Morals in Political Thought: The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger Dmitry Pobedash Ural State University

Realism in IR Theory Predominant paradigm Self-definition: Description of reality as it is Vs. Daydreaming of utopians, moralists

Hard Core of Realism IR mean anarchy and conflicts Actors – rational sovereign states States’ main concern – national interests Interests are defined in terms of power Necessity and reason of state trump morality and ethics

Georg Schwarzenberger ( ) Das Völkerbunds Mandat für Palestina 1934 – fled to England (№3333) 1941 – Power Politics (3 rd -1964) Interdisciplinary approach to international studies Derive knowledge from analysis of state practice as expressed in legal documents

Morals in Politics (GS) 1)“Denial of the existence of an international morality” (Machiavelli) 2)Denial of “any difference in kind between the moral obligations incumbent upon individuals and states” (Kant) 3)Different moral rules applicable to states and to individuals (Hegel)

Colleagues R. Niebuhr –Politicians may be immoral internationally as their first moral obligation is to their own people –Strong must rule to overcome anarchy E. Carr –Morality can only be relative, not universal –Ethics is function of politics

GS himself Main concern not with the role “morality ought to play…as with the moral rules which are actually or else professed to be applied” “Judging from State practice [politics are] imbued with ethical conceptions and maxims”, “international morality…is a reality”

Is there an International Morality? There are “moral norms common to all civilized nations” In a system of power politics both international law and international morality are partially subservient and partially irrelevant Frequent appeals to moral standards have utility value

Evolution of Morality in IR “in the period of absolutism” coincides with morality of the ruler “when the people asserted their right of control in foreign policy” appears a split between individual and national morality preservation and interest of state become the main consideration of foreign policy

Functions of International Morality Masks interests of power politics –serves “as a keen and powerful weapon against potential and actual adversaries” Justifies state actions for its citizens –it’d be hard for states to mobilize citizens “without resort to some brand of ideology, borrowed from the realms of ethics”

Functions of International Morality Moderates actual policies –Constant lip-service to morality sometimes forces governments “to refine their methods in order to escape an over-brutal violation of the standards of international morality” Shapes international law –used to strengthen shaky legal positions –state practice leads to “reception of international morality by international law”

Functions of International Morality Interests become secondary to moral values Influence of international morality exceeds that of international law

Problem! International society co-exists with ~60 Leviathans Every Leviathan appropriates the undivided loyalty of individuals Result: Individual moral values same – community? BUT! Egoistic national interests trump common good

Realism Stops, Utopia Begins Society vs. Community – “no halfway house” Community – solidarity (common interests, law of coordination) Society – war (clashing interests, law of reciprocity) What can unite?

The Answer Democracy (Anglo-Saxon) Social justice Christianity!

Future? 1941 – community based on Christian values 1951 – “Atlantic Union”, international federation of Western democracies 1960s – despair Now – still power politics?