• Antonio Franceschet


Liberals disagree on the nature and purposes of reforming politics. This applies not simply to politics within states and societies but among and across them. Certainly there has always been disagreement in the history of liberalism on the “international problem,” that is, anarchy, hostility, and war among states. However, this disagreement is much more profound and important than is conventionally thought. This is because the divisions within liberalism and its internationalist form are exacerbated and complicated by recent global developments and changes. A traditional concern with how best to manage and improve relations among states is now being challenged and is in crisis.1 There is a growing sense—among some at least-that it is time to go beyond this limited, statist agenda and instead reform and transform a far wider array of political relationships among a plurality of actors, state and nonstate, public and private, national, regional, and local. In short, what is needed is not mere international reform but a global reform project aimed at democratizing the emerging structures, processes, and institutions of global governance.


North American Free Trade Agreement International Politics Political Reform Sovereign State Global Justice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Stanley Hoffmann, “The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism,” Foreign Policy 98 (1995): 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. See also James L. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Charles W. Kegley Jr., “The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction,” in Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, ed. Charles W. Kegley Jr. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 1–14Google Scholar
  4. Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles of a Post-Cold War World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991)Google Scholar
  6. see William I. Robinson, Promoting Polyarchy: Globalization, US Intervention and Hegemony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    James N. Rosenau, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a Turbulent World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 5.
    Richard Devetak and Richard Higgott, “Justice Unbound? Globalization, States, and the Transformation of the Social Bond,” International Affairs 75, 3 (1999): 485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Richard Falk, “The Pursuit of International Justice: Present Dilemmas and an Imagined Future,” Journal of International Affairs 52, 2 (1999): 421.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Avon Books, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Andrew Moravcsik, “Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics,” International Organization 51, 4 (1997): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 8.
    David Long, “Conclusion: Inter-War Idealism, Liberal Internationalism, and Contemporary International Theory,” in Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis, eds. David Long and Peter Wilson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 302–328Google Scholar
  13. Michael W Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1997).Google Scholar
  14. Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    see Mark F. N. Franke, Global Limits: Immanuel Kant, International Relations, and Critique in World Politics (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 2.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    Cf. Kimberly Hutchings, Kant, Critique and Politics (London: Routledge, 1996).Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    In this respect, I am less convinced than Georg Cavallar about the extent to which Kantian antinomies and dichotomies are resolved in the realm of politics and practical reason. See his Kant and the Theory and Practice of International Right (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    See in particular David Held, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
  19. Daniele Archibugi, “Cosmopolital Democracy,” New Left Review second series, 4 (2000): 137–150.Google Scholar
  20. 14.
    See Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions (London: Leicester University Press, 1991)Google Scholar
  21. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 15.
    Thomas W. Pogge, “Kant’s Theory of Justice,” Kant-Studien 79, 4 (1988): 407–408.Google Scholar
  23. 16.
    Pierre Laberge, “Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations,” in International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed. David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 83–102.Google Scholar
  24. 17.
    Thomas W. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” Ethics 103, 1 (1992): 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thomas W. Pogge, Realizing Rawls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 216.Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    Fernando R. Tesón, “Kantian International Liberalism,” in International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed., David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 103.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Antonio Franceschet 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franceschet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations