The question of whether states are capable of moral agency in world politics remains an important concept of debate in international relations. In addressing the argument for and against considering the status of states as moral agents in international relations this essay will begin by considering how moral agency can be attributed to the state. In assigning moral agency to states it is conveyed that states have the ability – like its individual citizens – to form moral judgements or actions and be held accountable for those judgements or actions. However, states are not individuals in the human sphere when discussing moral agency; rather they have been considered as institutions and collectives, (Erskine, 2001) – as institutional actors within the international system. States are made up of individual citizens, and represented by a collective of those citizens, forming different groups and bodies, with a particular group of citizens being their representatives – the government. Moral agency has predominately been assigned to the individual, however, the state can be considered merely a collective of its citizens – a collective of moral agents.
States as Moral Agents
There have been numerous authors who argued in favour of states having moral agency and the ability or potential to hold moral duties (Erskine 2001, Hoover 2012, Schwenkenbecher 2011). The notion provided is that the state possesses a distinct identity – independent of the respective identities of citizens and collectives. States play central roles in the international relation arena, and in such they have appeared to qualify as an institutional moral agent (Erskine, 2001). Erskine proposes three criteria in determining the status of states as moral agents, that ...
... middle of paper ...
...eohane, 1984). Keohane argues that if states are regarded as moral agents, they not then responsible for the actions of its people and therefore greatly more susceptible to the outcomes of the decisions of the collective. There is a degree of ambiguity in the state holding the moral duty as apposed to its individual citizens. Schewenkenbecher (2011) suggests that the moral duty of a state ultimately rests with the individual citizens, representatives who contribute to the collective and achieves the collective’s desired outcome. Runciman does go further in doubting the ‘capacity of the state to behave in any straight forward manner as a moral agent’.
The state will always be contingent on how individuals and collectives of individuals choose to view it, therefore it the moral agency of the state will be bound to the moral agency of its individual and collectives.
George Kennan says, “Morality in governmental method, as a matter of conscience and preference on the part of our people – yes.” He goes on to say that morality as a criterion for measuring and comparing the behavior of states is flawed. Morality is a preference, not a requirement to govern in the international anarchic system, Kennan argues. Ethics and justice in the international system are measured by how states satisfy varying moral requirements. These moral requirements are defined by a variety of schools of thought, including: Realists, Morality of States theorists, and Cosmopolitans. Realists may validate some action where morality of state theorists and cosmopolitans are fundamentally opposed. In this paper I will examine such examples and detail the key differences between realists, morality of state theorists, and cosmopolitans. I will compare and contrast realists with the other two non-realists perspectives and explore how these theories apply to an international system of states and how these theories shape the way one state acts or reacts in an anarchic system.
First of all, The World State takes away individuality and forces its people, through conditioning, to conform to the society’s motto of Community, Identity, and Stability. The most effective way the World State conditions its people is through
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
With the formation of formal International Organisations (such as the United Nations), informal Organisations (such as the G20) and other organisations (such as the NGO`s) in the 20th century, global governance has become significantly important for the societies and countries in the world. Nation states have set-up and involved in these organisations in order to cooperate, make and implement international laws and policies and consent in international agreements (Diehl & Frederking 2010 p.30). They have also worked together to cooperate and tackle certain global issues and challenges such as wars, health, human rights and the environment. As a result, with the formation of a number of organisations and other non-state actors, countries have been involved in a global system in which they have become more dependent to each other as well as binding to international laws, norms and policies. In other words, the globalisation process and the presence of the international organisations and civil societies have caused nation states to keep their policy standards in compliance with international laws and agreements (Cable, 1999, p.35). However, despite of the evolving global governance today, nation states level of compliance to the global governance can be argued to be limited since the globalisation process can also be regarded to be as a threat to the nation states, as countries resist in staying as central actors when making policies and taking decisions rather than complying and binding to international norms, laws and agreements (Senarclens & Kazancigil, 2007, p.51).
There are several issues across the map that raise essential questions in respect to ethics and state behavior. The main focus in this paper is explaining Peter Singer’s justification of humanitarian intervention and view point on international law featured in One World: the ethics of globalization while also examining questions such as - does the sovereignty of a state offer absolute protection against outside resources? And If and when it is ever appropriate for other states to step in without consent? The last point discusses intervention in regards to cultural imperialism, how it destroys the nation state, and the negative consequences of military intervention.
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment
In “The Conflict of Autonomy and Authority” Robert Paul Wolff argues that the state’s authority is in conflict with having genuine autonomy. He reasons as follows. If there were a supreme political authority, which have a right to rule, there would be an obligation for a man to obey its laws. However, a man has an obligation to be autonomous, which means taking responsibility for making one’s own decisions about what one should do. Autonomous man has primary obligation to refuse to be ruled. Therefore, a supreme political authority does not have a right to claim authority over a man who has a moral obligation to be autonomous. He concludes by denying the concept of de jure legitimate state.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When looking at normative theories of politics, the main distinction is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. In this essay the term community shall refer to political communities, or more specifically, states. It is important to note that these political communities have been defined territorially, and not necessarily by culture, although this is taken for granted to an extent by communitarianism. Communitarians say that each community is different, and therefore should act accordingly with each other. In other words, state autonomy should be absolute and law and moral standards should be self-determined by the community itself alone. Furthermore, communities should have no obligations to other political communities or any sort of international law. Contrastingly, Cosmopolitans say that there should be an overriding universal moral standard to which all states (or communities) should adhere. If a state is infringing on the rights of the individual or humanity, then intervention is appropriate and just. (Steve Smith, The Globalisation of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations p. 173A)
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
While some may argue that a state-centric international system is apt for non-state actors, since to attain a foreseeable future, they need to comprehend the state system and how to operate within it. This structure is weakening as non-state actors are increasing their influence in conflicts and challenging the international order founded upon the power of states. The openness of commercial markets and the weakening territorial sovereignty has limited the state’s monopoly of power asserted by structural realists. In Structural Realism After the Cold War, Kenneth Waltz alleges that, “If the conditions that a theory contemplated have changed, the theory no longer applies.” Theories and traditions in international relations must become more comprehensive if society intends to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century more effectively in the future.
Globalization has effect the role of the state immensely; as the process of present’s challenges to state sovereignty and autonomy. In spite of borders becoming more ill-defined and fluid in as a result of the process of globalization (Weiss 2000, 2-3). The state will remain relevant and necessary because citizens need a place to cast their votes, taxes have to be paid to particular authorities, which can be held accountable for pub...
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.
Before we delve deeper into this topic, it is imperative to properly provide a definition of sovereignty and lay down some foundation on this topic. There are four different definitions of sovereignty – international legal sovereignty, Westphalia sovereignty, domestic sovereignty and interdependence sovereignty. International legal sovereignty deals with “the practices associated with mutual recognition, usually between territorial entities that have formal juridical independence” (Krasner 4). The main definition of sovereignty that this paper will use is the ...