Kant, Mill, and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs

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+

Geniuses, exiles and (liberal) postmodern subjectivities

“…3 In a slightly different vein, Burke (2007: 19) draws upon both the 'progressive discourses of emancipation and cosmopolitanism' in order to reimagine human subjectivity disentangled from Foucauldian forms of social and governmental power which can be repositioned around an 'ethics of responsibility and reciprocity'. 4 Mill detractors include Cowling (1963), Hamburger (1999), Himmelfarb (1974) and Jahn (2005).…”

Demokratischer Krieg am Hindukusch? Eine kritische Analyse der Bundestagsdebatten zur deutschen Afghanistanpolitik 2001–2011

“…Weder handelt es sich um ein von späteren liberalen Imperialisten in der Nachfolge Kants eingeschlepptes bellizistisches Virus (Jahn 2005) theoretische Konsistenz und empirische Plausibilität allerdings gering ist (Müller und Wolff 2006, S. 52-58). noch um das Residuum eines voraufklärerischen Konservatismus, der von der politischen Rechten gepflegt wird (MacMillan 1996). Schon Kant kennt den "ungerechten Feind" als notwendige Denkfigur und rechtfertigt kriegerisches Handeln zu dessen Bekämpfung.…”

Provincializing Albert Schweitzer's Ethical Colonialism in Africa

“…Mill thus concluded that the conquered be ''governed by despotism'' of a civilized nation until it reached a civilized state. 21 Yet the Third World, Chakarbarty commends, wisely did not follow Mill's injunction. While Mill was opposed to allowing universal suffrage before universal teaching had taken place, Indian leaders after World War II rejected his injunction and gave their citizens universal suffrage before universal teaching became available (9-10).…”