International ethics

International relations theory
Realism Neoclassical realism Neorealism (structural realism) Classical realism Offensive realism Defensive realism Liberal realism (English School) Relative gains Absolute gains Strategic realism
Liberalism Idealism Democratic peace theory Republican liberalism Institutionalism Neoliberalism Interdependence liberalism Sociological liberalism Institutional liberalism
Constructivism Modern constructivism Post-modern constructivism Feminist constructivism
Marxism Neo-Gramscianism Critical security studies Critical theory
Other theories Anarchy International political economy Feminism Green theory Hegemonic stability theory World-systems theory The English school The Copenhagen School Functionalism (Neofunctionalism) Post modernism Postcolonialism
Classifications Critical theory Dependency theory Postpositivism Rationalism Reflectivism "Great Debates" Inter-paradigm debate
Other approaches International ethics Historical sociology Regime theory State cartel theory Geopolitics
Politics portal

International ethics is an area of international relations theory which concerns the extent and scope of ethical obligations between states in an era of globalization. Schools of thought include cosmopolitanism and anti-cosmopolitanism.^[1] Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism are ethical traditions that conceptually address moral issues in international relations.

Realism

Realism’s position is that ethics are secondary, or inapplicable to the affairs of international politics and believes in the primacy of self-interest over moral principle. The pursuit of self-interest by states is viewed as a right, or duty, making it a principle for Realists to uphold.^[2] From their standpoint, the international environment is perpetually anarchic and competitive over resources. There is no overarching authority over states. Without a superior power to enforce order, ethics do not sustain in international affairs. Out of necessity, “international conditions compel states to defend their interests by frequently immoral means, and this compulsion of self-defense dissolves moral duties.”^[3] It would be considered unethical by the principle of pursuing self-interest, for a state to compromise its goal for power and security.

References

↑ Baylis, Smith and Owens, The Globalisation of World Politics, OUP, 4th ed, Ch 11
↑ Nardin and Mapel, Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge Studies in International Relations), Ch 4
↑ Nardin and Mapel, Traditions of International Ethics (Cambridge Studies in International Relations), Ch 4

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, December 16, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.