The study discusses how the concept of evil is positioned in the current
theoretical discussion in international relations and how it is discursively
misapplied in the imperial practice of preserving and advancing liberal
peace in the early twenty-first century. The authors first present the
fundamental assumptions embedded in the notion and typology of evil, and
then delve into how Rousseau?s and Kant?s conception of the origin of moral
evil has indirectly affected the differentiation of epistemological
approaches in the study of the dark side of international relations. In
terms of the situational legitimization of evil actions, the significance of
a group acting evil, the relativization of empathic reactions, and the
imperial tactics of utilizing ethical arguments against the so-called
illiberal states, the analysis focuses on the contradictions that arise in
the process of evaluating evil in the whirlwind of world politics. The
authors also present some viewpoints that are to explain the ways and
encourage the overcoming of Otherness in world politics through
self-transformation and the transformation of relations with Others. The
authors conclude that the idea of evil, as interpreted in the optics of the
prevailing positivist epistemology in the International Relations
discipline, equally in (neo)realism and liberal institutionalism, still
provides a (pseudo)legitimation basis for the politics of liberal
interventionism of post-industrial democracies against the ?rogue? countries
from the global periphery.