• Alexander Astrov


The task now is to relate Oakeshott’s analysis of human conduct to that of international society so as to arrive at an idea of world politics. The classical approach, while enlisting the support of Oakeshott for the defence of its version of international society against the international system of rationalism, also distances itself from the ‘critical’ investigations of world society. In so doing, it appeals to Oakeshott’s rejection of cosmopolitanism. However, cosmopolitan options are not exhausted by the idea of a global state. An idea of tradition compatible with Oakeshott’s analysis may be, first, much more ‘critical’ than the classics would have it, and second, may be interpreted as a kind of world society.


International Society Classical Approach International Relation International System Public Reasoning 
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.
    Cf.: S. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996) and Political Order in Changing Societies (Yale University Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf.: A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society (London: Routledge, 1992); H. Bull and A. Watson, (eds) The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984); B. Buzan and R. Little, ‘Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism Meets History’, European Journal of International Relations, 1996, 4: 403–38; J. Charvet, ‘The Idea of an International Ethical Order’, Studies in Political Thought, 1992, 1: 59–72. All these ‘concentric’ images of world order are conceptualized on the margins of the English School by J. Der Derian in his On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement (London: Blackwell, 1987) and R. Epp, ‘The English School on the Frontiers of International Society: A Hermeneutic Recollection’, Review of International Studies, 1998, Special Issue: 47–63.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Cox, ‘Thinking about civilizations’, Review of International Studies, 2000: 217–34.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Lipschutz, ‘Politics Among People: Global Civil Society Reconsidered’, in H.H. Hobbs (ed.) Pondering Postinternationalism: A Paradigm for the Twenty-First Century (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000): 94.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979): 80.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf.: J. Grieco, ‘Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism’, International Organization, 1988, 42: 485–507.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cf.: R. Keohane, ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond’ in his edn, Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf.: A. Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, 1992, 46: 391–425.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    O. O’Neill, ‘Bounded and Cosmopolitan Justice’, Review of International Studies, 2000, 26: 45–6.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    J. Charvet, ‘International Society from a Contractarian Perspective’, in D. Mapel and T. Nardin (eds) International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998): 130.Google Scholar
  11. 21.
    J. Charvet, The Idea of an Ethical Community (London: Cornell University Press, 1995): 5–6. The Realism Charvet has in mind here is philosophical rather than political.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    Ibid.: 119.Google Scholar
  13. 23.
    Ibid.: 118–20.Google Scholar
  14. 24.
    Ibid.: 122.Google Scholar
  15. 28.
    A. Linklater, ‘Men and Citizens in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 1981, 7: 37.Google Scholar
  16. 33.
    Bull, Anarchical Society: 24–7; ‘The Importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations’, in H. Bull, B. Kingsbury and A. Roberts (eds) Hugo Grotius and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); ‘The Grotian Conception of International Society’, in Diplomatic Investigations. Google Scholar
  17. 34.
    E. Ringmar, ‘On the Ontological Status of the State’, European Journal of International Relations, 1996, 2: 448.Google Scholar
  18. 35.
    E. Ringmar, ‘The relevance of international law: a Hegelian interpretation of a peculiar seventeenth-century preoccupation’, Review of International Studies, 1995, 21: 97.Google Scholar
  19. 37.
    R. Ashley, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly, 1981, 2: 211.Google Scholar
  20. 38.
    Ibid.: 234.Google Scholar
  21. 39.
    R. Ashley, ‘The poverty of neorealism’, International Organization, 1984, 38: 225–61.Google Scholar
  22. 40.
    R. Ashley, ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives, 1987, XII: 429.Google Scholar
  23. 41.
    Ibid.: 406.Google Scholar
  24. 42.
    Ibid.: 408.Google Scholar
  25. 43.
    R. Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Post-structuralism and War’, in J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro (eds) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (New York: Lexington, 1989): 309.Google Scholar
  26. 53.
    G. Santayana, ‘The Philosophy of Travel’, The Virginia Quarterly Review, 1964, 40: 7–8.Google Scholar
  27. 54.
    C. Taylor, ‘The hermeneutics of conflict’, in J. Tully (ed.) Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988): 225–8.Google Scholar
  28. 57.
    J. Shklar, ‘Rethinking the Past’, Social Research, 1977, 44: 80.Google Scholar
  29. 59.
    Cf.: M. Donelan, ‘Political Theorists and International Relations’, in his The Reason of States: A Study in International Political Theory (London: Allen & Unwin, 1978) and Elements of International Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  30. 60.
    H.-G. Gadamer, ‘The Continuity of History and the Existential Moment’, Philosophy Today, 1972, 16: 237.Google Scholar
  31. 61.
    Ibid.: 234–9.Google Scholar
  32. 62.
    For MacIntyre’s argument see After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (London: Duckworth, 1985); Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (London: Duckworth, 1988); Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy and Tradition (London: Duckworth, 1990).Google Scholar
  33. 63.
    A. MacIntyre, Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues? (Chicago: Open Court, 1999): 142. In this work, MacIntyre does not use the word ‘tradition’. However, the one he does use, ‘the network of giving and receiving’, accords well both with the etymology of traditio and his earlier writings on ‘tradition’.Google Scholar
  34. 64.
    Ibid.: 132–3.Google Scholar
  35. 65.
    Ibid.: 143.Google Scholar
  36. 66.
    Gadamer, ‘Notes on Planning for the Future’, Dcedatus, 1966: 589.Google Scholar
  37. 67.
    Ibid.: 589.Google Scholar
  38. 68.
    Ibid.: 587.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Alexander Astrov 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Astrov
    • 1
  1. 1.Central European UniversityHungary

Personalised recommendations