No abstract

While the revival of the concept of "imperialism" appears to be a reaction to recent political challenges, I argue that it has always been at the core of liberal thought in international relations+ While liberal internationalism enlists the authority of Immanuel Kant, at its heart one finds the security dilemma between liberal and nonliberal states as well as the propagation of particularist law under a universal guise+ This un-Kantian liberal thought, however, has a classical precedent in John Stuart Mill, with whom it shares the justification of imperialist policies+ A historically sensitive reading of Mill and Kant, however, can explain the striking failures of liberal internationalism in spreading liberal institutions as well as reducing international conflicts+ Not long after the Cold War's end, with its heady promises of a liberal "new world order," the idea of "empire, long thought buried + + + with its twin brother~or sister! called 'imperialism' + + + has made what can only be described as a most dramatic intellectual comeback+" 1 Yet, while recent events may have propelled the term again onto the front pages of political and intellectual publications alike, I will argue that liberal thought in international relations has always been imperialist+ 2 "Imperialism" is, of course, a notoriously loose term+ In what precise sense is it used here? I define as "imperialist" any political thought that explicitly involves I am profoundly grateful for the encouraging and exceptionally constructive comments of the two anonymous reviewers as well as the editor of International Organization, which triggered a substantial further development of the initial argument+ I would also like to thank Barry Hindess for his comments as well as for his articles on liberalism pointing out the parallels between domestic and international liberalism+ An earlier version of this article was presented at the Culture and International History Conference, 2002, in Wittenberg, and I would like to thank Jessica Gienow-Hecht and Frank Schumacher for the organization as well as the participants for inspiring discussions+ Special thanks are due to David Boucher for inviting me to speak about John Stuart Mill at a research seminar in Cardiff that gave me the opportunity to try out my interpretation of Mill on Political Theorists+ Students and faculty at Cardiff University provided very interesting and fruitful suggestions+ Thanks are also due to Robbie Shilliam, whose work as a research assistant in connection with another project turned up some of the literature for this article+ Finally, as always, I am grateful to Justin Rosenberg for generously devoting his time to improving my English in style and grammar+ 1+ Cox 2003, 5+ 2+ See Cox 2003 for a list of recent publications under the heading of "Empire" from a variety of political and intellectual positions+

No abstract

Abstract. M ill's political and his international theory rest on a philosophy of history drawn in turn from the experience of nineteenth century imperialism. And yet, this philosophy of history remains unexamined in Political Theory and International R elations (IR ) alike, largely because of the peculiar division of labour between the two disciplines. In this article I will argue that this omission results not just in a misconception of those aspects of M ill's thought with which Political Theory and IR directly engage; in addition, and more seriously, it has led in both disciplines to an unreflected perpetuation of M ill's justification of imperialism.John Stuart Mill occupies an eminent position in Political Theory traditionally associated with the support of liberty and free speech. R ecently, however, this reading of Mill has come under critical scrutiny. Mill's liberalism, it is argued, is inextricably linked to imperialism which, in turn, is reproduced through liberal practices in the contemporary world. 1 Imperialism, however, as a concept and a practice, falls squarely into the disciplinary domain of IR , especially so in a time in which the concept of empire 'has made what can only be described as a dramatic intellectual comeback'. 2 And yet, despite the fact that M ill worked in India H ouse for 35 years and, thus, was directly involved in international politics in the form of governing the Indian subcontinent (as well as writing extensively about international affairs in his newspaper articles and in his philosophical texts), he is rarely invoked in the IR literature. And when he is mentioned, it is usually with reference to an extract from his short essay A Few Words on This effectively confines M ill's * I would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their encouraging comments and suggestions of further enquiry as well as D avid Boucher and his colleagues and students at Cardiff for the opportunity to present my interpretation of M ill to 'proper' Political Theorists. Their reflections helped to strengthen the article. Thanks are also due to Barry H indess for his comments and suggestions and to Justin R osenberg, as always, for helping with structure, grammar, and style.

Article (Accepted Version)http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Jahn, Beate (2017) Theorizing the political relevance of international relations theory. International Studies Quarterly, 61 (1). pp. 64-77. AbstractTwo broad positions -the 'gap-bridgers' and the 'gap-minders' -dominate the current debate on the (lack of) political relevance of International Relations (IR) theory.Missing from this debate, however, is a broader theoretical framework that allows us to move beyond their disagreements. Hence, this article provides a theoretical account of the relationship between politics and knowledge. It shows that in the modern context scientific knowledge achieves political relevance by distancing itself, through theorizing, from the particularities of politics. This paradoxical relationship gives rise to three different dimensions of political relevance at different levels of abstraction.Metatheory plays a crucial role in constituting the modern conception of politics; theories establish concrete political spaces; and empirical studies can influence specific policies. Taking this context into account, moreover, calls for a reassessment of core features of the discipline: its poverty, fragmentation, and immaturity are common to all modern sciences; they function as a driver of scientific progress; and metatheoretical debates address the political dimension of the modern sciences.Hence, the source of IR's political relevance lies in its theoretical foundations.Abandoning theory in favor of policy oriented studies would simultaneously undermine the discipline's policy relevance and its standing as a modern science.