Transcript Morals in Politics: The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger

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
Vs.
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)
Colleagues
• R. Niebuhr
– Politicians may be immoral internationally as
their first moral obligation is to their own
people
– 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
applied”
• “Judging from State practice [politics are]
imbued with ethical conceptions and
maxims”, “international morality…is a
reality”
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
irrelevant
• 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
values
• Influence of international morality exceeds
that of international law
Problem!
• International society co-exists with ~60
Leviathans
• Every Leviathan appropriates the undivided
loyalty of individuals
Result:
Individual moral values same – community?
BUT!
Egoistic national interests trump common good
Realism Stops, Utopia Begins
• Society vs. Community – “no halfway
house”
• Community – solidarity (common interests,
law of coordination)
• Society – war (clashing interests, law of
reciprocity)
What can unite?
The Answer
• Democracy (Anglo-Saxon)
• Social justice
Christianity!
Future?
• 1941 – community based on Christian
values
• 1951 – “Atlantic Union”, international
federation of Western democracies
• 1960s – despair
• Now – still power politics?