University,
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html
Kant, Immanuel, 2006, Toward perpetual peace and other writings on politics, peace,
and history, Selections, edited by Pauline Kleingeld, New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Patterson, Steven W., 2001, ‘Thinking of States as Moral Agents: An Argument from
Analogy in Defense of the Moral Autonomy of States’, International Journal of
Politics and Ethics, I/2.
Philpott, Daniel, 2001, Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shaped Modern
International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
von Pufendorf, Samuel, 1991, On the Duty of Man and Citizen According to Natural Law,
5/7
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, John, 1972, A Theory of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chp I Justice as
Fairness atau Excerpts dari A Theory of Justice.
Ronen, Dov, 1979, The Quest for Self-Determination, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Schmidt, Brian C., 2002, ‘Together Again: Reuniting Political Theory and International
Relations Theory,’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, April, 4/1.
Silabus Teori Politik Internasional 2012-13
Smith, Adam, 1759/1984, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund,
Inc.
Sugiono, Muhadi, 1996, 'Adam Smith dan Sistem Moral Kapitalisme , Prisma, 2, Februari.
Sugiono, Muhadi, 2012, Cosmopolitanism and World Politics: Bringing the Global World
to International Relations, Jurnal Global and Strategis, 6/2, Juli-December.
Thucydides, 2009, The Peloponnesian War, Oxford world classics, translated by Martin
Hammond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Watson, Bradley C. S., 1996, ‘The Politics of Confusion in International Relations Theory,’
Perspectives on Political Science, 25/1.
Tugas-tugas
Setiap mahasiswa, secara bergantian, akan memperoleh tugas untuk menyiapkan tulisan
singkat (maksimal 3 halaman) mengenai pemikiran yang didiskusikan. Tulisan singkat ini
bukan deskripsi mengenai pemikiran yang anda baca, melainkan penilaian dan
problematisasi yang anda lakukan terhadap pemikiran tersebut. Anda diharuskan
menemukan aspek-aspek tertentu yang menurut anda paling menonjol. Tulisan anda
harus mendorong munculnya diskusi. Setiap mahasiswa juga akan diminta untuk bekerja
secara kelompok. Tugas kelompok akan ditentukan kemudian dalam perjalanan
perkuliahan. Sebagai pengganti ujian akhir, mahasiswa diminta untuk menulia paper
akhir.
Penilaian
Penilaian terhadap pembelajaran dilakukan dengan melihat [1] penguasaan materi
mahasiswa dan [2] kontribusinya dalam aktivitas perkuliahan. Dalam artian yang
pertama, penguasaan materi mahasiswa diukur melalui tugas-tugas perkuliahan, ujian
tengah semester dan paper akhir sementara kontribusi mahasiswa terutama diukur dari
partisipasi aktif mereka dalam kegiatan belajar mengajar serta dari kerja kelompok yang
dipresentasikan, dengan prosentase penilaian sebagai berikut:
1. Partisipasi aktif (15%)

2. Tugas-tugas individual (20%)
3. Tugas kelompok (15%)
4. Ujian Tengah Semester (20%)
5. Paper akhir (30%)
6/7
Mahasiswa dituntut untuk hadir minimal 75% dari seluruh kegitana perkuliahan.
Termasuk dalam kategori 75% ini adalah kehhadiran mahasiswa dalam setiap seminar
kelas.
Lain-lain
Untuk kenyamanan bersama, kelas kuliah TPI adalah kelas bebas HP. Dosen dan
mahasiswa tidak diperkenankan menggunakan HP di dalam selama perkuliahan
berlangsung. HP yang dibawa di kelas sebaiknya dimatikan atau setidaknya, nada dering
HP tidak diaktifkan (silent).
7/7
Introduction
I temporary
N THEmodern history of political theory, and in most con-
discussions of problems of political philosophy
as well, international relations appears largely as a marginal
affair. The image of a global state of nature, in which nations
are conceived as largely self-sufficient, purposive units, has
been thought to capture the relative absence of moral norms
governing relations among states. At one extreme of the
tradition—represented by Machiavelli, Rodin, and Hobbes—
international theory has denied the existence of any control-
ling universal rules in relations between states, substituting
raison d'état as the highest norm. Even when the possibility of
international moral ties has been granted—for example, in
post-Grotian writings on international law—these ties have
been held to be substantially weaker than intranational moral
bonds precisely because of the absence of supranational polit-
ical authorities. The only problem in international relations to
have gained significant theoretical attention is the justification
and prevention of war—the main form of social intercourse
in the global state of nature.1
However justifiable this neglect has been in the past, many
recent developments compel us to take another look at the
"recalcitrance of international politics to being theorized
about."2 These developments include the increasing sensitiv-
ity of domestic societies to external economic, political, and
cultural events; the widening gap between rich and poor
countries; the growth of centers of economic power beyond
effective regulation by individual states; the appearance of
serious shortages of food and energy caused, at least in part,
by the pursuit of uncoordinated and uncontrolled growth
policies by national governments; and the increasingly urgent
1
See, for example, the following remark in the introduction to a widely
read contemporary work of analytical political philosophy: "In relations be-
tween states the problem of establishing a peaceful order overshadows all
others." Brian Barry, Political Argument, p. xviii.
2
Martin Wight, "Why Is There No International Theory?," p. 33.
4 INTRODUCTION
demands of third world countries for more equitable terms of
participation in global politics and economics. To put the
point in language more familiar to discussions of this subject,
the rise of "welfare questions" in international forums, and of
"low politics" in diplomacy, parallels the increasing impact of
international arrangements and transnational interactions on
human well-being. It is not that "high politics"—that is, the
threat and avoidance of war—has become unimportant, but
rather that it represents only one of many problems for which
solutions must now be sought at the international level.3
These changes in international relations have a threefold
relevance to political theory. Since states can no longer be
regarded as largely self-sufficient political orders, the image
of a global state of nature no longer provides an obviously
correct picture of the moral relations among states, persons
of diverse nationality, and other actors in the international
realm. The orthodox theoretical image of international rela-
tions and many practical principles thought to follow from it
require critical examination and modification in the face of
the new and not-so-new facts of world politics.
At the same time, the attempt to formulate a more satis-
factory normative theory puts the facts in a new light and
suggests empirical questions that have been answered insuffi-
ciently thus far. The answers to such questions might form
part of the justification of international normative principles,
or they might be required to determine how international
principles apply. In either case, a normative theory appro-
priate to the contemporary world raises questions and sug-
gests problems that deserve greater attention from students
of international relations.
Third, and perhaps most important, one must consider the
relation of political theory and international practice. Political
theory arises from a perception of the possibility of choice in
None of the arguments in this book actually turns on the claim that inter-
3
national interdependence is something new. Indeed, it seems more likely that

the growth of the world economy did not follow, but rather accompanied, the
rise of the modern state. Both were part of the same historical process. Thus,
interdependence is at least as old as the modern state. See generally Im-
manuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System.
INTRODUCTION 5
political affairs. This possibility is presupposed by criticism of
the established order as well as by engagement in efforts to
change it. When choices are to be made regarding the ends
and means of political action, or the structures and rules of
institutions and practices, it is natural to ask by what princi-
ples such choices should be guided. An important function of
the political theorist is to formulate and examine alternative
principles and to illuminate the reasons why some are more
persuasive than others. Now the developments that have un-
dermined the orthodox theoretical image of international re-
lations have also weakened the practical consensus that the
rules and settled expectations of the present world system are
legitimate. An international debate is underway concerning
the future structure of world order, but political theorists
have failed to provide the kinds of guidance one normally
expects from theory in times of political change. Recognizing
this, it would be irresponsible not to try to work out the impli-
cations for our moral ideas of a more accurate perception of
the international realm than that which informs the modern
tradition of political theory. For only in this way can we more
rationally understand our moral identities and assess the
modes of political practice in which we engage.
WHILE a more satisfactory international normative theory is

necessary, the would-be international theorist may expect to
encounter a variety of obstacles that do not embarrass the
political theorist of domestic society. Chief among these is a
widespread if unreflective conviction that normative interna-
tional theory is not possible, since for various reasons (dis-
cussed in part one, below) it is thought to be inappropriate to
make moral judgments about international affairs. Another
obstacle is that it is not clear what the program of interna-
tional theory ought to be. The main problems of the political
theory of the nation-state grow out of the interplay of a rich
tradition of philosophical argument and the recurrence of a
set of relatively well defined issues in popular political debate.
International relations, in contrast, has neither so rich a the-
oretical tradition nor so well defined or recurrent a set of
6 INTRODUCTION
political issues. Third, our intuitions about moral problems in
international affairs are less firm than our moral intuitions
about domestic problems. Whatever one's view about the rela-
tion of intuitions and moral theory, it seems clear that the rel-
ative paucity of familiar and reliable intuitions about interna-
tional problems will make it more difficult to formulate and
justify normative principles for international practice. Finally,
as I shall suggest, many international normative issues cannot
be settled definitely without more satisfactory empirical in-
formation than is currently available. While empirical consid-
erations are, if anything, more important in international
than in domestic political theory, the social science of interna-
tional relations is less advanced than the science of domestic
society.
This book is intended to help lay the groundwork for a
more satisfactory normative political theory of international
relations. It is important to stress that I do not claim to pro-
vide a systematic theory analogous to those found in the
familiar treatises on the political theory of the nation-state. In
view of the difficulties noted above, this seems too ambitious a
goal at present. Instead, I want to show that the obstacles to
international theory are not insuperable and that there are
international normative problems of sufficient practical im-
portance and philosophical interest to warrant further theo-
retical effort. In addition, I hope to call into question some
received views about international morality and suggest the
plausibility of a more cosmopolitan and less state-centered
perspective. But I do not regard my normative conclusions as
final in any sense, and I have tried to indicate the directions in
which criticism of my views seems most promising and fur-
ther thought seems most needed.
Although my discussion is necessarily preliminary, I hope
that it will have several kinds of value in its own right. The
most important of these is that it can bring some conceptual
clarity to an area in which confusion is endemic. If readers
are not persuaded by my criticisms of prevailing views or by
the alternative positions I outline, my discussion should at
least illustrate the respects in which such views require more
careful formulation and defense than they have heretofore
INTRODUCTION 7
received. Even when I make no attempt to resolve outstand-

ing controversies, my analyses of the normative concepts in-
volved in them should make clear what the controversies are
about and what would be needed to resolve them. Further,
while not pretending to offer a history of international
theory, I have surveyed the tradition of international theory
and indicated the ways in which elements of it are relevant to
my main concerns.4 The tradition is not, in general, very
edifying, but nonetheless one finds suggestive formulations
and illuminating arguments scattered about within it. Finally,
I have given special attention to the relation of the empirical
science of international relations and the normative issues of
international theory. When possible, I have assessed relevant
empirical considerations and shown how these require or in-
cline us to accept some normative positions and to reject
others. When necessary, I have tried to formulate unresolved
empirical and theoretical problems in such a way as to show
how further work on them would influence their resolution.
THIS book has three parts. Each part addresses distinct issues,
but the discussion is progressive and suggests the outlines of a
more systematic theory. Thus, I argue (in part one) that
international political theory is possible, by showing that sev-
eral arguments for skepticism about international ethics are
4
By "the tradition of international theory" I mean the writings of the clas-
sical international jurists (like Grotius, Pufendorf, and Wolff); occasional re-
marks on international relations that appear in treatises primarily devoted to
the political theory of the state (like Hobbes's Leviathan); and works that con-
sider the causes of war and advance plans for world peace (like Kant's Per-
petual Peace). Perhaps surprisingly, there is no single work that gives a com-
prehensive and scholarly analysis of the growth of international thought. The
most helpful discussions are: Wight, "Why Is There No International
Theory?"; Arnold Wolfers, "Political Theory and International Relations,"
pp. ix-xxvii; F. H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace; and Walter Schiffer,
The Legal Community of Mankind. A detailed historical survey of the develop-
ment of the idea of the law of nations, from Thomas Aquinas to the twentieth
century, is available in E.B.F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory
of International Relations. See also F. Parkinson, The Philosophy of International
Relations, which contains a helpful bibliography; A.C.F. Beales, The History of
Peace; and F. Melian Stawell, The Growth of International Thought.
8 INTRODUCTION
incorrect, and furthermore, that the international realm is

coming more and more to resemble domestic society in many
of the features usually thought relevant to the justification of
(domestic) political principles. To support this claim, I exam-
ine the traditional image of international relations as a
Hobbesian state of nature and argue that it is misleading on
both empirical and moral theoretical grounds.
If international skepticism of the sort criticized in part one
represents the dominant view about international morality,
then views stemming from the modern natural law tradition
(which I call the morality of states) might be said to represent
the most widely held alternative. Like international skepti-
cism, the morality of states makes use of the analogy of states
and persons, but it draws the normative conclusion that
states, like persons, have some sort of right of autonomy that
insulates them from external moral criticism and political in-
terference. This idea lies behind such principles of interna-
tional practice as nonintervention and self-determination,
and some now familiar moral objections to political and eco-
nomic imperialism. I argue in part two that the analogy of
states and persons is highly misleading here, and that the ap-
propriate analogue of individual autonomy in the interna-
tional realm is not national autonomy but conformity of a so-
ciety's political and economic institutions with appropriate
principles of justice.
Finally, I return to the analogy of international society and
domestic society to discuss whether the two realms are suffi-
ciently similar that arguments for distributive justice within
the state carry over into international relations. Current de-
bate about a new international economic order clearly pre-
supposes some principle of international distributive justice; I
argue that a suitable principle can be justified by analogy with
the justification given by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice for
an intrastate distributive principle. Although it is clear that
states continue to have great significance for the world's polit-
ical and moral order, I argue that the importance which for
various reasons we must accord to states does not undermine
the case for global redistribution. The argument is of the first
importance for the current debate about reforming the
INTRODUCTION 9
international economic system, for its implication is that the
existing global distribution of income and wealth is highly un-
just. It is important, as well, for a more refined international
political theory, because it suggests that the differences be-
tween the international and domestic realms, although sig-
nificant in some respects, supply no reasons why such devices
of domestic political theory as the idea of an original contract
should not be extended to international relations.
I have said that this book is a first attempt to provide a polit-
ical theory of international relations that is more systematic
and more consonant with the empirical situation than tradi-
tional views. In the conclusion, I characterize such a theory as
cosmopolitan (in Kant's sense) and distinguish it from inter-
national skepticism and the morality of states.
A consequence of the preliminary character of my remarks
is that many questions must be left unanswered. Some of
these questions are very important, for both empirical re-
search and practical politics. If there is a defense for leaving
such crucial matters open, it is that one cannot confront them
responsibly without a prior grasp of the more elementary but
also more basic concerns of this book.
I H A V E restricted myself to a few cursory remarks about the

application of my views to problems of war and peace. Since
these are often taken to be the central problems of interna-
tional relations, their lack of emphasis in this book deserves
some explanation. There are three main points. First, some
issues related to war and peace—particularly those having to
do with the concepts of violence and nonviolence, war crimes
and the rules of war, and collective guilt and responsibility—
have received considerable philosophical discussion in the
past several years, often of very high quality.5 They have not
5
Two recent books are especially noteworthy: Michael Walzer, Just and Un-
just Wars; and W. B. Gallie, Philosophers of Peace and War. Also, see the essays
contained in three most helpful collections: Richard Wasserstrom, ed., War
and Morality; Marshall Cohen, Thomas Nagel, and Thomas Scanlon, eds.,
War and Moral Responsibility; and Virginia Held, Sidney Morgenbesser, and
Thomas Nagel, eds., Philosophy, Morality and International Affairs. On nonvio-
10 INTRODUCTION
suffered from the general neglect of international relations by
moral and political philosophers.
A second point is that some problems about the morality of
war, like traditional questions of jus ad bellum, cannot be re-
solved without a more general theory of international right.
For example, claims of justice in war often turn on claims that
particular rights (e.g., to land) have been infringed or that
rules of international conduct (e.g., those defining a balance
of power) have been broken. Such claims furnish a justifica-
tion for resort to war partly because they rest on principles
that distribute rights to international actors and define a
structure of international life that actors have duties to pro-
mote or uphold. But to explain why some such principles
rather than others are morally best, one needs an interna-
tional political theory. If this is true, then much of what I say
in this book will be relevant to the problem of jus ad bellum,
even though I have not usually drawn the connections
explicitly.
Finally, I repeat a point with which I began. Contemporary
international relations consists of far more than the ma-
neuvers of states "in the state and posture of gladiators; hav-
ing their weapons pointing, and their eyes fixed on one
another . . . ; and continual spies upon their neighbors."6 This
additional activity raises distinctive moral problems to which
solutions are increasingly essential, but which are likely to be
overlooked because they fall outside the traditional concep-
tion of world politics. I certainly do not mean to suggest that
the problems of war and peace are either unimportant or
without philosophical interest; but, by setting these issues
aside, I hope to show that other problems are at least as im-
portant, in some respects more basic, and of considerable
philosophical interest in their own right.
lence and pacifism, see especially H.J.N. Horsburgh, Non-violence and Aggres-
sion.
6
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan [1651], ch. 13, p. 115.
British Journal of Politics and International Relations,
Vol. 4, No. 1, April 2002, pp. 115–140
Together again: reuniting political theory

and international relations theory
BRIAN C. SCHMIDT
Abstract
This state of the discipline article discusses a body of recent literature that seeks to reunite
political theory and international relations theory. It briefly explores some of the factors and
explanations that led to a divorce between the sub-fields of PT and IR. The article proceeds
to review work that seeks to bridge the dichotomy that came to define the relationship
between these two academic fields of study. By examining literature in the area of norma-
tive theory, democratic theory and that falling under the rubric of identity and difference,
the article attempts to demonstrate that an effort is under way to reunite political theory
and international relations theory.
The focus of this state of the discipline article is on the relationship between
the academic sub-fields of political theory (PT) and international relations.1
In this article I review some of the recent literature that seeks to reunite
the concerns and interests of political theorists with IR theorists. I inten-
tionally emphasise the word ‘reunite’ because it is apparent that at an
earlier historical juncture the intellectual pursuits of political theorists
and IR scholars were much more closely linked to one another. The early
twentieth-century study of political science, which is the discipline that
traditionally has been home to the sub-fields of PT and IR, was directed
toward the concept of the state (Gunnell 1993). In the endeavour to
explicate the meaning of the state, the work of political theorists and IR
© Political Studies Association 2002. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and
350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 115
Brian C. Schmidt
theorists was inextricably tied together. Beginning in the 1950s, however,

a rift developed between PT and IR, and the two fields largely developed
independently of one another.
The recent attempt to integrate PT and IR can be viewed as part of a
more general effort to rethink the analytical boundary that political sci-
entists created between domestic and international politics. It increasingly
appears to be the case that the conventional division of labour that devel-
oped between, on the one hand, those studying political life inside the state
and, on the other, those committed to understanding the relations outside
the confines of the sovereign, territorial state is no longer tenable (Rosenau
1997). The editors of this journal specifically noted that the British IR
community has found the dichotomy between domestic and international
politics to be dysfunctional, and have begun to take the steps to close the
chasm (Marsh et al. 1999). Elsewhere there have been calls made for over-
coming what has been termed the ‘Great Divide’ between comparative
politics and IR (Caporaso 1997; Milner 1998). In his presidential address
to the International Studies Association, James Caporaso (1997) identified
three areas where a sustained effort is under way to integrate comparative
and international politics: the ‘two-level games’ literature (Evans et al.
1993), work on the ‘second-image reversed’ (Rogowski 1989), and work
that focuses on the concept of the ‘domestification of the international
system’ (Stone Sweet 1994).
The focus of this article is on the diverse work being done to bridge the
institutional and theoretical gap that developed between PT and IR.
Although I do not concentrate on the causes that led to the split between
PT and IR, I do briefly comment on the wide gulf that came to charac-
terise the institutional relationship between these two fields of inquiry. For
organisational purposes, I identify three different areas where an effort is
being made to reunite political theory and international relations theory:
normative theory, democratic theory and work that can be placed in the
rubric of identity/difference. Although there is occasionally a degree of
overlap among these three areas, and while the work of some scholars can
be placed in multiple categories, it nevertheless makes analytical sense to
provide a typology of the areas where the interests of political and inter-
national theorists are converging. This will help to shed light on the con-
certed effort that is under way to bridge the theoretical barrier dividing
PT and IR.
One question that arises when reviewing this literature is whether
political theorists and IR scholars are equally committed to the task of
integration, or whether it is the latter who are doing much of the work
116 © Political Studies Association 2002.

Reuniting political theory and IR theory
to reunite the two fields.2 While it might at first appear that IR scholars
are in the vanguard of this movement, there are many prominent
examples of political theorists engaging the literature and concerns of IR.
The publication, for example, of John Rawls’ The Laws of Peoples (1999)
and Jürgen Habermas’ (1997) critical reflections on Kant’s project of
perpetual peace indicates that political theorists are no longer ignoring
international politics. Political theorists have also begun to focus on what
can be termed the history of the political theory of international relations
(Williams 1991 and 1996; Boucher 1998; Tuck 1999; Schmidt 2000). Here
it should also be mentioned that since the end of the cold war, IR schol-
ars are turning to the history of political thought for insights (Doyle 1997;
Knutsen 1997; Owen 1998/1999). Perhaps the best indicator of an emerg-
ing synthesis between PT and IR is the observation that it is increasingly
difficult to determine whether a scholar such as Chris Brown, Charles
Beitz, William Connolly, David Held, Andrew Linklater or Rob Walker is
principally a political or international theorist.
Political theory and international relations theory
A compelling case can be made that the state-centric assumption has been
an important factor in the bifurcation of PT and IR, which has, in turn,
contributed to numerous distortions in how we have come to understand
the activity of politics. Although this division is an analytical construction,
the seemingly dual character of sovereignty as embodying an internal and
external component has provided fertile ground for creating a sharp
dichotomy between the domestic and international realms (Walker 1993).
The identity of IR as a separate field has appeared to rest on the claim that
politics in the absence of central authority is unique and fundamentally
different from the ‘domestic’ politics studied by political scientists (Dunn
1948; Guzzini 1998; Milner 1998). This claim was reinforced by the
dominance of neo-realism in IR, which posits a sharp separation between
domestic and international politics (Waltz 1979). Jean Elshtain claims that
one of the results of Kenneth Waltz’s effort to carve up the political land-
scape into three levels of analysis for explaining war (human nature, ‘inter-
nal’ politics inside a state, and the international system) was to define ‘the
task for contemporary international politics on the one hand, and politi-
cal theory on the other’ (Elshtain 1995, 265).
While some of the blame can be placed on Waltz, Martin Wight, one of
the original members of the English School, must share the responsibility
© Political Studies Association 2002. 117

Brian C. Schmidt
for the divorce between PT and IR. At the inaugural meeting of the British
Committee on the Theory of International Politics, Wight presented an
influential essay—‘Why is there no international theory?’—that both
lamented and crystallised the intellectual divide between political theory
and international relations theory.3 Although Wight (1992) was a signifi-
cant contributor to international theory, the argument that he advanced in
his essay was that ‘international theory is marked, not only by paucity but
also by intellectual and moral poverty’ (Wight 1966, 20). According to
Wight, international theory, which he defined as a ‘tradition of specula-
tion about relations between states’, was the ‘twin of speculation about
the state to which the name “political theory” is appropriated’. By politi-
cal theory, Wight stereotypically meant ‘speculation about the state’, which
he claimed was ‘its traditional meaning from Plato onwards’ (Wight 1966,
17). The tradition of political theory, Wight argued, was distinguished by
a clearly demarcated body of writings—from Plato onwards—that were
devoted to achieving the good life inside the state, while ‘international
theory, or what there is of it, is scattered, unsystematic, and mostly inac-
cessible to the layman’ (Wight 1966, 20). Here is one of the great bifur-
cations of political science: a rich and well-defined tradition of political
thought on the one hand, and an impoverished and essentially contested
tradition of international thought on the other. Yet in contradiction to
Wight, one of the core claims being advanced today is that IR theory is
not an autonomous body of thought that exists separate and apart from
the wider body of social and political theory.
By defining political theory in the manner that he did, Wight stacked the
decks against international theory. While he argued that the state did serve
as a common referent to both PT and IR, the latter, according to Wight,
was fundamentally constrained by the terms of its own discourse. The
focus that political theorists placed on the state allowed for a wide range
of possibilities to be considered with respect to achieving the good life
inside the confines of domestically ordered space whereas international
theorists were restricted by their unqualified acceptance of the existing
anarchical arrangement of sovereign states. By embracing the sovereign
state ‘as the consummation of political experience and activity’, Wight
argued that it had become ‘natural to think of international politics as the
untidy fringe of domestic politics, and to see international theory in the
manner of the political theory textbooks, as an additional chapter which
can be omitted by all save the interested student’ (Wight 1966, 21).
As the British Committee was pondering the nature of international
theory, across the Atlantic the behavioural revolution was sweeping the

discipline and creating deep-seated cleavages among American political sci-

entists that would sharpen the divide between PT and IR. In many ways,
PT, which by the 1950s was essentially synonymous with the study of the
history of political thought, bore the brunt of the behavioural challenge.
David Easton, who was one of the main voices in the behavioural revolu-
tion, argued that PT was responsible for ‘failing to stimulate inquiry into
an empirical or causal frame of reference’ (Easton 1951, 37). PT in-
creasingly became factionalised between those committed to the scientific
enterprise, on the one hand, and those wedded to the traditional histori-
cal approach on the other (Gunnell 1983). Moreover, it was during this
turbulent climate that PT lost its exclusive theoretical province as other
sub-fields rejected PT’s philosophical and normative conception of theory,
and instead sought to develop what was viewed as the logical positivist
model of explanatory theory (McDonald and Rosenau 1968). This con-
tinues to be the situation today, not only with respect to theory develop-
ment being a core activity among all the sub-fields of political science, but
also that many of the strongest supporters of a positivist conception of
theory do not identify themselves with the field of PT (for example, King,
Keohane and Verba 1994). While some of the foremost contributors to the
early development of IR theory, such as Hans J. Morgenthau (1955),
Arnold Wolfers (1960) and Raymond Aron (1967), viewed political phi-
losophy as being vital to their task, this view was eventually rejected as
the American mainstream became intent on creating a science of politics.
Reuniting political theory and international relations theory
A significant item on the agenda of contemporary political thinkers is the

task of uniting political theory and international relations theory. A clear
indication of this can be found in two recent books that examine the
respective trends in PT and IR theory. In Political Theory Today, David
Held confirms Wight’s view that political theory has largely been fixed on
the concept of the state while at the same time arguing that this traditional
focus is increasingly untenable. Held maintains that ‘there can no longer
be a valid theory of the state without a theory of the global system, nor
a theory of the global system without a theory of the state’ (Held 1991b,
10). He simultaneously indicts both political and international theorists
for their proclivity to compartmentalise knowledge on the basis of an inter-
nal/external, inside/outside treatment of the state. Held concludes that ‘the
way forward is to begin to explore ways of transcending the endogenous

Brian C. Schmidt
and exogenous frameworks of, respectively, political theory and interna-

tional relations theory’ (Held 1991b, 10). Similarly, Ken Booth and Steve
Smith, the editors of International Relations Theory Today, acknowledge
that ‘theorizing about politics has traditionally taken place at one of three
sites: the domestic arena, international relations and global politics’. Yet
they concur with Held that ‘it is increasingly untenable to consider the
three sites as spatially separate’, and argue that instead ‘we should under-
stand theorizing about politics as analogous to a palimpsest’ (Booth and
Smith 1995, xi–xii).
While a number of explanations can be offered to account for the recent
attempt to transgress the border dividing PT and IR, two sets of factors
are particularly significant. The first is contextual and emanates from the
chorus of claims announcing a series of fundamental transformations in
the political and economic order of late modernity. The descriptive terms
of this transformation vary, but the underlying argument is that traditional
categories of analysis are ill equipped to comprehend the complex world
that we inhabit today. The end of the cold war and the theoretical uncer-
tainties that have ensued has provided an additional motivation to unite
political and international theory. Neo-realism appears, for many, to be
inadequate to the task of accounting for the changes that brought about
an end to the bi-polar international order. Neo-realism’s exclusive focus
on the international system and sharp demarcation of levels of analysis
meant that many important changes within the domestic order of states
and civil society were largely ignored.
A second factor stems from a series of internal academic crises in the
field of IR, which has, for some time now, been experiencing a profound
identity crisis. This is partly related to the end of the cold war but more
important, I argue, is the fact that the field is no longer as isolated and
detached from the wider realm of social and political thought. One of
the more peculiar patterns that can be detected in the field’s development
is that controversies that once held sway over other academic disciplines
come belatedly to IR. Most recently, this has been the case with the late
arrival of a number of critical post-positivist perspectives—Frankfurt
School critical theory, feminist theory and post-modernism—which col-
lectively have raised a serious challenge to the conventional orthodoxy of
the field. This has sparked a considerable amount of metatheoretical reflec-
tion on the current identity and composition of the field, which, in turn,
has forged a number of important links to the wider realm of social and
political theory (George 1989; Neufeld 1995; Vasquez 1995). This is espe-
cially the case in the United Kingdom where, in comparison to the United

States, the field has been more pluralistic and less committed to positivism
(Smith 2000). In the attempt to create additional space in which to think
about international politics, IR scholars are breaking down the dysfunc-
tional boundary separating political theory and international relations
theory.
Normative theory
The exclusion for many years of normative issues and topics in the field
of IR greatly contributed to the divorce between political theory and inter-
national relations theory. According to the conventional view, political
theory is largely concerned with normative issues, such as the nature of
justice, freedom, equality and how human beings can achieve the good life.
International relations theory, in the words of Wight, is merely a theory
of survival and thus exempt from the vocabulary and concerns of politi-
cal theory. Based on this account, it becomes almost natural to think of
PT and IR as occupying two different realms of inquiry. The problem is
that the proffered accounts of the two academic activities are highly con-
tentious and cannot withstand much critical scrutiny.
The idea that a clear distinction can be made between normative and
empirical theory has played a substantial role in perpetuating the divide
between PT and IR. It is worth recalling that the controversy between nor-
mative and empirical theory has been a significant part of the disciplinary
history of political science in general and PT in particular (Gunnell 1983).
Within the midst of the behavioural revolution, political theorists divided
themselves into what they believed were two mutually exclusive categories:
normative and empirical. This categorisation meshed well with the age-old
dichotomy between ‘what ought to be’ and ‘what is’—a dichotomy that
has exerted an unfavourable influence on the orthodox understanding of
how IR developed as an academic field. The conventional historiography
holds that IR originally developed in response to the calamity of World
War I, and that the first generation of scholars were tied to the norma-
tive commitment of securing perpetual peace (Carr 1964). The so-called
‘idealist’ phase of the field came to an end with the onset of World War II
and the rise of the realist school, whose members allegedly eschewed nor-
mative theory and instead were interested in creating a science of interna-
tional politics.4 In this manner, the dichotomy between ‘ought’ and ‘is’ has
come to provide a dominant framework for interpreting the history of IR.

Brian C. Schmidt
While Arnold Wolfers viewed the formation of the realist school in tradi-
tional terms of a change of emphasis from ‘what ought to be’ to ‘what is’,
he perceptively noted that the change had the effect of cutting off inter-
national relations theory from the classical insights of political theory,
which were ‘believed to be the exclusively normative outlook of political
and moral philosophers of the past’ (Wolfers 1960, 241).
There is a basic agreement among those who have been attempting to
revitalise normative international theory that the dominance of the realist
school helps to account for the marginalisation of normative issues as well
as the separation of political theory from international relations theory.
Charles Beitz, who was at the forefront of reviving a normative theory of
international relations, recognised that the impossibility of making ‘moral
arguments about international relations to its American students without
encountering the claim that moral judgments have no place in discussions
of international affairs or foreign policy ... is one of the foundations of the
so-called realist approach to international studies and foreign policy’ (Beitz
1979, 15). International politics, according to the realists, operates on the
basis of power, self-interest and self-help, which provides little, if any, room
for morals and ethics to constrain the actions of the state.
The wedding of realism to positivism within the context of the behav-
ioural revolution proved to be an even greater impediment to the devel-
opment of normative theory. Steve Smith describes the dominance of
positivism during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in terms of a ‘bizarre
detour’, in ‘which the goal of general theory was to be achieved by value-
free social science; a detour when it was simply old-fashioned, and very
unacademic, to introduce normative concerns into analysis unless they
were themselves to be the objects of analysis’ (Smith 1992, 489). Rather
than borrowing insights from PT, which was experiencing such a turbu-
lent period that some pronounced it to be dead, IR scholars began turn-
ing to economics and psychology. While the post-behavioural revolution
launched by David Easton in 1969 and criticism of the Vietnam War helped
to ‘bring values back in’, the dominance of positivism as manifest in
Waltz’s hegemonic text Theory of International Politics (1979) continued
to have the effect of marginalising normative theory.
Recently, there has been a considerable amount of discussion aimed at
discrediting the notion that normative concerns are inappropriate to IR
(Frost 1986; Linklater 1990; Falk 1995; Cochran 1999). In the process
of discussing normative theory, scholars have been attempting to build a
bridge between PT and IR. Chris Brown claims that British scholars have
been at the forefront of this endeavour and his own work is highly re-

presentative of the attempt to reunite political and international theory

(Brown 2000). In his effort to reconstitute normative theory, Brown asks
a fundamental question: ‘is there a worthwhile, free-standing body of
“international theory” from which both appropriate questions and con-
vincing answers can be drawn, or should “international relations theory”
be seen as simply one dimension of a wider project of political and social
theory, drawing both its coherence and legitimacy from this context?’
(Brown 1992, 4). Brown endorses the second scenario, arguing that it was
in the attempt to create an autonomous field that IR scholars cut them-
selves off from the insights provided by political theorists.
Brown begins by deconstructing the dichotomy that Wight made
between PT and IR. His deconstructive efforts are directed less toward
Wight’s conceptualisation of IR theory than to his definition of political
theory. The difficulty, according to Brown, is the way that Wight mistak-
enly assumed that political theory was simply speculation about the state.
If one accepts this accustomed view, then it follows that international rela-
tions theory is both a ‘discourse running parallel with political theory’
and impoverished when compared to the richness of the discourse concen-
trating on the state. Brown concludes, however, that Wight’s definition of
political theory is highly contentious and argues that there are alternative
ways in which to conceptualise this realm of activity. For instance, Brown
suggests that political theory may be defined as the ‘study of the search for
justice in society’. If this alternative definition is accepted, Brown argues
that there would no longer be a need ‘to specify in advance a distinction
between international and domestic political theory’, and thus ‘the whole
structure of the relationship between political theory and international
theory would be transformed’ (Brown 1992, 6–7).
Robert Jackson (1990) has also attempted to dismantle the distinction
that Wight drew between political theory and international theory;
between a theory of the good life and a theory of mere survival. Jackson
challenges the assumptions that the achievement of the good life is entirely
conditional on a properly ordered state, and that it is strictly political
theorists who have been devoted to this endeavour. These false assump-
tions, Jackson argues, permit international theory to be viewed as a mar-
ginal affair having no direct bearing on human beings’ capacity to live the
good life. Yet whatever merit this anachronistic view may have had in the
past, it is one that is completely untenable today. Not only do many states
systematically deny the basic conditions that might make a ‘good life’ pos-
sible, but political, economic and environmental factors outside the porous
borders of one’s own particular state increasingly determine whether or

Brian C. Schmidt
not one enjoys a good life. According to Jackson, ‘international political

theory and domestic political theory diverge at certain points but they
are two branches of one overall political theory which is fundamentally
preoccupied with the conditions, arrangements, and values of organized
political life on the planet Earth’ (Jackson 1996, 204).
The convergence of PT and IR has provided a favourable climate for the
expansion of normative theory. In the process of reaching out to the wider
political-theoretical universe, IR scholars have entered the long-standing
debate between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism (Brown 1992;
Thompson 1992) that is closely analogous to the debate in PT between
liberals and communitarians (Barry 1989; Bell 1993). This debate, Brown
argues, ‘relates directly to the most central question of any normative
international relations theory, namely the moral value to be credited to
particularistic political collectivities as against humanity as a whole or the
claims of individual human beings’ (Brown 1992, 12). Brown’s work seeks
to reconnect international relations theory to political theory beginning
with the background theories of cosmopolitanism and communitarianism
as represented respectively through the writings of Kant and Hegel and
proceeding to the writings of Charles Beitz (1979), Terry Nardin (1983),
Michael Walzer (1994), Mervyn Frost (1996) and others that speak to the
revival of normative international relations theory. By entering this debate,
Brown believes that IR has begun to correct the wrong turn it made earlier
in the twentieth century when the goal was to create an autonomous field
that resulted in a loss of contact between IR and PT. Smith concurs with
Brown’s assessment: ‘the debate between these positions [communitarian-
ism and cosmopolitanism] has opened up considerable space both for
developing normative international theory and for linking international
theory with similar debates in other disciplines, particularly moral philos-
ophy, and social and political theory’ (Smith 1995, 9). While it is evident
that normative international theory has been revived as a result of par-
ticipating in the debate between communitarians and cosmopolitans, there
are those who have voiced their displeasure with the terms of the debate
(Walker 1994). This is especially the case with many post-modern
scholars who view the debate, which they point out is framed in terms
of a quintessential binary opposition, as another legacy of modernism
(Campbell and Shapiro 1999). Yet it is evident that the effort of many
critical scholars to engage ethical questions and issues in international
politics has resulted in bringing political theory and international relations
theory closer together.

Democratic theory
In light of the recent interest in democracy, both with respect to decipher-

ing the latest phase of democratisation (Huntington 1991) and explaining
the empirical proposition that democratic forms of state constitute what
Immanuel Kant earlier described as a separate ‘zone of peace’ (Russett
1993), it should, perhaps, not be surprising that democratic theory repre-
sents a fertile area for overcoming the Great Divide between domestic and
international politics (Clark 1999). Much of the existing literature reveals
the extent to which political thinkers were committed to the conventional
paradigm of thinking about democracy strictly in the domestic sense of the
proper relationship between the citizenry of a self-contained nation state
and their own representative form of government. David Held describes
how the underlying premises of democratic theory—that ‘democracies can
be treated as essentially self-contained units; that democracies are clearly
demarcated one from another; that change within democracies can be
understood largely with reference to the internal structures and dynamics
of national democratic polities; and that democratic politics is itself ulti-
mately an expression of the interplay between forces operating within the
nation-state’—contributed to naturalising the division of labour between
political and international theorists (Held 1991a, 139). In short, democra-
tic theory has been understood to be the exclusive purview of political
theorists, while IR theorists wedded to the Westphalian model have
disregarded the internal governing apparatus of states and instead focused
on their external interactions with other sovereign units. Alexander Wendt
observes that political theorists ‘were concerned with making state power
democratically accountable, which Westphalia constituted as strictly terri-
torial and thus outside the domain of international relations theory’, while
IR theorists ‘were concerned with interstate relations, which were anarchic
and thus outside the domain of political theory’ (Wendt 1994, 393).
Yet many have begun to question the basis as well as the suitability of
thinking about the meaning and prospects of democracy from a strictly
domestic perspective (McGrew 1997; Held 1998; Rosenau 1998). In the
struggle to come to grips with the meaning of democracy in an era that
has been characterised in terms of the ‘global age’, political thinkers are
helping to dissolve the boundary between PT and IR. Held is clearly at the
forefront of this endeavour. His work displays a great sensitivity to think-
ing about the possibilities and limitations of democracy in an age marked
by the almost universal acceptance of democratic rule as the only legiti-

Brian C. Schmidt
mate means through which political power can be exercised. The paradox
for Held is that at the very moment when democracy and the idea of ‘the
rule of the people’ is being heralded across the globe as universally desir-
able, ‘the very efficacy of democracy as a national form of political orga-
nization appears open to question’ (Held 1995, 21). The reason, according
to Held, why the celebratory cheer for democracy has drowned out much
of the critical discourse concerning the efficacy of democratic governance
emanates from the fact that the focal point of investigation continues to
be the individual sovereign state through which the national community
of citizens deliberates their collective fate. But as soon as this fictitiously
anachronistic account of political life is cast aside and the democratic state
is viewed in its proper global perspective, Held argues that a host of com-
plicated questions quickly rise to the surface. Rob Walker maintains that
‘many of the most crucial issues of our time seem to be beyond the scope
of our understanding of democracy, if democracy is understood in terms
of the claims of sovereign states’ (Walker 1991, 454). By refusing to bifur-
cate the enterprises of political theory and international relations theory,
some of the most intractable political questions of the day are beginning
to be addressed.
Held argues that the inadequacy of the orthodox division of labour that
has, on the one hand, allowed theorists of democracy to focus their ener-
gies solely on achieving democratic norms and practices within the cir-
cumscribed realm of the sovereign, territorial state and, on the other hand,
international relations theorists to avoid considering the political dynam-
ics at work inside and beneath the state, results from a series of political,
economic, social and cultural processes that have been at work during the
closing decades of the twentieth century. Held embraces as axiomatic that
advanced industrialised states find themselves enmeshed in a highly inte-
grated set of global interconnections. The late modern era has witnessed
both a quantitative and qualitative transformation in the degree of global
interconnectedness. These transformations have sparked a lively discussion
about the character and likely consequences of globalisation (Mittelman
1996; Hirst and Thompson 1996; Clark 1999; Germain 2000). By Held’s
account, globalisation suggests at least two distinct phenomena: first, ‘that
political, economic and social activity is becoming world-wide in scope’;
and secondly, ‘that there has been an intensification of levels of interaction
and interconnectedness between states and societies which make up inter-
national society’ (Held 1991a, 145).
The irrefutable evidence that states find themselves positioned in a dense
web of crisscrossing patterns of interconnectedness is, according to Held,

what makes it absolutely necessary to assess the theory and practice of

democracy in its proper global context. According to Held, ‘there cannot
be an account of the modern democratic state any longer without an exam-
ination of the global system and there cannot be an examination of the
global system without an account of the democratic state’ (Held 1995, 27).
The fact that various models of democracy continue to be discussed and
debated in complete isolation from the dynamics at work in the contem-
porary international system is, for Held, proof of the destructiveness that
has resulted from the bifurcation of PT and IR. It is, more generally, an
example of what Ian Clark terms the ‘Great Divide’, which represents a
series of profound assumptions about the ‘radically differing empirical and
normative provenances of the international and the domestic’ (Clark 1999,
15). Held argues that ‘the way forward is to transcend the endogenous and
exogenous frameworks of the theoretical traditions which have informed
hitherto the analysis of the modern polity and international relations’
(Held 1995, 27).
Held reveals how many of the central tenets of democracy—majority
rule, accountability, autonomy, legitimacy, consent, self-determination—
are rendered increasingly inoperable by forces operating under, above
and through the sovereign state. The fate of the sovereign community, even
when deliberated in accordance with the most rigorous of democratic
procedures and practices, is increasingly dependent on decisions made by
actors that extend beyond the scope of national decision-making. There is
no guarantee that the decision-making procedures of ‘external’ actors such
as the IMF, WTO or NATO will be consistent with the democratic values
of a particular state. To illustrate this point, Held focuses on a number of
what he terms ‘disjunctures’ between the idea of the state as in principle
capable of determining its own future, and the ‘world economy, inter-
national organizations, regional and global institutions, international law
and military alliances which operate to shape and constrain the options
of individual nation-states’ (Held 1995, 99). Held finds that all of these
disjunctures not only call into question the ability of the state to exercise
sovereignty—that is, the authority to regulate and shape its own internal
affairs—but democracy itself.
Of particular concern is the series of disjunctures that arise between
the democratic governing structures that may exist within a state and the
formal and informal networks of global governance that increasingly char-
acterise the landscape of international politics. The globalisation process
has given rise to a variety of independent sources of authority that stand
over and above the sovereign jurisdiction of any one state. The Bretton

Brian C. Schmidt
Woods system that was established at the end of World War II provided
both the ideological and institutional wherewithal to internationalise pro-
duction. The internationalisation of production has been in turn accom-
panied by the internationalisation of the state, which has resulted in the
diminution of state sovereignty and the augmentation of non-territorial
sources of authority (Cox 1987). In addition to the Bretton Woods insti-
tutions, which themselves have undergone evolution in the direction of
expanding the scope of their authority at the expense of states, the growth
of regional trade associations such APEC, NAFTA, and especially the EU,
signal the emergence of plural authority structures.
This has led scholars to ponder the consequences that these plural
authority structures are having on the daily practice of democracy. As the
international system comes to resemble a crisscrossing network of plural
authority structures, perhaps analogous to what Hedley Bull earlier
described as a ‘new mediaevalism’, it is crucial that these emerging struc-
tures operate in accordance with democratic principles (Bull 1977,
254–294). Yet it is far from certain that this will be the case and the
precise meaning of autonomy, accountability and majority rule loom large.
Held’s endeavour to rethink democracy in an age of interconnectedness
is one that explicitly attempts to unite political theory and international
relations theory. The long-term project that Held has embarked on
is what he terms ‘cosmopolitan democracy’, which has been described
as a project aiming ‘to engender greater public accountability in the lead-
ing processes and structural alterations of the contemporary world’
(Archibugi, Held and Kohler 1998, 4). The foundations of this project
rest on the work of Kant, who much earlier attempted to formulate both
a political philosophy and a political project whereby the principle of
autonomy could be realised. Kant recognised that the principle of
autonomy as well as the principles of right, liberty and freedom had to be
worked out at multiple sites—the individual, the state and the international
relations among states—because the achievement of these principles at
one level could be nullified by the conditions present at another level. That
is why in the end Kant sought to formulate a cosmopolitan conception
of right that ultimately depended on universally recognised valid laws.
Held’s neo-Kantian cosmopolitan democracy ‘is based upon the recogni-
tion that democracy within a particular community and democratic rela-
tions among communities are interlocked, absolutely inseparable, and
that new organizational and binding mechanisms must be created if demo-
cracy is to develop in the decades ahead’ (Held 1995, 235). Like Kant,
Held envisions a form of cosmopolitan law taking hold that can eventu-

ally overcome the Great Divide between politics inside and outside the
nation state.
Identity/difference
To a certain extent, the work of Richard Ashley, Rob Walker, William

Connolly and other writers who can be placed in the category of being
concerned with issues of identity and difference shares an affinity with
Held’s basic point about the limitations of thinking about democracy solely
from the vantage point of a territorially demarcated sovereign political
community. Yet the problems these writers find to be apparent in tradi-
tional democratic theory are symptomatic of a much larger set of theoret-
ical questions concerning the way in which we understand the relationship
between political theory and international relations theory. Walker argues
that the division between political theory and international relations theory
is rooted in the deeply embedded modernist conviction that the sovereign
state represents the locus of political life. Accompanying this belief is the
notion that the sovereign state demarcates the borders of meaningful politi-
cal community, on the one hand, and mere anarchical relations on the
other. According to Walker, it is the principle of state sovereignty that
‘marks a distinction between political life inside and mere relations outside
the modern state’, which is ‘still felt in the double reification of the two
canons of political thought, the canon of presence and the canon of
absence’ (Walker 1991, 458).
The presumption that meaningful political community can only exist
within the confines of the sovereign state has, according to Walker, had a
debilitating effect on the theory and practice of democracy. In the first
instance, the pervasive assumption that there is an absence of community
between states has not provided fertile grounds for thinkers to focus on
extending democratic principles to the international realm. Rather, democ-
racy has been only worked out ‘in relation to a particular somewhere—
to the contained and territorialised community of the supposedly
autonomous and sovereign state’ (Walker 1993, 142). But in this second
instance, community has been defined exclusively in terms of a national
community existing within the closed space of the territorial state, and the
possibility that different forms of community may exist elsewhere has been
limited by the deeply entrenched modernist dichotomies of community and
relations, of inside and outside, that are themselves constitutive of the prac-
tice of sovereignty (Linklater 1998).

Brian C. Schmidt
Yet Walker finds the aspiration of modernists such as Kant, and neo-
Kantians such as Held and Linklater, to reconcile the divide between the
‘domestic’ and the ‘international’ by appealing to some sort of universal-
istic account of reason, ethics or progress to be inherently problematic.
Walker argues that the various universalistic solutions that have been put
forth presuppose and build on the very dualism that is meant to be tran-
scended. Rethinking the meaning of democracy is contingent on rethink-
ing the meaning and place of community, which in turn is intimately
related to the politics of identity and difference. Rather than embracing
the foundational categories of ‘national community’ and incipient ‘global
community’, Walker is concerned with the problematic manner in which
these categories have come to have a fixed identity and the way in which
each identity is mutually constitutive of the other. Like others who have
become interested in questions of identity and difference, Walker recog-
nises the imperative of problematizing the artificial divide between politi-
cal theory and international relations theory. As William Connolly has
remarked, ‘the politics of identity/difference flows beneath, through, and
over the boundaries of the state’ (Connolly 1991b, xi).
Many have concluded that IR provides fertile ground to explore the
politics of identity and difference (Der Derian and Shapiro 1989; Shapiro
and Alker 1996; Ashley 1996; Lapid and Kratochwil 1997). By refusing
to regard identity as a mere datum, and by recognising the central impor-
tance that representational practices have on constructing an ontology of
international politics, especially those constructed in opposition to domes-
tic politics, the work of political theorists and international relations the-
orists is converging. Ashley was one of the earliest IR scholars to introduce
a number of ‘alien’ critical theory themes to IR. In a 1981 article, Ashley
drew on Habermas’ notion of ‘knowledge constitutive interests’ in order
to differentiate between two versions of realism: the ‘practical realism’ of
Morgenthau and the ‘technical realism’ of Waltz (Ashley 1981). Subse-
quently, Ashley borrowed insights from post-structural thinkers, such as
Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida and Roland Barthes, and provided a cri-
tique of what he termed the ‘theoretical discourse on the anarchy prob-
lematique’ (Ashley 1988). Here he attempted to reveal how the mainstream
discourse on anarchy, especially that which focused on achieving co-
operation in the absence of a supranational authority, depended on a
foundational notion of a sovereign identity that embodied all the proper-
ties allegedly missing outside the secure borders of the state. Ashley argued
that once the sovereign identity of the state is interrogated and problema-
tised, the ‘anarchy problematique’ takes on a different form and a wide

range of alternative formulations and possibilities become open. In its com-

mitment to opening what otherwise has been closed, Ashley suggests that
a ‘likely position for poststructuralism in the study of modern global
politics is the “borderline” between domestic and international politics’
(Ashley 1989, 309).
Connolly’s recent work provides an illustrious example of the effort that
is under way to bridge the dividing line between PT and IR. Connolly, who
is a highly regarded political theorist in the United States, agrees that the
sovereign state, the foundational site where the meaning of community,
democracy, justice, freedom and security have been deliberated, is under-
going a set of powerful centrifugal forces. He uses the term ‘late moder-
nity’ to describe such experiences as the acceleration of cross-border
financial transactions, the internationalisation of production, the revolu-
tion in communications technology, the shrinking of distance through
high-speed travel, and the rise in the number of truly global dangers. Late
modernity, according to Connolly, refers to a ‘systematic time without a
corresponding political place’ (Connolly 1991b, 215). A distinguishing
characteristic of late modernity is what Connolly describes as the ‘global-
ization of contingency’, which raises a number of troubling dilemmas for
those who have not escaped the seductive trap of bifurcating political life
into separate domestic and international categories.
The idyllic image of a sovereign ‘community of fate’ controlling its own
destiny and accountable for all political issues that arise within its own
territorial borders is, for Connolly, nothing more than a nostalgia for a
place and time that no longer exist. What this anachronistic picture mis-
takenly assumes is that either global forces are not causing havoc on the
day-to-day governance of individual, sovereign states or, conversely, that
national democratic structures can sufficiently grapple with the contin-
gencies accompanying late modernity. Connolly concludes that today ‘the
democratic state is pervaded by its own cloud of unreality’, and ‘territo-
rial democracy threatens to become a late-modern anachronism unless it
is challenged and exceeded by a new pluralisation of democratic allegiances
and spaces’ (Connolly 1991a, 481). Moreover, he argues that it is the
contingencies and dangers on the ‘outside’ that help to constitute and
naturalise the state as the only site where democracy and pluralism can
be contemplated. David Campbell’s work, which he describes as being
‘located at the intersection of international politics and political theory’,
reveals how the appeals to security threats posed by an ‘external other’
have been crucial to the construction of state identity (Campbell 1992,
viii). Yet it is evident for Connolly that elements in the democratic and

Brian C. Schmidt
pluralist ethos do extend beyond the walls of the state and he explores the
possibility of a ‘politics of nonterritorial democratization of global issues’
(Connolly 1991b, 218).
As Walker has consistently argued, it is the constitutive principle of sov-
ereignty that has been crucial in maintaining the division between PT and
IR as well as in resolving all questions about identity in terms of state iden-
tity. Feminist theorists have raised a serious challenge to the naturalness
and universality of certain privileged identities in international politics,
especially state identity, and are helping to reunite PT and IR.5 While
feminists have been an important voice in the field of PT (Okin 1979;
Elshtain 1981; Harding 1986; Nicholson 1986; Pateman 1988), their
contribution to IR has come relatively late, first making an appearance in
the late 1980s. Walker claims that IR ‘has been one of the most gender-
blind, indeed crudely patriarchal, of all institutionalised forms of contem-
porary social and political analysis’ (1992, 179). IR feminists have drawn
on a wider body of writings from other fields of study and have helped to
introduce a new set of theoretical and epistemological issues to the field
(Tickner 1997b). One of their core insights is that IR is inherently gen-
dered in that its foundational concepts and truth claims are fundamentally
based on the particular experiences of men. This has made it falsely appear
as if international politics were strictly an activity monopolised by men.
As Cynthia Enloe, a leading IR feminist, has asked, ‘Where are the
women?’ Enloe (1990, 1993 and 2000) has ‘discovered’ women occupy-
ing a variety of essential roles in international politics, but the more criti-
cal point her work raises is the manner in which traditional ontological
and epistemological assumptions in IR have had the affect of rendering
women invisible.
By demarcating the international realm as separate and distinct from
the domestic realm, traditional international theory has perpetuated the
public/private distinction that has been a central concern of feminist
theorists (Okin 1991). Feminists have not only drawn attention to the arti-
ficiality of the public/private distinction, but they have also revealed the
way in which unequal power relations between men and women are
involved in maintaining and perpetuating this dichotomy. As is the case
with gender hierarchies, the characteristics of women are systematically
defined in opposition to the valued characteristics of men. Moreover, the
positively valued traits of men are claimed to find their outlet in the public
sphere while women are relegated to the so-called private sphere. By
making gender—the ‘social institutionalisation of sexual difference’—a
key unit of analysis, feminists have attempted to demonstrate how the

public/private dichotomy is socially constructed in a manner that privileges

the activities of men in the public sphere over those of women who have
been assigned to the depoliticised private realm (Okin 1991, 67).
Nowhere is this more apparent than with the concept of the state, which
for Western political thought has been the locus of political life. Yet femi-
nists have argued that rather than state identity being a ‘natural’ and stable
fixture, it really is a construction par excellence (Grant and Newland 1991;
Peterson 1992a; Tickner 1997a). Moreover, feminists have revealed the
way in which most articulations of state identity are gendered construc-
tions in which alleged masculine characteristics are ascribed to the state.
Ann Tickner, for example, has shown how the ‘favourable attributes of
states, such as independence, strength, autonomy, and self-help, resemble
the characteristics of sovereign man’ (Tickner 1997a, 151). In exploring
how gendered identities such as the state are socially constructed so that
they may be deconstructed, feminist writers are attempting to bridge the
border dividing PT and IR. V. Spike Peterson has made a strong case that
feminists, especially post-positivist feminists, are well suited to transgress
the boundaries that have been established in IR (Peterson 1992b).
One border in particular that feminists have attempted to transgress is
that between domestic and international politics. Tickner argues that the
domestic/international boundary ‘has led to an exclusion of spheres of
activity with which women have traditionally been associated’ (Tickner
1996, 457). This, once again, stems from the manner in which the inter-
national realm has been typically portrayed in essentially masculine terms
of aggressive competition among autonomous self-seeking actors leaving
little, if any, room for women apart from their apparent need of pro-
tection in the private realm. Feminists, however, have shown how such
androcentric accounts of international politics rely on highly selective and
gendered readings of some of the key texts of Western political thought,
which have generally either ignored or denigrated the role of women (Clark
and Lange 1979; Elshtain 1981; Pateman and Shanley 1990; Akkerman
and Stuurman 1998). This is especially the case with various constructions
of international politics that explicitly draw on the analogy of individuals
living in a mythic state of nature (Grant 1991; Tickner 1992). Feminist
theorists have returned to the canon of classic texts and offered alterna-
tive readings of thinkers such as Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes and
Rousseau (Elshtain 1987; Grant 1991; Sylvester 1994). In doing so, fem-
inist writers have offered alternative conceptualisations of state identity
that collapse the distinction between domestic and international politics.
Feminists argue that the lens of gender allows for a more complete picture

Brian C. Schmidt
of political life that overcomes the distortions produced by such binary

oppositions as public/private, international/domestic and protector/
protected.
Conclusion
This state of the discipline article has highlighted a diverse body of litera-
ture that seeks to overcome the intellectual divide between PT and IR.
There can be little doubt that the effort to bridge the division between PT
and IR is closely related to the more general endeavour to overcome the
artificial dichotomy that political scientists created between domestic and
international politics. The analytical assumption that political life can be
divided into a respective domestic and international sphere has been insti-
tutionally sustained by the orthodox view that PT studied the former and
IR the latter. A division of labour developed among political scientists
whereby political theorists focused on the achievement of the good life
inside the state and IR theorists with the relations among independent sov-
ereign units. Yet the times they are a-changing, and these older conven-
tions are being rejected by political thinkers as they attempt to understand
the predicaments of political life in late modernity.
In addition to dispelling a number of myths about the discipline’s past,
one of the intellectual merits of disciplinary history is that it allows prac-
titioners to understand the discursive roots of contemporary discourse.
While it is clearly the case that the discipline of political science is rooted
in the study of the state, it is important to appreciate that a number of sig-
nificant conceptual changes have occurred in how political scientists have
understood the concept of the state. It is worth recalling that an earlier
generation of political scientists writing during the early 1900s refused
to bifurcate domestic and international politics into two fundamentally
different realms; instead, there was a fundamental convergence (Schmidt
1998). Now whether or not conceptual change inside a discipline is caused
more by internal or external factors, it is, nevertheless, the case that by the
late 1950s political scientists, for the most part, accepted the analytical
distinction between domestic and international politics. This development
helps to account for the divorce that occurred between PT and IR, as well
as the fact that there was so little contact between these two fields through-
out much of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Today it is evident that the
concept of the state is once again undergoing change and that political sci-
entists are increasingly finding the domestic and international distinction

to be dysfunctional. The endeavour by political scientists to reconnect PT

and IR is to be welcomed, for they are at the forefront of rethinking the
meaning of politics in an era where it is no longer meaningful to think in
terms of a Great Divide between domestic and international politics.
One additional comment is in order and that is, on the basis of the
literature reviewed in this article, British and European scholars are in the
vanguard of uniting PT and IR. Perhaps owing to the fact that British
scholars never embraced behaviouralism to the degree that Americans did,
the divorce between PT and IR was not as profound in the United Kingdom
as compared to the United States. Notwithstanding Wight’s polemical
attack, IR scholars in the UK never completely disassociated themselves
from the study of political theory. Thus in Chris Brown’s mind it is no sur-
prise that in comparison to the United States, Britain has a comparative
advantage in examining the ‘point where international relations theory
meets political theory’ (Brown 2000, 115). Similarly, while Steve Smith,
in a recent review of the discipline, argues that IR continues to be an
American social science, he concludes that because of the pluralistic and
post-positivist climate of British IR, it is in a much better position to under-
stand the problems associated with globalisation (Smith 2000). Presum-
ably, this relates to the fact that a significant effort is being made by British
scholars to reunite PT and IR and, thereby, overcome the distinction
between domestic and international politics.
Notes
1. In this article, PT and IR refer to academic sub-fields while political theory and inter-
national relations theory refer to the activity or subject-matter of each field.
2. I owe this perceptive question to Andrew Linklater.
3. For a detailed account of the British Committee, see Dunne 1998.
4. For a powerful critique of this view, see Wilson 1998 and Schmidt 1998.
5. It is important to recognise that ‘feminist writings’ do not represent a single perspec-
tive, but rather a variety of different perspectives including, for example, liberal,
Marxist, empiricist, psychoanalytic and post-modernist.
Bibliography
Akkerman, T. and Stuurman, S. (1998) Perspectives on Feminist Political Thought in

European History: From the Middle Ages to the Present (London: Routledge).
Archibugi, D., Held, D. and Kohler, M. (1998) Re-imagining Political Community: Studies
in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press).

Brian C. Schmidt
Aron, R. (1967) ‘What Is a theory of international relations?’, Journal of International

Affairs, 21, 185–206.
Ashley, R. (1981) ‘Political realism and human interests’, International Studies Quarterly,
25, 204–236.
Ashley, R. (1988) ‘Untying the sovereign state: a double reading of the anarchy problema-
tique’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17, 227–262.
Ashley, R (1989) ‘Living on border lines: man, poststructuralism, and war’, in J. Der Derian
and M. Shapiro (eds), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of
World Politics (New York: Lexington Books), 259–321.
Ashley, R. (1996) ‘The achievements of post-structuralism’, in S. Smith, K. Booth and M.
Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press), 240–253.
Barry, B. (1989) Democracy, Power and Justice: Essays in Political Theory (Oxford:
Clarendon Press).
Beitz, C. (1979) Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Bell, D. (1993) Communitarianism and its Critics (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Booth, K. and Smith, S. (eds) (1995) International Relations Theory Today (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press).
Boucher, D. (1998) Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the
Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Brown, C. (1992) International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Brown, C. (2000) ‘International political theory—a British social science?’, British Journal
of Politics and International Relations, 2:1, 114–123.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York:
Columbia University Press).
Campbell, D. (1992) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of
Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Campbell, D. and Shapiro M. (eds) (1999) Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics in World
Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Caporaso, J. (1997) ‘Across the great divide: integrating comparative and international
politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 41, 563–592.
Carr, E. H. (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of
International Relations (New York: Harper and Row).
Clark, I. (1999) Globalization and International Relations Theory (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Clark, L. and Lange, L. (1979) The Sexism of Social and Political Thought (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press).
Cochran, M. (1999) Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Connolly, W. (1991a) ‘Democracy and territoriality’, Millennium: Journal of International
Studies, 20, 463–484.
Connolly, W. (1991b) Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History
(New York: Columbia University Press).

Der Derian, J. and Shapiro, M. (eds) (1989) International/Intertextual Relations: Post-

modern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).
Doyle, M. (1997) Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York:
W.W. Norton).
Dunn, F. (1948) ‘The scope of international relations’, World Politics, 1, 142–146.
Dunne, T. (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (London:
Macmillan Press).
Easton, D. (1951) ‘The decline of modern political theory’, Journal of Politics, 13, 36–58.
Elshtain, J. (1981) Public Man, Private Women: Women in Social and Political Thought
(Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Elshtain, J. (1987) Women and War (New York: Basic Books).
Elshtain, J. (1995) ‘International politics and political theory’, in K. Booth and S. Smith
(eds), International Relations Theory Today (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity Press), 263–278.
Enloe, C. (1990) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International
Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Enloe, C. (1993) The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley:
University of California Press).
Enloe, C. (2000) Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women’s Lives
(Berkeley: University of California Press).
Falk, Richard (1995) On Humane Governance: Toward a New Global Politics (University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press).
Evans, P., Jacobson, H. K. and Putnam, R. (1993) Double-edged Diplomacy (Berkeley:
University of California Press).
Frost, M. (1986) Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Frost, M. (1996) Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory (Cambridge:
George, J. (1989) ‘International relations and the search for thinking space: another view
of the third debate’, International Studies Quarterly, 33, 269–279.
Germain, R. (ed.) (2000) Globalization and its Critics: Perspectives from Political Economy
(London: Macmillan Press).
Grant, R. (1991) ‘The sources of gender bias in international relations theory’, in R. Grant
and K. Newland (eds), Gender and International Relations (Milton Keynes: Open
Grant, R. and Newland, K. (1991) Gender and International Relations (Milton Keynes:
Open University Press).
Gunnell, John G. (1983) ‘Political theory: the evolution of a sub-field’, in Ada W. Finifter
(ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, DC: American Political
Science Association), 3–45.
Gunnell, John G. (1993) The Descent of Political Theory: A Genealogy of An American
Vocation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Guzzini, S. (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy:
The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold (London: Routledge).
Habermas, J. (1997) ‘Kant’s idea of perpetual peace, with the benefit of two hundred years’
hindsight’, in J. Bohman and M. Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s
Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 113–153.

Brian C. Schmidt
Harding, S. (1986) The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press).
Held, D. (1991a) ‘Democracy, the nation-state and the global system’, Economy and Society,
20, 138–172.
Held, D. (ed.) (1991b) Political Theory Today (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Held, D. (1995) Democracy and the Global Order: From Modern State to Cosmopolitan
Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Held, D. (1998) ‘Democracy and Globalization’, in D. Archibugi, D. Held and M. Kohler
(eds), Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in Cosmopolitan Democracy (Stanford:
Stanford University Press), 11–27.
Hirst, P. and Thompson, G. (1996) Globalization in Question: The International Economy
and the Possibilities of Global Governance (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Huntington, S. (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century
(Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press).
Jackson, R. (1990) ‘Martin Wight, international theory and the good life’, Millennium:
Journal of International Studies, 19, 261–272.
Jackson, R. (1996) ‘Is there a classical international theory?’, in S. Smith, K. Booth, and M.
Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge
King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S. (1994) Designing Social Inquiry (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Knutsen, Torbjørn L. (1997) A History of International Relations Theory, 2nd edn. (Man-
chester: Manchester University Press).
Lapid, Y. and Kratochwil, F. (eds) (1997) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Linklater, A. (1990) Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London:
Macmillan).
Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of
the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Marsh, D., Jennings, J., Croft, S., Wincott, D. and Buller, J. (1999) ‘Editorial: studying
British politics’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 1:1, 1–11.
McDonald, N. and Rosenau, J. (1968) ‘Political theory as academic field and intellectual
activity’, Journal of Politics, 30, 311–344.
McGrew, A. (ed.) (1997) The transformation of democracy? (Milton Keynes: Open
University Press).
Milner, H. (1998) ‘Rationalizing politics: the emerging synthesis of international, American,
and comparative politics’, International Organization, 54, 759–786.
Mittelman, J. (ed.) (1996) Globalization: Critical Reflections (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Morgenthau, H. (1955) ‘Reflections on the state of political science’, The Review of Poli-
tics, 17, 431–460.
Nardin, T. (1983) Law, Morality and the Relations of States (Princeton: Princeton
University Press).
Neufeld, M. (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory (Cambridge:
Nicholson, L. (1986) Gender and History (New York: Columbia University Press).
Okin, S. (1979) Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University
Press).

Okin, S (1991) ‘Gender, the public and the private’, in D. Held (ed.), Political Theory Today
(Stanford: Stanford University Press), 67–90.
Owen, J. M. (1998/1999) ‘The canon of the cannon’, International Security, 23, 147–178.
Pateman, C. (1988) The Sexual Contract (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Pateman, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) Feminist Critiques of Political Theory (Cambridge:
Polity Press).
Peterson, V. Spike (ed.) (1992a) Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International
Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers).
Peterson, V. Spike (1992b) ‘Transgressing boundaries: theories of knowledge, gender and
international relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21, 183–206.
Rawls, J. (1999) The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Rogowski, R. (1989) Commerce and Coalitions: How Trade Affects Domestic Political
Alignments (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Rosenau, J. (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a
Turbulent World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Rosenau, J. (1998) ‘Governance and democracy in a globalizing world’, in D. Archibugi,
D. Held and M. Kohler (eds), Re-imagining Political Community: Studies in
Cosmopolitan Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press), 28–57.
Russett, B. (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Schmidt, B. (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of
International Relations (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).
Schmidt, B. (2000) ‘Resurrecting international political theory’, Millennium: Journal of
International Studies, 29, 153–163.
Shapiro, M. and Alker, H. (eds) (1996) Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial
Identities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Smith, S. (1992) ‘The forty years’ detour: the resurgence of normative theory in interna-
tional relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21, 489–506.
Smith, S. (1995) ‘The self-images of a discipline’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds),
International Relations Theory Today (University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press), 1–37.
Smith, S. (2000) ‘The discipline of international relations: still an American Social Science’,
British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2:3, 374–402.
Stone Sweet, A. (1994) ‘What is a supranational constitution? An essay in international
relations theory’, Review of Politics, 56, 441–474.
Sylvester, C. (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Thompson, J. (1992) Justice and World Order (London: Routledge).
Tickner, J. A. (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving
Global Security (New York: Columbia University Press).
Tickner, J. A. (1996) ‘International relations: post-positivist and feminist perspectives,’ in
Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds), A New Handbook of Political Science
(Oxford: Oxford University Press), 446–461.
Tickner, J. A. (1997a) ‘Identity in international relations theory: feminist perspectives’, in
Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil (eds), The Return of Culture and Identity in IR
Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner), 147–162.
Tickner, J. A. (1997b) ‘You just don’t understand: troubled engagements between feminists
and IR theorists’, International Studies Quarterly, 41, 611–632.

Brian C. Schmidt
Tuck, R. (1999) Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Vasquez, J. (1995) ‘The post-positivist debate: reconstructing scientific enquiry and inter-
national relations theory after Enlightenment’s fall’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds),
International Relations Theory Today (University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press), 217–240.
Walker, R. (1991) ‘State sovereignty and the articulation of political space/time’,
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20, 445–461.
Walker, R. (1992) ‘Gender and Critique in the Theory of International Relations’, in V. Spike
Peterson (ed.), Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory
(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Walker, R. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge:
Walker, R. (1994) ‘Norms in a teacup: surveying the “new normative approaches” ’,
Mershon International Studies Review, 38, 265–270.
Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).
Walzer, M. (1994) Thick and Thin: Moral Argument at Home and Abroad (Notre Dame,
IN: University of Notre Dame Press).
Wendt, A. (1994) ‘Collective identity formation and the international state’, American
Political Science Review, 88, 384–396.
Wight, M. (1966) ‘Why is there no international theory?’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight
(eds), Diplomatic Investigations (London: George Allen and Unwin), 17–34.
Wight, M. (1992) International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Gabriel Wight and Brian
Porter (New York: Holmes & Meir).
Williams, H. (1991) International Relations in Political Theory (Buckingham: Open
University Press).
Williams, H. (1996) International Relations and the Limits of Political Theory (New York:
St Martin’s Press).
Wilson, P. (1998) ‘The myth of the “first great debate” ’, Review of International Studies,
24, 1–15.
Wolfers, A. (1960) ‘The Anglo-American tradition in foreign affairs’, in S. Hoffmann (ed.),
Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall),
240–255.
Dr Brian C. Schmidt
SUNY New Paltz
Department of Political Science and International Relations
New Paltz, New York 12561
USA
Email: schmidtb@newpaltz.edu

Teori Politik Internasional Week 1 Pengantar Teori Politik Dan Hubungan Internasional (PDFDrive)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Teori Politik Internasional Week 1 Pengantar Teori Politik Dan Hubungan Internasional (PDFDrive)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Teori Politik Internasional

1. Mampu memahami pemikiran-pemikiran teoretisi politik terkemuka

Organisasi dan Metode perkuliahan

Topik Bahasan Perkuliahan

Minggu Topik Bahasan Sub-topik dan Bacaan

1 Pengantar 1.Penjelasan Silabus dan rencana kegiatan

2 The Four Horsemen of 1.Hubungan Internasional dan ilmu sosial positivis

3 Skeptisme Moral 1. Politik internasional sebagai perjuangan untuk

4 Thucydides 1. Esensi pemikiran Thucydides

5 Thomas Hobbes 1. Esensi pemikiran Hobbes

Bacaan: Boucher 1998, Chp 7; Hobbes 1651, XIII-

6 Reinhold Niebuhr 1. Esensi pemikiran Reinhold Niebuhr

7 Negara, otonomi dan 1. Sejarah perkembangan negara modern

8 Hugo Grotius 1. Esensi pemikiran Hugo Grotius

9 Samuel von 1. Esensi pemikiran Samuel von Pufendorf

11 Kosmopolitanisme 1. Kemanusiaan dan solidaritas kemanusiaan global

Bacaan: Boucher, 1998, Chp 11 (Bahan minggu ke-

12 Immanuel Kant 1. Esensi pemikiran Immanuel Kant

13 John Rawls 1. Esensi pemikiran John Rawls

14 Adam Smith 1. Esensi pemikiran Adam Smith

1. Partisipasi aktif (15%)

national interdependence is something new. Indeed, it seems more likely that

WHILE a more satisfactory international normative theory is

received. Even when I make no attempt to resolve outstand-

incorrect, and furthermore, that the international realm is

I H A V E restricted myself to a few cursory remarks about the

Together again: reuniting political theory

theorists was inextricably tied together. Beginning in the 1950s, however,

116 © Political Studies Association 2002.

Political theory and international relations theory

© Political Studies Association 2002. 117

118 © Political Studies Association 2002.

discipline and creating deep-seated cleavages among American political sci-

Reuniting political theory and international relations theory

A significant item on the agenda of contemporary political thinkers is the

© Political Studies Association 2002. 119

and exogenous frameworks of, respectively, political theory and interna-

120 © Political Studies Association 2002.

© Political Studies Association 2002. 121

122 © Political Studies Association 2002.

presentative of the attempt to reunite political and international theory

© Political Studies Association 2002. 123

not one enjoys a good life. According to Jackson, ‘international political

124 © Political Studies Association 2002.

In light of the recent interest in democracy, both with respect to decipher-

© Political Studies Association 2002. 125

126 © Political Studies Association 2002.

what makes it absolutely necessary to assess the theory and practice of

© Political Studies Association 2002. 127

128 © Political Studies Association 2002.

To a certain extent, the work of Richard Ashley, Rob Walker, William

© Political Studies Association 2002. 129

130 © Political Studies Association 2002.

range of alternative formulations and possibilities become open. In its com-

© Political Studies Association 2002. 131

132 © Political Studies Association 2002.

public/private dichotomy is socially constructed in a manner that privileges

© Political Studies Association 2002. 133

of political life that overcomes the distortions produced by such binary

134 © Political Studies Association 2002.

to be dysfunctional. The endeavour by political scientists to reconnect PT

Akkerman, T. and Stuurman, S. (1998) Perspectives on Feminist Political Thought in

© Political Studies Association 2002. 135