Towards a critical concept of the statesperson

Abstract

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Sage Publications via http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1755088216671736This article considers convergence between classical realism and critical theory in relation to pressing political problems. It argues that the spirit of both traditions can help develop critical reflection on the state as an agent of change. I suggest that too much recent critical theorization has avoided the state in its attention to social movements, but that a critical concept of state leadership is now required to address global threats and challenges. The article rehearses this critical concept in three stages. It considers, first, how the concept of national interest drives statecraft in the authorship of Hans Morgenthau and how complex this concept is both in its own terms and with regard to the political effects of the nuclear revolution. It develops, second, a multi-layered concept of responsibility as the guiding concept of statecraft in a world of increasingly incompatible demands. It argues, third, that these concepts of national interest and responsibility need to be aligned with global imperatives so that a greater marriage between the global and the national is possible. I conclude that it is the task of contemporary critical thought to address this present through a reimagined political realism.authorsversionPeer reviewe

Recognition, multiplicity and the elusive international

“…This paper began by arguing that the central issue confronting contemporary approaches to recognition in IR was that of their simultaneity; the co-existence, differentiation and interpenetration of manifestly different social relations of recognition in what Beardsworth (2017) has termed 'a globalised and fragmented world'. Cosmopolitan scholars such as Brincat suggest that IR can contribute to the debate surrounding recognition by developing the actuality of a cosmopolitan sphere of freedom continuous with domestic-social forms of recognition.…”

Solving the nuclear dilemma: Is a world state necessary?

“…I have argued that a world government which does not possess a monopoly over warmaking weaponry cannot work, and that Deudney's insistence that such a government must be liberal and American-led guarantees that it will not possess such a monopoly, barring a rapid end of history or a dangerous season of American nuclear primacy. Therefore, if solving the nuclear dilemma is a matter of urgency, it can only occur by acts of political compromise among the large nuclear powers, compromise driven by the recognition, common to all states, that the continuing status quo of interstate anarchy poses an existential threat to all of them and to humanity at large (see Schell, 1983;Beardsworth, 2017). Moreover, the existential nature of the nuclear threat means that a compromise to eliminate anarchy cannot take place after a nuclear war: unlike previous after-the-deluge covenants, the nuclear threat must be pre-empted, eliminated before it happens.…”

Our political moment: political responsibility and leadership in a globalized, fragmented age

“…22 My work on cosmopolitanism runs counter to these trends. 23 By seeking to bring the state explicitly back into cosmopolitan discourse, it advances enquiry into whether and how the state may be an agent of, rather than an obstacle to, cosmopolitan commitments, and how, accordingly, global/human interests and national interests can be married at this historical conjuncture at the domestic level.…”