0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
153 vues3 pages
The document discusses three traditions of thought around order in world politics:
1) The Hobbesian tradition views international politics as a state of war between states pursuing their own interests without moral restrictions.
2) The Kantian tradition sees the potential for a community of mankind where states cooperate and share common interests.
3) The Grotian tradition views international politics as taking place within an international society of states bound by common rules and institutions, with both cooperative and competitive elements.
The document discusses three traditions of thought around order in world politics:
1) The Hobbesian tradition views international politics as a state of war between states pursuing their own interests without moral restrictions.
2) The Kantian tradition sees the potential for a community of mankind where states cooperate and share common interests.
3) The Grotian tradition views international politics as taking place within an international society of states bound by common rules and institutions, with both cooperative and competitive elements.
The document discusses three traditions of thought around order in world politics:
1) The Hobbesian tradition views international politics as a state of war between states pursuing their own interests without moral restrictions.
2) The Kantian tradition sees the potential for a community of mankind where states cooperate and share common interests.
3) The Grotian tradition views international politics as taking place within an international society of states bound by common rules and institutions, with both cooperative and competitive elements.
1. The Hobbesian or realist tradition: which views of international politics as a state of war 2. The Kantian or universalist tradition: which sees at work in international politics a potential community of mankind 3. The Grotian or internationalist tradition: which views international politics as taking place within an international society. He talks about the differences between these three groups. 1) The Hobbesian tradition describes international relations as a state of war of all against all. Pure conflict between states and resemble a game that is wholly distribution or zero sum: the interests of each state exclude the interests of any other. The Peace is a period of recuperation(toparlama) from the last war and preperation fort he nex. The interests of each state exclude the interests of any other. The state is free to purseu its goals in relations to other states without moral or legal restrictions(snrlama) of any kind. The only rules or principles may limit the behavior of the states are rules of prudence and expediency. 2) In the Kantian tradition the natre of international politics lie in the trans-national social bonds that link the individual human beings who are the subjects or citizens of states. The relation among all men in the community of mankind. Within the community of all mankind, the interest of all men are one and the same. International politics considered from this perspective is not a purely distributive or zero-sum game, but a purely cooperative or non-zero game. It is a purely cooperative or a non-zero sum game. The interests of all people are the same.
In contrast to the Hobbesian conception, there are moral
imperatives in the field of international relations that limits the actions of states. The community of mankind is the end or object of the highest moral endeavour(aba). 3) The Crotian or international tradition describes international politics in terms of society of states or international society. States are not engaged in simple struggle, but are limited in their conflicts with one another by common rules and institutions. As like Hobbesian tradition, sovereigns or states are the principal reality in international politics: the intermadiate members of international society are states rather than individual human beings. It express neither complite conflict of interest nor complete identity of interest: it resembles(benzemek) a gamet hat is partly distributive but also partly productive. Trade: or economic and social intercourse between one country and another. All states, in their dealings with one another are bounds by the rules and institutions of the society they form. They are bound by imperatives of morality and law. There were three pattern of thought 1) Thinkers like Machiavelli, Bacon and Hobbes saw the emerging states as confronting one another in the social and moral vacuum left by the receding respublica Christiana. 2 )Other one papal and imperialist writers fought a rearguard action on behalf of the ideas of the universal authority of Pope and Emperor. 3) Third group thinkers relying upon the tradition of natural law, the possibility that the princes now making themselves supreme over local rivals and independent of outside authorities were nevertheless bound by common interests rules. In the 18th and 19th centuries references to Christendom or to divine law as cementing the society of states declined and disappeared. References to Europe took their place.
The international society conceived by theorists of this period was identified as
European rather than Christian in its values and cultures.
Cordero, Nestor-Luis-Parmenides, Venerable and Awesome. Plato, Theaetetus 183e - Proceedings of The International Symposium-Parmenides Publishing (2014)