Liberalism It has championed limited government and scientific rationality, believing individuals should be free from arbitrary state

power, persecution and superstition. It has advocated political freedom, democracy and constitutionally guaranteed rights, and privileged the liberty of the individual and equality before the law. Liberalism has also argued for individual competition in civil society and claimed that market capitalism best promotes the welfare of all by most efficiently allocating scarce resources within society. To the extent that its ideas have been realized in recent democratic

Marxism espite its weaknesses, !arxism contributes to the theory of international relations in at least four respects. "irst, historical materialism with its emphasis on production, property relations and class is an important counter#weight to realist theories which assume that the struggle for power and security determines the structure of world politics. This leads to two further points which are that !arxism has long been centrally concerned with capitalist globalization and international inequalities and that, for !arxism, the global spread of capitalism is the backdrop to the development of modern societies and the organization of their international relations. $ fourth theme, which first appeared in !arx%s critique of liberal political economy, is that explanations of the social world are never as ob&ective and innocent as they may seem. $pplied to international politics, the argument is that the analysis of basic and unchanging realities can all too easily ignore relations of power and inequality not between states but between individuals. ominant strands of !arxist thought have taken the view that one of the main functions of scholarship is to understand the principal forms of domination and to imagine a world order which is committed to reducing material inequalities. This critical orientation to world politics can no longer be simply '!arxist% in the largely superseded sense of using the paradigm of production to analyse class inequalities. (ut it can nevertheless remain true to the 'spirit of !arxism% by combining the empirical analysis of the dominant forms of power and inequality with a moral vision of a more &ust world order. This critical approach can extend beyond the analysis of capitalist globalization and rising international inequalities to the ways in which states conduct national security politics. )ne of the failings of !arxism as a source of critical international theory is its ingrained tendency to focus on the former at the expense of the latter field of inquiry. Later

chapters discuss whether other strands of critical international theory have succeeded in overcoming this limitation.

Critical theory There can be little doubt that critical international theory has made a ma&or contribution to the study of international relations. )ne of these contributions has been to heighten our awareness of the link between knowledge and politics. *ritical international theory re&ects the idea of the theorist as ob&ective bystander. Instead, the theorist is enmeshed in social and political life, and theories of international relations, like all theories, are informed by prior interests and convictions, whether they are acknowledged or not. $ second contribution critical international theory makes is to rethink accounts of the modern state and political community. Traditional theories tend to take the state for granted, but critical international theory analyses the changing ways in which the boundaries of community are formed, maintained and transformed. It not only provides a sociological account, it provides a sustained ethical analysis of the practices of inclusion and exclusion. *ritical international theory%s aim of achieving an alternative theory and practice of international relations rests on the possibility of overcoming the exclusionary dynamics associated with modern system of sovereign states and establishing a cosmopolitan set of arrangements that will better promote freedom, &ustice and equality across the globe. It is thus an attempt radically to rethink the normative foundations of global politics.

Postmodernism +ostmodernism makes several contributions to the study of international relations. "irst, through its genealogical method it seeks to expose the intimate connection between claims to knowledge and claims to political power and authority. ,econdly, through the textual strategy of deconstruction it seeks to problematize all claims to epistemological and political totalization. This holds especially significant implications for the sovereign state. !ost notably, it means that the sovereign state, as the primary mode of sub&ectivity in international relations, must be examined closely to expose its practices of capture and exclusion. !oreover, a more comprehensive account of contemporary world politics must also include an analysis of those transversal actors and movements that operate outside and across state boundaries. Thirdly, postmodernism seeks to rethink the concept of the political

without invoking assumptions of sovereignty and reterritorialization. (y challenging the idea that the character and location of the political must be determined by the sovereign state, postmodernism seeks to broaden the political imagination and the range of political possibilities for transforming international relations. These contributions seems more important than ever after the events of ,eptember --.

Feminism The three forms of feminism discussed in this chapter . empirical feminism, analytical feminism and normative feminism . all suggest that the theory and practice of international relations has suffered from its neglect of feminist perspectives. "eminists argue that conventional International /elations theories distort our knowledge of both 'relations% and the ongoing transformations of the 'international%. These International /elations theories overlook the political significance of gendered divisions of public and private institutionalized within and by the state and state#system and, as a result, ignore the political activities and activism of women0 whether they are mobilizing for war, protesting state abrogation of their rights or organizing for the international recognition of women%s human rights. !oreover, the ob&ectivist approach of much International /elations theory produces relatively superficial knowledge and tends to reproduce the dichotomies which have come to demarcate the field. These dichotomies are gendered0 they define power as power#over 'others%, autonomy as reaction rather than relational, international politics as the negation of domestic, 'soft% politics and the absence of women, and ob&ectivity as the lack of 1feminized2 sub&ectivity. In sum, approaches to international relations that fail to take gender seriously overlook critical aspects of world order and abandon a crucial opening for effecting change. "eminist International /elations contributes to expanding and strengthening existing theories and analyses including liberal, critical theory, postmodern, constructivist and green theories of international relations. "or example, International /elations feminists advance constructivist International /elations approaches by uncovering the processes through which identities and interests, not merely of states but of key social constituencies, are shaped at the global level. 3lisabeth +rugl 145552 exemplifies this feminist constructivist approach in her study of home#workers in the global political economy 1see also Locher and +rugl 455-6 7ardam 45582. +rugl 145552 shows how transnational rules and regimes of gender in international organizations such as the IL) and global solidarity networks have been powerful forces in determining the plight of these workers around the world. ,imilarly, feminist perspectives deepen the neo#9ramscian

international political economy 1I+32 stress placed on culture and ideology as an integral part of the global political economy 1*hin -::;6 Ling 455-6 True 455<2. Integrating feminist perspectives with postmodern, critical theory and constructivist approaches, represents an important strategy for engaging with other International /elations scholars. )nce we recognize the close connections between gender, ideas, identities and norms and aspects of international politics and economics, this becomes a relatively straightforward exercise. =onetheless, it is an exercise that can have important payoffs in terms of generating new insights into the processes associated with local and global transformations. >et an even more daunting task involves finding ways to alert proponents of mainstream International /elations to the illuminating effects that can come from viewing social and political processes from a gender perspective. To do this successfully, feminist scholars must be prepared to bring their theoretical and empirical strengths to bear on the study of a full range of issues, and definitely not cede key areas of study to scholars working in the realist and neo#liberal institutionalist paradigms. This agenda need not take a rationalist form, but rather, in line with feminism%s reconstructive purposes, it calls for theory#driven empirical studies and more empirically grounded normative theory that reflexively explores and defends feminist approaches to international relations. This chapter began by asking what is distinctive about a feministperspective on international relations. $lthough ?arding 1-:;@0 4A;2 has argued that no distinctive feminist methodology exists because each methodology can contribute to feminist goals this should not lead us to conclude that there is no distinctive feminist International /elations perspective. The collective contribution of the diverse range of feminist International /elations inquiry . empirical, analytical and normative . is most significantly methodological 1$ckerly, ,tern and True forthcoming2. Through ongoing collective self#reflection feminists in and outside the field of International /elations are continually adding to our empirical and normative knowledge, while advancing the tools of gender analysis. It this self#reflexivity rather than any substantive approach or theory that makes feminist International /elations distinctive. 3fforts to forge a unitary neo#feminist approach 1*aprioli 45582 or non#feminist gender standpoint 1*arpenter 45542 seek to mainstream empirical gender analysis without this self#reflexive methodology. /emoving women from analysis of gender relations and bracketing out the normative perspective that gave rise to feminism in the first place is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It results in a senseless theoretical approach with no raison dtre.

International /elations as a discipline is currently in a state where the mainstream has been shown to have ma&or blindspots with respect to social and political change. This conceptual blindness frequently leads to empirical blindness. It is not surprising then that International /elations analysts are often caught off#guard by events in world politics, most tragically those of ',eptember --%. *learly, a re#thinking of the basic assumptions of this discipline remains urgent if scholars want to understand global politics in the twenty#first century. "eminist scholarship of the sort reviewed in this chapter offers a way out of the darkness. If scholars want to gain fresh insights into the dynamics of world order, they need to take into account domestic social processes and non#elite sub&ects. "eminist perspectives reveal that, in many instances, the sites of global power and transformation are not &ust the domain of political and economic elites6 such sites also exist in the invisible, underappreciated nooks and crannies of societies. /ealist and liberal expectations about the nature of states and international relations are both disrupted when a feminist perspective is brought to bear. "eminist perspectives help us to recognize power shifts within nation#states that have ramifications for world order. ,urely, observing and interpreting such power shifts as they arise in a variety of global and local venues constitute core functions of International /elations scholarship.

Green Theory The central point of this chapter has concerned the particular way in which most 9reens re&ect the states#system, arguing primarily for decentralizing political communities below the nation#state, rather than for new forms of global political authority. This involves decentralization not only of political organization, but economic and social organization as well. They also argue for abandoning traditional sovereign systems and practices in favour of more mixed locations of authority. 9lobal ecology complements this by suggesting in rich detail how contemporary political.economic practices undermine the sustainability of human societies, and how those power structures need to be challenged to create sustainable societies. Their focus on 'reclaiming the commons% supports the decentralization argument in 9+T. The Introduction to the book 1*hapter -2 outlined some of the central questions and distinctions concerning theoretical traditions in International /elations. 9reen politics should clearly be regarded as a critical rather than problem#solving theory. It is one, however, which aims to be both explanatory and normative . it tries both to explain a certain range of phenomena and problems in global politics and provide a set of normative claims about the

sorts of global political changes necessary to respond to such problems. Briters within this tradition have to date spent less time engaging in constitutive.theoretical activity .reflecting on the nature of their theorizing per se, although there is attention, in particular among the writers in what I have called the 'global ecology% school to powerCknowledge questions 1but cf. oran -::A2. "or 9reens, the central ob&ect of analysis and scope of enquiry is the way in which contemporary human societies are ecologically unsustainable. ,uch a destructive mode of existence is deplored both because of the independent ethical value held to reside in organisms and ecosystems, and because human society ultimately depends on the successful function of the biosphere as a whole for its own survival. /egarding International /elations specifically, 9reens focus on the way in which prevailing political structures and processes contribute to this destruction.The purpose of enquiry is thus explicitly normative . to understand how global political structures can be reformed to prevent such destruction and provide for a sustainable human relationship to the planet and the rest of its inhabitants. Like idealism 1see *hapter 4 in this volume2, the normative imperative is the original impulse in 9reen politics . the explanation of environmental destruction comes later. !ethodologically, while 9reens are hostile to positivism, not least because of its historical connection to the treating of 'nature% 1including humans2 as ob&ects, purely instrumentally, there is no clearly identifiable '9reen% methodology. 3ckersley 145580 ;.-52 proposes 'critical political ecology% as a method for 9reen politics. (ut this turns out to be the method of immanent critique of "rankfurt ,chool critical theory, with an ecological focus. "inally, 9reens share with many other perspectives a re&ection of any claimed separation of International /elations from other disciplines. $s *hapter - suggests, the possibility of the emergence of a distinct 9reen perspective in International /elations has seen the breaking down of disciplinary boundaries. /egarding other International /elations traditions, 9reen politics has a number of features in common with many other critical approaches. "irst, it shares the re&ection of a hard and fast factCvalue distinction with feminism, critical theory and poststructuralism, by making clear attempts to integrate normative and explanatory concerns. Its conception of theory is clearly incompatible with positivist conceptions which have such a clear distinction. ,econdly, it shares an interest in resisting the concentration of power, the homogenizing forces in contemporary world politics and the preservation of difference and diversity with poststructuralism and feminism. Thirdly, it shares a critique of the states#system with critical theory and others, although it adopts a position which re&ects the idea of global power

structures emerging in correspondence with some idea of a 'global community% in favour of decentralizing power away from nation#states to more local levels. 1"or an account with many similarities to that of Linklater in relation to environmental politics, see Low and 9leeson -::;0 *hapter @. "or a critique of such universalist thinking along the lines of the 'global ecology% writers discussed above, see 3steva and +rakash -::@.2 Bhile for critical theorists such as Linklater 1-::;2, the idea of community at the global level is about balancing unity and diversity rather than one which wishes to create a homogeneous global identity, there is a much stronger sense in 9reen politics that community only makes sense at the very local level . the idea of a 'global community% is for 9reens nonsensical, if not potentially totalitarian 13steva and +rakash -::@2. =evertheless, there is a shared sense that the purpose of theory is to promote emancipation 1LaferriDre -::E6 LaferriDre and ,toett -:::2. $llied to this normative re&ection of the states#system is a re&ection of a clear empirical split between domestic and international politics shared in particular with pluralists such as Fohn (urton, but also with !arxists, critical theorists and feminists. 9reens would not think it useful therefore to think for example in terms of 'levels of analysis%, a form of thinking still prevalent in realism, as it arbitrarily divides up arenas of political action which should be seen as fundamentally interconnected. "inally, there is a clear focus on political economy, and the structural inequality inherent in modern capitalist economies also focused on by !arxists and dependency theorists. ?owever, in contrast in particular to poststructuralism, it shares to an extent an element of modernist theorizing, in the sense that 9reens are clearly trying to understand the world in order to make it possible to improve it. "or ?ovden 1-:::2, this makes it more compatible with "rankfurt ,chool#type critical theory and feminism than with poststructuralism, as these both have a clear emancipatory normative goal, and in particular a clearer sense that their explanations or interpretations of the world are connected to a clear political pro&ect. This is linked to poststructuralism%s re&ection of foundationalism, which marks a clear difference from 9reen politics which necessarily relies on fairly strong foundational claims, of both the epistemological and ethical variety. ?owever, this argument should not be pushed too far, as there are also tensions with the way in which critical theory tries to reconstruct 3nlightenment rationality. 3ckersley, for example 1-::40 *hapter A2, makes much of attempts by ?abermas in particular 1she contrasts ?abermas to !arcuse2 to reclaim science for radical political purposes, suggesting that it necessarily ends up &ustifying human domination of nature. I would ultimately concur with !antle 1-:::2, who argues that the closest connections which 9reen theory has to other approaches in International /elations are to feminism. 9reen theory therefore clearly has its own distinctive perspective. The focus

on humanity.nature relations and the adoption of an ecocentric ethic with regard to those relations, the focus on limits to growth, the particular perspective on the destructive side of development and the focus on decentralization away from the nation#state are all unique to 9reen politics. This chapter has illustrated how the purpose of 9reen theory within International /elations is to provide an explanation of the ecological crisis facing humanity, to focus on that crisis as possibly the most important issue for human societies to deal with, and to provide a normative basis for dealing with it.