Realist Theory and the Ethic of Responsibility

概要

論文の詳細を見る
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the methodologies of five key modern exponents of realism: E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, Kenneth Waltz and Stanley Hoffmann. I explore the significance of each author's version of realism, focusing on the problems of: (1) understanding of the intentions of the actors; (2) explanation of causal relations; and (3) ethical judgments of human action.First, Morgenthau and Aron differ considerably on their definition of theory. While Morgenthau sees in the quest for power the essence of all politics, Aron starts with the specific features of international relations, the state of war. Moreover, while Morgenthau attempts to give meaning to the factual raw material of foreign policy by using rational elements, such as national interests, Aron seeks to show both the limits of our knowledge and the conditions of historical choice. Morgenthau states, "to search for the clue to foreign policy exclusively in the motives of statesman is both futile and deceptive." However, Aron attaches greater importance to understanding meaning, or the gap between actors' intentions and consequences.This difference in approach is made clearer by second-generation realists like Waltz and Hoffmann. While Morgenthau illuminates the moral problems in statecraft, Waltz pays no attention to the actor's dilemma. While Aron views international relations as the interactions of symbolic individuals, the diplomat and the soldier, Hoffmann attempts to study also nonstate actors which behave as if they had autonomy. Paying little attention to the gap between the superpowers' intentions and their consequences, Waltz insists on the durability of the bipolar system. On the other hand, emphasizing the diffusion of power in the international landscape, Hoffmann advocates the "world order" as a public philosophy. His theory is also an encouraging message to citizens.Second, on the relations between international systems and actors, Aron-Hoffmann and Waltz differ remarkably. Aron characterizes international systems by the configuration of the relations of forces and the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the states. Waltz, however, criticizes him for mingling elements at the unit level with elements at the system level. For Waltz, the states are fungible entities, comparable to Durkheim's individuals. International systems are forces whose origin is not the individual states but its collectivity, forces which are the real, and the determining causes of stability and war. Following Durkheim's rule of sociological method, Waltz believes that a single cause brings the same consequence. On the other hand, Aron's causal thinking is expressed in terms of probability or chance. In other words, what remains undetermined is what interests him most. Aron and Hoffmann believe that in human affairs necessity itself is of man's own making, although hisory may well be governed by forces beyond man's control.Third, accepting the Weber's ethic of responsibility, each realist has different criteria for judging human action. As Michael Smith points out, the ethic of responsibility says nothing about how the leader weighs consequences, speaking only to his ability and willingness to face them. Carr and Morgenthau's concept of morality was proved inappropriate by reality. Carr's intuitionism, which was buttressed by his deterministic view of history, was to support the appeasement policy toward Hitler. Morgenthau's national interest was misunderstood by decision makers in Washington as a criteria which supported the resistance against the expansion of communism in all its forms.It was Aron who correctly modified their criteria. He points out that realists fail to recognize the action of ideologies. According to Aron,
一般財団法人日本国際政治学会の論文

Realist Theory and the Ethic of Responsibility

スポンサーリンク

概要

一般財団法人日本国際政治学会 | 論文

スポンサーリンク

Realist Theory and the Ethic of Responsibility

スポンサーリンク

概要

一般財団法人 日本国際政治学会 | 論文

スポンサーリンク

一般財団法人日本国際政治学会 | 論文