2023-11-13
by Abinash Phulkonwar
According to Martin wight “Political theory” is the speculation about the state, from Plato to onward. On the other hand “International theory” in the first sight looks like a methodology or the conceptual system for studying international relations. However, according to Wigth, neither of these explanations is correct. For him “International relation” is the tradition of speculation about relations between states, similar to the tradition of speculation about the state in “Political Theory”. At first sight, international theory in this sense does not seem to exist.
There are many theoretical writings about international relations that exist, Like Machiavellian and Kantian, and in the 20th century they have become flood. Probably none of them get the status of political classics. If we are convinced that international relations is a twin subject of Political science, There is a problem. Political science has a tradition of political ideas of political theory, which introduces students to the tradition of speculation and body of writings about the State from Plato to Laski. However, a student of International relation cannot be directed to classics of the stature Aristotle or Hobbes or Locke. According to Wight, such classics don’t exist.
If we think that international relation is a full flazed subject, go back to the 19th century, we find that there are no succession of first-ranked books about state-system and diplomacy, Like the succession of political classics from Bodin to Bosanquet. And Wight raised a question that is there any international theory before 1914 and what is that? And where can we find them?
According to Martin, if Political theory is a speculation about state, then International relation is speculation about society of states, or family of nations, or international community. And speculation of this kind was formerly comprehended under international law. And Martin also added that International law gained academic recognition well before the Political theory in Britain. The Chichele Chair of International Law and Diplomacy at Oxford and the Whewell Chair of International Law at Cambridge were founded in 1859 and 1866 respectively. And he also pointed out that we can find international theory in the writings of Erasmus, Campanella etc. But it is hard to consider them as other than the curiosities of political literature. They are rich in political ideas, and contain about how to secure common actions between states.
International theory can be found in the Machiavellians thinkers writing. Who wrote about the “reason of state”. Like hegel, Bolero etc. One difficulty in answering is that they are inaccessible except to the scholar. And Also in the supplementary writings of political philosophers and historians, like Hum’s essay on “The balance of power”, JS Mill's essay on “The Law of Nation”, and rossues’s “Project of perpetual peace”. And The speeches, despatches, memoirs and essays of statesmen and diplomats are also sources of International theory.
Martin mentions that International theory is unsystematic, scattered among various thinkers. The Work of Grotius, a prominent figure in international law, is difficult to understand and extract information from. Similarly, Hume’s balance of power and Bismarck's international theory has to be carefully distilled from historical falsehoods. As a result, Mostly inaccessible to the general public.
Wight Pointed the international theory not only marked by paucity, but also by intellectual and moral poverty. Main reasons for this are the intellectual limitation and biases that come from the state, and people's belief in progress, which leads to focus more on progress and development and narrow down the focus on international relations.
Since the 16th century, International society has been organised in such a way that only prices of sovereign states can be members of it, and only in their representative capacity. Other people are only members of a sovereign state, except for Pirates. Wight mentions that Erasmus is able to wander around Europe without tied to any particular sovereign state. But 2 or 3 generations later Scaliger and Casaubon, learned that the only safe way to participate in intellectual pursuits is to be a part of a favourable sovereign state. In the age of Einstein and Thomas Mann, changing their allegiance has become impossible for a large proportion of the human race. Even the Pope, leader of Catholics, needs to establish himself as the ruler of a sovereign state for Participating in international society.
Martin mention’s, the principle that every individual requires the protection of state, state represents the individual in the international community, and state is the end of all political experience and activity. Which leads to almost all of the intellectual energy devoted to study on domestic politics and neglect of international politics. And international politics has been seen as an untidy fringe of domestic politics, and international theory has been treated as an additional chapter in political theory text-books. The masterpiece of international relations is the system of balance of power. However no great political writer has been inspired to analyse and reflect on the balance of power, it has been seen as a means to end, and namely the flourishing of the modern state. Even today, International relations is thought of and taught as “foreign affairs” or “problems of foreign policy”, with a focus on our own foreign policy rather than that of other states. Practical problems of international politics are often described in terms of building a bigger and better state, such as a EU or Atlantic Community, without seeing that such an achievement would leave the problems of inter-State politics precisely where they were. Few political thinkers have made it their business to study the State-system, the diplomatic community itself.
The idea of a world state has been resisted by international theory. Vitoria, took over Dante’s conception of “universal civilization of the human race”, and strengthened this idea into an affirmation that mankind constitutes a legal community. However he rejected Dante's universal empire. Groutins argued that the world empire would be too large to be efficient. Kantin argued that states are required to guarantee freedom, not only for the state, through balance of power, but also for individuals. And Then American’s argued that the value of international state or world state will be nil, as international war becomes a civil war. The assumption among international theorists up to 1914 is that the structure of international society is unalterable and that the division of the world into sovereign states is necessary and natural. The League of Nations and the United Nations are seen as expressions of a belief that it may be possible to secure the benefits of a world state without the inconveniences of instituting and maintaining it. Wight suggests that crude doctrines of world imperialism have become influential in the twentieth century partly because they have found a vacuum in international theory to fill. One of the few arguments for a world state was put forward by Middleton Murry in this book “The Free Society”, when the USA had the atomic monopoly. Murry drew a different moral from the American Civil War, suggesting that a world state could be a solution to the problems of International Relations.
Wight mentions that since the 16th century to the 20th century three most powerful influences on the development of the international society are: the reformation and counter-reformation, the french revolution, and the totalitarian revolutions. Despite their significant impact on international society none of them produced any notable body of international theory. Instead, each of them only wrote a chapter of political theory, focusing on issues such as Church and State, the state simply, or the state and society. It is difficult to find any distinct international theory among these revolutions such as Calvin or the Jacobins. Calvin foreign policy in practice was vigorous and interventionist, but his international theory, if it can be understood at all from his sermons, is pale in comparison. Similarly, the Jacobins transformed the rights of man into universal conquest without any sophisticated theorising.
There is a basic distinction between international and domestic politics. According to Wight international politics are less susceptible to a progressivist interpretation. While national histories considered in isolation may show evidence of progress, such as growing social cohesion, increasing wealth and its better distribution. But international politics is more likely to be seen as recurrence and repetition. If Sir Thomas More or Henry IV were to return to their countries in 1960, they might approve of the domestic progress that had been made. However, if they were to contemplate the international scene, they would likely be struck by the resemblances to what they remembered: a state-system polarised between two great powers, smaller powers playing off one side against the other. As Edmund Burke argued, commonwealths(political communities or state) are not physical but moral essences, and the internal causes that affect their fortune are infinitely uncertain and much more obscure and difficult to trace than foreign causes.
If we see the relationship between political theory and political activity, and international theory and international politics, then we find that political theory has a direct relationship with political activity. But international theory doesn't seem to have it. It has an inverse relation with international politics, when diplomacy becomes violent and immoral, international law rises to the principles of natural law; when diplomacy becomes co-operative, international law crawls into legal positivism.