Search

Hospitality is rarely discussed as a concept in international politics though it can be seen as an obvious practice of ethics in this context. Yet hospitality is full of contradictions and aporias. This paper argues that such aproias require what Derrida calls 'negotiation', the non-rule governed, context-specific practice of oscillating between equally imperative injunctions before deciding in a way that tries to close least toward difference. The paper examines the EU's discourse of an ethical foreign policy of hospitality through enlargement between 1999-2004. It suggests that an illustration of what might have been possible through negotiation, perhaps, is a reconceptualisation of Turkish accession to the EU. While the current debate on Turkish accession differs over whether Turkey is European enough for entry, this paper argues that a negotiation of hospitality could mean Turkey is allowed entry precisely as different, as other, as not European.While the debate on Turkish accession is rarely made in ethical terms, reconceiving it as a matter of ethics, hospitality and negotiation could lead to an accelerated accession for the EU's Turkish other. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the 1940s both Carl Schmitt and Hans J. Morgenthau contemplated the destruction of the old European states-system. Schmitt's major work in this connection is The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, first published in 1950, (first English ed. 2003) but written in the early 1940s; Morgenthau wrote extensively on the subject, but the text that will form the focus of this paper is "The Twilight of International Morality" drawn from Politics among Nations and published in Ethics in January 1948. Although the language employed is very different, and Schmitt's emphasis on the spatial dimension of the European international order is largely absent in Morgenthau, there are striking points of agreement between these two German legal philosophers whose personal histories were so different; they agree in regarding the "bracketing" of war as a duel between sovereigns, characteristic of the old order, as the most effective basis for restraints on the use of force, and agree that in the current international order these restraints have been undermined. They disagree dramatically, however, when it comes to the reasons for this change; for Schmitt, it is the universalism and liberalism of the new internationa law associated with the US and, to a lesser extent, Britain that undermined the old European order, while for Morgenthau it is the combination of universalism and nationalism that has been crucial in challenging the universal ethics of the old order. Schmitt?s account is obviously self-serving but it has some resonance in terms of 21st century international politics, especially with respect to contemporary critiques of Western 'humanitarianism'; Morgenthau's account appears on the face of it to be rather less sophisticated than Schmitt's, but, arguably, actually goes deeper to the roots of the problem. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Amongst Americans, it has often been argued that, because it does not formally extend its territory, the US does not exhibit the same injustices and dysfunctionality as the old (notably European colonial) empires. William Appleman Williams' critique of America's imperialism as 'a way of life' is a highly influential counterclaim. According to him, imperialism is a posture with regard to others, and that posture is built into the American political order regardless of sovereign territorial expansion in the eyes of the international order of states. On this account, America's 'imperialism' pre-dates the appearance of the US on the international global stage in the 20th century. It is, however, the New World expression of conceptions of power, good order and the legitimacy of institutionalized force originating in thoroughly European values, notably those of the Enlightenment. 'J'accuse, je m'accuse.', one might then respond to Europeans inclined to tut-tut at US actions in the world. European and American ways of thinking have been equally 'imperialist' in a pejorative sense, even though it is the USA that, since the middle of the 20th century, has put such thinking into practice. Williams' prima facie appealing argument against American imperialism raises two kinds of issues for Europeans: *As regards the analysis of empires, it suggests that the difference between the 20th-century occurrence of imperialism centred on the Western side of the Atlantic and its disappearance on the European side should be explained by the circumstances that obtained in the two locations. For their power practices have been fundamentally the same. Empires have arisen where Western-type centres of rule have met weak opposition from those over whom they were in a position to extend their power.*As regards avoiding the potential evils of imperialism, Williams' argument suggests that we must pay closer attention to the make-up and the manner of power, rather than its formal territorial extent. That implication should give gung-ho Europeans pause for thought. If imperialism lies deep within the Western soul, then Europe should beware that its own does not sneak back into effect - for example, in the form of the EU's purportedly benign suzerainty over the western end of the Eurasian continent.I conclude that, if they are to put themselves forward as critics of the US Empire, Europeans must operate with a highly tuned sense of their own identity and its relation to that of America and American imperialism. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]