Abstract
The mind of Edmund Burke challenges all those who enter into the “great mine”1 of his work. His writings and speeches have had a profound and lasting legacy, resonating beyond the events and crises which characterised the late eighteenth century, and giving rise to numerous and often contending interpretations. As one scholar of Burke puts it, one “need only mention his name today to suggest an attitude, a stance, an entire world view”.2 The great range and depth of Burke’s thinking is matched by the vast scholarly literature which exists on various aspects of his political thought: the British Constitution, the role of political parties and the nature of representation, the British Empire, and the French Revolution. In addition, we now have the benefit of a comprehensive and up-to-date biography of Burke’s life, compiled by one of his greatest admirers.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
R.J. Vincent, “Edmund Burke and the theory of international relations”, Review of International Studies, vol. 10 (1984), pp. 205–18 (p. 206).
Isaac Kramnick, The Rage of Edmund Burke (New York, 1977), p. xi. 3. Connor Cruise O’Brien, The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography of Edmund Burke (London, 1993).
Vilho Harle, “Burke the International Theorist — or the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness” in European Values in International Relations (London, 1990), pp. 58–79 (p. 59).
David Boucher, “The character of the history of the philosophy of international relations and the case of Edmund Burke”, Review of International Studies, vol. 17 (1991), pp. 127–48 (p. 140).
Martin Wight, “Why is there no International Theory?”, in Diplomatic Investigations, edited by H. Butterfield and M. Wight (London, 1966), pp. 17–34 (p. 17).
Martin Wight, 0436 Systems of States, edited by Hedley Bull (Leicester, 1977), p. 153.
According to Raymond Aron, a homogeneous international system is one in which states observe the same principle of domestic legitimacy. A heterogeneous system is one in which states are organised according to different principles of legitimacy and appeal to often contradictory values. See Peace and War (London, 1966), p. 100. This notion of homogeneity has been invoked more recently by Fred Halliday in “The Sixth Great Power’: on the study of revolution and international relations”, Review of International Studies, vol. 16 (1990), pp. 217–19.
Henry Kissinger, A World Restored (London, 1957), p. 1. Andreas Osiander forwards a definition which combines substantive and procedural elements. He defines international legitimacy as “the consensus existing in the international system on the structures and procedures of that system.” See “Peacemaking and International Legitimacy: Stability and Consensus in the States System of Europe”, D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University, 1991, p. 14. For Osiander, structural principles determine the identity and relative status of the international actors, as well as the distribution of territories between them; procedural rules refer to the way relations between the actors are conducted (p. 11).
Primacy or World Order: American Foreign Policy since the Cold War (New York, 1978), p. 39. Hoffmann’s own procedural conception of legitimacy is reflected in his idea of the “law of the political framework”: the “network of agreements” which define the conditions and rules of the political game among states. See Hoffmann, “International Systems and International Law”, in The International System: Theoretical Essays, edited by Klaus Knorr and Sidney Verba (Princeton, 1961), pp. 205–238 (pp. 212–13).
This phrase was used by Leopold von Ranke to characterise the Italian city-state system in the fifteenth century. Cited in E.V. Gulick, Europe’s Classical Balance of Power (New York, 1967), p. 11
For a further examination of Wight’s definition of international theory, see Brian Porter, “Martin Wight’s International Theory’”, in The Reason of States, edited by Michael Donelan (London, 1978), pp. 64–74 (p. 69).
Wight, International Theory, pp. 7–24. Wight’s categories are elaborated by Hedley Bull in “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations”, British Journal of International Studies, vol. 2 (1976), pp. 101–116.
William Cobbett, Political Register, 8 June 1816, cited in Raymond Williams, Culture and Society: 1780–1950 (Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 38.
Sir Lewis Namier, “The Character of Burke”, The Spectator, December 19, 1958, pp. 895–96. Namier’s scepticism is shared by Frank O’Gorman in Edmund Burke: His Political Philosophy (London, 1973), p. 13. For a critique of the Namier position, see O’Brien, op.cit, pp. xxxii–lx.
Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Introduction to Selected Letters of Edmund Burke (Chicago, 1984), p. 2.
C.P. Courtney, Montesquieu and Burke (Oxford, 1963), p. ix.
Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics (London, 1962), p. 93.
For a brief introduction to the main ideas of conservatism, see Gordon Graham, Politics in its Place (Oxford, 1986), p. 172.
Stanley Ayling, Edmund Burke: His Life and Opinions (London, 1988), p. xv.
Michael Freeman, Edmund Burke and the Critique of Political Radicalism (Oxford, 1980), p. 4.
The most useful introduction to the debate is Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics, edited by James Tully (Cambridge, 1988). See also Richard Ashcraft, “The Changing Foundations of Contemporary Political Theory”, Political Power and Social Theory, vol. 6 (1987), pp. 27–56.
Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas”, History and Theory, vol. 8 (1969), pp. 3–53, reprinted in Tully, op.cit., pp. 29–67.
Ibid., p. 65. In formulating this critique, Skinner singles out the work of political theorist Leo Strauss, whose conventional chronology of classic texts is alleged to constitute an “inherited pattern” of political thought. The criteria for this historic tradition are based on what Strauss refers to as the “unchanging framework” of perennial issues and problems. See What is Political Philosophy? (Glencoe, 1959), pp. 228–29. A further critique of Strauss is offered by John G. Gunnell in “The Myth of a Tradition”, American Political Science Review, vol. 32, no. 1 (1978), pp. 122–34.
Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought: vol. I (Cambridge, 1978), p. x.
Following the work of Thomas Kuhn, Pocock suggests that a philosopher’s work must be viewed as an act of communication within a certain linguistic “paradigm”. See Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition (Chicago, 1970), Chapter Five.
See Gordon J. Schochet, “Quentin Skinner’s Method”, Political Theory, vol. 2, no. 3 (1974), pp. 261–77 (p. 264).
Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli (Oxford, 1981), p. 88.
See Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, 1976).
Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism: The Doctrine ofRaison d’Etat and its Place in Modern History, translated by D. Scott (London, 1957), p. 21.
Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach”, in Contending Approaches to International Politics, edited by Klaus Knorr and James Rosenau (Princeton, 1969), pp. 20–38. Bull defines the classical school as “the approach to theorising that derives from philosophy, history and law, and that is characterised above all by explicit reliance on the exercise of judgment.” (p. 20).
Paul Hindson and Tim Grey, Burke’s Dramatic Theory of Politics (Aldershott, 1988), pp. 4–5.
Christopher Reid, Edmund Burke and the Practice of Political Writing (Dublin, 1985), p. 12. P.J. Marshall and Glyndwr Williams also observe this tendency for eighteenth century thinkers to be “men of universal knowledge” rather than specialized members of distinct intellectual disciplines. See The Great Map of Mankind: British Perceptions of the World in the Age of the Enlightenment (London, 1982), p. 299.
T.W. Copeland, Our Eminent Friend Edmund Burke (New Haven, 1949), pp. 5–6.
Reid, op.cit., p. 97. See also J. Steven Watson, “Parliamentary Procedure as a Key to the Understanding of Eighteenth Century Politics”, Burke Newsletter, vol. III, no. 4 (1962), p. 108.
James Joll, Britain and Europe: Pitt to Churchill 1793–1940 (Oxford, 1950), p. 25.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1995 Jennifer M. Welsh
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Welsh, J.M. (1995). Introduction. In: Edmund Burke and International Relations. St Antony’s. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230374829_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230374829_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39230-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37482-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)