Morals in Politics The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger by yurtgc548


									    Morals in Political Thought:
The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger

              Dmitry Pobedash
             Ural State University
       Realism in IR Theory
• Predominant paradigm

• Self-definition:
         Description of reality as it is
    Daydreaming of utopians, moralists
         Hard Core of Realism
•   IR mean anarchy and conflicts
•   Actors – rational sovereign states
•   States’ main concern – national interests
•   Interests are defined in terms of power
•   Necessity and reason of state trump
    morality and ethics
  Georg Schwarzenberger (1908-1991)

• 1929 - Das Völkerbunds Mandat
für Palestina
• 1934 – fled to England (№3333)
• 1941 – Power Politics (3rd-1964)
• Interdisciplinary approach to
international studies
• Derive knowledge from analysis
of state practice as expressed in legal documents
       Morals in Politics (GS)
1) “Denial of the existence of an
   international morality” (Machiavelli)
2) Denial of “any difference in kind between
   the moral obligations incumbent upon
   individuals and states” (Kant)
3) Different moral rules applicable to states
   and to individuals (Hegel)
• R. Niebuhr
  – Politicians may be immoral internationally as
    their first moral obligation is to their own
  – Strong must rule to overcome anarchy
• E. Carr
  – Morality can only be relative, not universal
  – Ethics is function of politics
               GS himself
• Main concern not with the role “morality
  ought to play…as with the moral rules
  which are actually or else professed to be
• “Judging from State practice [politics are]
  imbued with ethical conceptions and
  maxims”, “international morality…is a
 Is there an International Morality?
• There are “moral norms common to all
  civilized nations”
• In a system of power politics both
  international law and international morality
  are partially subservient and partially
• Frequent appeals to moral standards have
  utility value
    Evolution of Morality in IR
• “in the period of absolutism” coincides with
  morality of the ruler
• “when the people asserted their right of
  control in foreign policy” appears a split
  between individual and national morality
• preservation and interest of state become
  the main consideration of foreign policy
 Functions of International Morality
• Masks interests of power politics
  – serves “as a keen and powerful weapon
    against potential and actual adversaries”
• Justifies state actions for its citizens
  – it’d be hard for states to mobilize citizens
    “without resort to some brand of ideology,
    borrowed from the realms of ethics”
 Functions of International Morality
• Moderates actual policies
  – Constant lip-service to morality sometimes
    forces governments “to refine their methods in
    order to escape an over-brutal violation of the
    standards of international morality”
• Shapes international law
  – used to strengthen shaky legal positions
  – state practice leads to “reception of
    international morality by international law”
 Functions of International Morality
• Interests become secondary to moral
• Influence of international morality exceeds
  that of international law
• International society co-exists with ~60
• Every Leviathan appropriates the undivided
  loyalty of individuals
Individual moral values same – community?
Egoistic national interests trump common good
 Realism Stops, Utopia Begins
• Society vs. Community – “no halfway
• Community – solidarity (common interests,
  law of coordination)
• Society – war (clashing interests, law of

             What can unite?
            The Answer
• Democracy (Anglo-Saxon)
• Social justice

• 1941 – community based on Christian
• 1951 – “Atlantic Union”, international
  federation of Western democracies
• 1960s – despair
• Now – still power politics?

To top