Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:07:18.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Idealism: A Practical Matter1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Charles W. Kegley Jr.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The classical realist world view places moral standards subservient to the power concerns of international actors. Realists did not make this valuation without some hesitation, as the issue of morality was addressed with seriousness and concern. The neo-realist thinking of today embraces with less hesitation the ultimate conclusion of the realist premises: statesmen never act according to moral precepts, thus such concerns need not be addressed by a political theory. Kegly argues the neo-idealist position that opposes this empirical observation: states consistently act according to values that are based on more than power concerns. Kegley's primary intent is to show that neo-realism ignores factors that influence international actors, and that a theory is needed that expands the notion of self-interest to include the moral sphere.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 2 , March 1988, pp. 173 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

This paper is a revised version of a paper that was delivered as the first annual Charles W. Kegley Memorial Lecture at California State University-Bakersfield, on January 13, 1987. This endowed lectureship was named to honor my deceased father, for whom the newly established Kegley Institute of Ethics has been named.

References

2 Frost, Mervyn, Toward a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Banks, Michael, “The International Relations Discipline: Asset or Liability for Conflict Resolution,” in Azar, Edward E. and Burton, John W., eds., International Conflict Resolution (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1986) p. 13Google Scholar.

4 See Keohane, Robert O., ed., Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

5 See, e.g., Ashley, Richard K., “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38 (Spring 1984) pp. 225–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Cohen, Marshall, “Moral Skepticism and International Relations,” in Kipuis, Kenneth and Meyers, Diana T., eds., Political Realism and International Morality (Boulder: Westview, 1987) pp. 15–16Google Scholar.

7 Paskins, Barrie, “Obligation and the Understanding of International Relations,” in Domelan, Michael, ed., The Reason of States: A Study of International Political Theory (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978) p. 164Google Scholar.

8 Suganami, Hidemi, “A Normative Enquiry in International Relations: The Case of ‘Pacta Sunt Servanda,’” Review of International Studies 9:1 (1983) p. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Gordis, Robert, “Religion and International Responsibility,” in Thompson, Kenneth W., ed., Moral Dimensions of American Foreign Policy (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1984) p. 36Google Scholar.

10 Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951) p. 42Google Scholar.

11 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1958) p. 9Google Scholar.

12 See, e.g., Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1979)Google Scholar and Gilpin, Robert, “The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism,” International Organization 38:2 (1984) pp. 287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)Google Scholar and Lakatos, Imre, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (London: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

14 See, e.g., Mansbach, Richard W. and Vasquez, John A., In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), Maghroori, Ray and Ramberg, Bennett, eds., Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations' Third Debate (Boulder: Westview Press, 1982),Google Scholar and Beres, Louis René., Reason and Realpolitik (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company, 1984)Google Scholar.

15 See White, R.R. and Pillner, D. B., Summing Up: The Science of Reviewing Research (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

16 See Kegley, Charles W., “Observations on Legal Vis-à-Vis Moral Thought and Life,” The Personalist 51 (Winter 1971) pp. 58–84Google Scholar.

17 Matt. 7:1–2Google Scholar.

18 Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. H., The Social Psychology of Groups (New York: Wiley, 1959) p. 12Google Scholar.

19 See McGowan, Patrick J. and Shapiro, Howard B., The Comparative Study of Foreign Policy: A Survey of Scientific Findings (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1973) pp. 149–51Google Scholar, for a survey of findings emanating from scientific research that addresses this topic.

20 Phillips, Warren R. and Crain, R.C., “Dynamic Foreign Policy Interactions: Reciprocity and Uncertainty in Foreign Policy,” in Sage International Yearbook of Foreign Policy Studies 2, ed. McGowan, Patrick J. (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1974)Google Scholar.

21 Deut. 23:19–20Google Scholar.

22 Also see Raymond, Gregory A. and Skinner, Richard A., “An Extension and Replication of Findings on the Role of Third Parties in the Middle East,” International Relations 4:2 (1978) pp. 155–76Google Scholar for an investigation that finds this attribute of interaction exhibited frequently in the conflict-ridden Middle East—an arena not conducive to the practice of retaliatory restraint.

23 Triska, Jan R. and Finley, David D., “Soviet-American Relations: A Multiple Symmetry Model,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 9 (March 1965), pp. 37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., p. 38Google Scholar.

25 See Edwards, David V., Creating a New World Politics (New York: McKay, 1973) pp. 11–27Google Scholar.

26 Richardson, Neil R., “Dyadic Case Studies in the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy,” in Hermann, Charles F., Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Rosenau, James N., eds., New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987) p. 170Google Scholar.

27 See Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and Wittkopf, Eugene R., World Politics: Trend and Transformation (New York: St. Martins, 1985)Google Scholar and Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Nuclear Reader: Strategy, Weapons, War (New York: St. Martins, 1985)Google Scholar.

28 See Holloway, David, The Soviet Union and the Arms Race (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

29 Johnson, Kermit D., “The Illusion of Unilateral Security,” Christianity and Crisis (November 17, 1986) pp. 410–12Google Scholar.

30 Osgood, Charles E., An Alternative to War or Surrender (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

31 See Etzioni, Amitai, “The Kennedy Experiment,” Western Political Quarterly 20 (1967) pp. 361–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 See Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google ScholarPubMed.

33 Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, Oye, Kenneth A., ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986)Google Scholar, and Soroos, Marvin S., Beyond Sovereignty: The Challenge of Global Policy (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1986)Google Scholar.

34 Cohen, , op. cit., p. 17Google Scholar.

35 For elaboration, see Hare, J. E. and Joynt, Carey B., Ethics and International Affairs (New York: St. Martins Press, 1982) pp. 24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Gormley, W. Paul, “The Codification of Pacta Sunt Servanda by the International Law Commission: The Preservation of Classical Norms of Moral Force and Good Faith,” Saint Louis University Law Journal 14 (Spring 1970) pp. 367–428Google Scholar and Suganami, , op. cit., pp. 35–54Google Scholar. In international law these norms reflect opposing principles; see Gould, Wesley L., Introduction to International Law (New York: Harper, 1957)Google Scholar.

37 Small, Melvin and Singer, J. David, Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars, 1816–1980 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1982)Google Scholar.

38 Isard, Walter and Smith, C., Conflict Analysis and Practical Conflict Management (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1982)Google Scholar.

39 Kegley, Charles W. Jr. and Raymond, Gregory A., “Normative Constraints on the Use of Force Short of War,” Journal of Peace Research 3 (September 1986) pp. 213–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Henkin, Louis, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

41 Thompson, Kenneth, Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960) p. 130CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Fried, John H.E., “For a New Image of International Law,” Main Currents in Modern Thought (May-June 1965) pp. 106–7Google Scholar.

43 Croce, Benedetto, Politics and Morals (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945) pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

44 Cohen, , op. cit., p. 25Google Scholar.

45 See Kaplan, Morton A., “Models of International Systems,” in Coplin, William D. and Kegley, Charles W. Jr., eds., Analyzing International Relations (New York: Praeger, 1975) p. 259Google Scholar.

46 Matt. 5:44–45Google Scholar.

47 See Bainton, Roland H., Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace (New York: Abingdon, 1960)Google Scholar and Lasserre, Jean, War and the Gospel, trans. Oliver Coburn (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1962)Google Scholar for discussions of the Christian view of this topic as derived from its Hebraic origins.

48 Jervis, Robert, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30 (January 1978) pp. 167–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 David Singer, J. and Small, Melvin, “War in History and in the State of World Message,” in Coplin, William D. and Kegley, Charles W. Jr., eds., Analyzing International Relations (New York: Praeger, 1975) p. 234Google Scholar.

50 Midlarsky, Manus I., On War (New York: Free Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

51 See Weede, E., “Arms Races and Escalation: Some Persisting Doubts,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 24 (1980) pp. 285–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Richardson, Lewis F., Arms and Insecurity (Pittsburg: Boxwood Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

53 Intriligator, Michael and Brito, Dagobert L., “Arms Races Lead to the Outbreak of” Journal of Conflict Resolution 28 (1984) pp. 63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Morrow, James D., “A Twist of Truth: A Re-Examination of the Effects of Arms Races on the Occurrence of War,” presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 1984Google Scholar.

55 Singer, and Small, , op. cit.Google Scholar, and Ned Sabrosky, Alan, ed., Polarity and War: The Changing Structure oj International Conflict (Boulder: Westview Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

56 Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1988)Google Scholar.

57 In Davis, Harry R. and Good, Robert C., eds., Reinhold Niebuhr on Politics (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1960) p. 298Google Scholar.

58 Mansbach and Vasquez, op. cit., p. 14Google Scholar; see also Vasquez, John A., The Power Politics: A Critique (London: France Pinter, 1983)Google Scholar and , “Colouring It Morgenthau: New Evidence for an Old Thesis,” British Journal of International Studies 5 (October 1979) pp. 210–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Davis, and Good, , op. cit., p. 298Google Scholar.

60 Ibid., p. 252Google Scholar.

61 Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest (New York: Knopf, 1951) p. 242Google Scholar.

62 Herz, John H., Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951)Google Scholar.

63 Keohane, Robert O., “The Study of International Regimes and the Classical Tradition in International Relations,” presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, August 18–31, 1986Google Scholar.