Chapter 13 Revision Guide

  • An essential aspect of international politics is that it has an ethical dimension. Various judgments on moral responsibility and moral standing of actors – often in relation to an inside/outside dichotomy – are constantly made in international politics.
  • Normative international relations theory addresses ethical questions in IR. It encompasses a variety of theories and approaches and draws on political theory, moral philosophy and IR theory.
  • There are two key stories of the origins of this field:
  • One locates the relatively recent emergence of normative IR theory in a combination of forces that emerged since the 1960s and 1970s, which led to a ‘reawakening’ of just war tradition. Simultaneously, John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice has been crucial in bringing to the fore questions of distributive justice, particularly in relation to nation states.
  •  The other narrative sees normative IR theory as a longstanding tradition building on work of great philosophers from Plato to Marx, and thus precedes IR theoretical agendas of today. Both stories can be seen as correct.
  • A key division in normative IR theory is between cosmopolitanism and communitarianism.
  • (Ethical) cosmopolitanism advocates seeing all people globally as having equal moral standing and claims that we have duties that extend to everyone else globally.
  • Ethical cosmopolitanism is compatible with various political arrangements, but is sceptical of borders  if they demarcate some as ‘outsiders’ in a way that means they are not our moral equals.
  • Communitarians are critical of disregard for identity and particularity, as these are assumed to be the moral starting point. To eliminate them would thus make ethical reasoning impossible. Consequently, they emphasize the moral significance of our particular communities and loyalties. In IR, communitarianism is, therefore, often state-centric.
  • Another key divide in normative theory is between consequentialist and deontological forms of reasoning.
  • Consequentialist reasoning entails that we make moral decisions on the basis of the outcomes of our choices and actions. For example, for a consequantialist it may be justified to torture a suspect if information is gained to save others.
  • According to deontological reasoning, some acts are wrong in themselves, regardless of their consequences. Killing an innocent person for example is considered unconditionally wrong.
  • Kantian ethics and natural law tradition are examples of deontological reasoning.
  • The doctrine of double effect (the notion that it is permissible to perform an action even if it results in foreseeable harm, as long as this harm is not directly intended) is compatible with some deontological positions.
  • Normative IR theory contributes three key insights to the study of IR.
    1. It shows that norms matter in IR: they embody established codes of what actors should do or refrain from doing. Although some are sceptical of the existence of international moral norms, and while some moral norms are transgressed, there are also ‘settled norms’, such as prohibition on targeting civilians, which are widely respected.
    2. It highlights the question of who counts, pointing to the fact that sites of value affect moral inclusion. Who is seen to have moral standing is fundamental to understanding both our responses to practical questions in international politics and the limitations of different IR theories. A tension in understandings of ethical particularism versus ethical universalism is crucial here.
    3. It exposes the global realm as one of moral agents, and, therefore, moral responsibilities. Various different IR theories hold, albeit often implicitly, positions on agency of actors (e.g. of states), which should have consequences for how actions are morally evaluated in international politics. 
  • Case study. How should we evaluate the shooting of innocent women and children in Iraq, March 2003? What ethical judgements were made? How should military officials have acted? Was what they did correct? What kind of failures could be identified? Crucially, on what grounds should judgements be made?
  • Case study continued. Just War tradition sets limits on use of force. It is divided into categories of jus ad bellum (governing the justice of resorting to war) and jus in bello (pertaining to just conduct in war). Non-combatant immunity is a key (jus in bello) principle.
  • The question of whether or not the principle was respected in relation to the shooting is not easy to answer. While some say this principle delegitimizes the actions, others argue that the context and lack of intent was such that this principle was not in fact violated.
  • This debate has further been complicated by the revisionist critique, proponents of which have rejected the traditionalist idea that soldiers hold equal moral responsibility and liability on all sides.
  • Case study continued. Arguments made by cosmopolitans and communitarians may also differ when they are confronted with a case like this. Cosmopolitans would argue that fellow citizens and ‘enemies’ have equal moral worth. Communitarians may give priority to fellow citizens.
  • Case study continued. The case raises important questions with regard to the question of responsibility. For example, are individual soldiers to blame, or the army, or state leaders, or other actors? In the age of artificial intelligence (AI) as a mode of warfare, questions of responsibility are further complicated by the question over who/what the agent is that could be held accountable.
  • Conclusion. Normative theory examines the many ethical questions that are raised in international politics regarding duties in war, loyalties to others, role of moral norms, questions of responsibility.
  • Normative theory focuses on questions of war and inequality but also in issues such as global warming, humanitarian interventions and war on terror.
  • The concerns of normative IR theory are central to the study of international relations.
Back to top