Morals in Political Thought: The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger

1
Morals in Political ThoughtThe Case of Georg
Schwarzenberger
Dmitry Pobedash Ural State University
2
Realism in IR Theory

• Predominant paradigm
• Self-definition
• Description of reality as it is
• Vs.
• Daydreaming of utopians, moralists

3
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

4
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

5
Morals in Politics (GS)

• Denial of the existence of an international
  morality (Machiavelli)
• Denial of any difference in kind between the
  moral obligations incumbent upon individuals and
  states (Kant)
• Different moral rules applicable to states and to
  individuals (Hegel)

6
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

7
GS himself

• Main concern not with the role morality ought to
  playas 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 moralityis a reality

8
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

9
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

10
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
• itd be hard for states to mobilize citizens
  without resort to some brand of ideology,
  borrowed from the realms of ethics

11
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

12
Functions of International Morality

• Interests become secondary to moral values
• Influence of international morality exceeds that
  of international law

13
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

14
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?

15
The Answer

• Democracy (Anglo-Saxon)
• Social justice
• Christianity!

16
Future?

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