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 ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite growing evidence suggesting that interethnic trust relations are central to understanding inter-ethnic relations, the phenomenon has been understudied and the political factors that contribute to the generation of inter-ethnic trust and distrust have been underdeveloped. In this paper, I attempt to address this gap in the literature by utilizing unique data from a household survey in predominantly ethnic Uzbek communities in the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan. Through focusing on ethnic Uzbek trust attitudes towards the titular nationalities of these two states (ethnic Kyrgyz and Tajiks respectively), several alternative explanations are controlled. My analysis finds that two political variables, trust in excluded ethnic politicians and trust in legal institutions, have a significant and dramatic effect on Uzbek trust in the titular group. These findings strongly suggest that institutional rules and norms can greatly facilitate or impede the generation of cross-ethnic trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at the way in English school work interacts with what is labelled here as ‘international ethics’. This aims to explore a distinction between the kind of ethical and normative theorising that is characteristic of the English school and the ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) report fails to fully engage the ethical and political dilemmas of alternative concepts of 'responsibility'. The R2P report focuses on strategic benefits of intervention: suffering at the margins of power is implied to be worth addressing only because, if left unchecked, it can produce a threat to the 'civilized' world. Moreover, the R2P report thinly veils a narrative of metaphysical duty reminiscent of colonialism by asserting that there are circumstances in which states have a duty to protect those who have no right to expect that protection. A closer examination of the report's intellectual links to the just war tradition shows that its arguments rely on an obscured set of meta-ethical premises. The way the report's authors seem to conceptualize concepts like 'responsibility', 'obligation', and 'justification' restricts and cheapens the vision they offer for a 'responsible' form of global politics. This paper draws from feminist and postcolonial theorizations of 'global ethics' to critique the R2P concept's privileging of knowing, benevolent, Western decision-makers as those whose task it is to decide which duties must be acted upon and when. By emphasizing the elements of accountability and answerability that are essential parts of the concept of responsibility, it is possible to imagine a new and transformative mode of engagement where global actors would commit to the engaged justification of their actions and truly take responsibility for their failings. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper brings out the important connections between ethics and the most basic prerequisites to international communication needed in order to effect and maintain a peaceful and more secure world. The moral perspective, in contrast to the aesthetic and the economic perspectives, commences from the idea of moral worth and the entities that possess it. The basis for the moral perspective is that moral persons have a special sort of value, some would say dignity, that non-persons do not. To adopt a moral perspective toward other people requires that one be willing (indeed, obliged) to consider them as having a moral worth equal to one’s own, and with an equally valuable subjective point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between Global Ethics and International Politics: Can the Claims of the poor be voiced? This paper looks at the debates that are taking place since the end of the Cold War in the international arena about ethics. The initial discussions of the role of ethics in international relations set the agenda for a new thinking about the relations of actors and organizations within the international system. Gradually some of these discussions developed into debates about global ethics to address issues identified under rubric of global justice such as poverty, global disease, and of course most recently the climate change. In most of these debates the concern has been to engage with people who are considered to be vulnerable and mostly in developing countries. In number of disciplines these concerns are expressed in various conceptual frameworks informing policy articulations. For instance in IR the debates on Humanitarianism, in developmental economics and development studies in general discussions on capabilities, on participation have been taking place as well as policy initiatives such as the UK Prime Minister’s the commission for Africa initiative. The paper asks two questions: whether there has been a change at the level of ontological assumptions in think about vulnerable people in this shift from international to global ethics. And What are the methodological implications of such shift for opening up a space for a discussion from within the targeted vulnerable people. This paper develops from an interdisciplinary perspective : the questions posed are coming out of my ongoing research on HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa which ahs been one of the debates located in the Global Justice/ethics debates, and the conceptual framework is developed through the philosophy and the implications are relevant for both IR and development studies. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increased emphasis on the issue of ethics in contemporary political debates has produced forms of thinking about the inter-national in terms of connections to 'Otherness.' Lacanian psychoanalysis is increasingly referenced as a way to help produce an 'ethics of responsibility' in a nonstructuralist frame that addresses the relationship between the 'subject' and the 'Other.' By working through Lacan's two most explicit engagements with ethics, namely the ethical obligations of psychoanalysis and his discussion of Kantian ethics through Sadian philosophy, this paper will argue that the situated character of Lacanian ethics resists the universalist appropriations of his thought. Instead, his work encourages us to examine contemporary methodologies of studying sites of the inter-national in forms that place the practices of academic study. Rather than focus on an abstract form of ethical responsibility, this paper argues for a greater emphasis on the ethnographic character of contemporary political research that can produce an engaged and potentially politicized ethics. More specifically, I argue that the 'anti-social' character of contemporary anti-capitalist protest can also be a site of sustained ethical activity, both between 'subjects' and towards anti-capitalist ends. While this form of situated ethics bears a Lacanian signature, it also foregrounds the problems of appropriating psychoanalysis for these ends, discouraging the abstract formalization of a universal ethics. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid development of the life sciences presents us with some of the most difficult ethical challenges of our time and the field of bioethics has grown swiftly in response. The complex politics of bioethics and its relationship to universalist moral claims, in combination with the international mobility of life science research, has created pressure for global regulation: both to develop global bioethical norms and to regulate research in the life sciences at the global level. In this paper, I examine attempts to institutionalise bioethics at the international level, dissecting the structure of the ethical arguments and uncovering the politics with which they are entwined.The analysis focuses on the recent UN debate on cloning and the attempt to broaden a widely supported ban on reproductive cloning to include somatic cell nuclear transfer, so-called ?therapeutic cloning?, an important research tool in the controversial field of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) science. The paper analyses the structure of the debate, untangling the complex relationship between the self-consciously cosmopolitan agenda of human rights discourse and the culturally specific underpinnings of influential positions within the debate. The paper also examines the politics behind the ethical rhetoric, evaluating the extent to which the debate was shaped by (soft) power politics and driven by economic interest, a desire to pre-empt competition between national regulatory regimes in a potentially lucrative field. In light of these analyses, both ethical and political, the paper evaluates the role of the UN as an institutional setting, asking to what extent it is able to offer an appropriate forum for bioethical deliberation. In terms of the broader theme of international norm-building, the paper highlights the danger that attempts to institutionalise and/or regulate ethics at the global level may be subject to distortion or capture by economic interests. ..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]

Emmanuel Levinas is variously used to provide a conceptualisation of ethics from which to deduce an ethical politics, an account of the movement from ethics to politics or an exhortation to continually interrupt politics in the name of ethics. What all these approaches share is a reading of Levinas where ethics and politics are separated and ethics is prioritised. My argument in this article is that if the concept of the Third is given due weight in Levinas's work then this separation and prioritisation is untenable. The reading advanced foregrounds the Third and in doing so demonstrates that the unproblematised 'ethics' often drawn from Levinas is more complex than might initially appear. I argue that if the Third is taken seriously then Levinas's work leads to a requirement to think in terms of the ethico-political, so complicating any attempt to deduce politics from ethics which draws on this. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is there any basis to believe that global legalism?the rule of law on global scale?can contribute to the fulfillment of cosmopolitan ethical objectives? What role ought cosmopolitan ethics play in relation to the institutionalization of global legal rules? My argument is that there are important, under-explored normative relationships between global legalism and cosmopolitan ethics that have become more salient in an era of globalization. Legalism, properly conceived, helps fulfil cosmopolitan objectives by strengthening and legitimizing institutional efforts at restraining and preventing the abuse of political power and the instrumental use of agents who possess equal standing in a legal order. Simultaneously, cosmopolitan ethics provide the basis for moral constraints that restrict the imposition of a harmful institutional global order on the weak and the vulnerable, this by rejecting arbitrary distinctions with regard to which persons have equal moral standing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an exercise in intellectual history which aims to advance our understanding of the development of English School thinking on the topic ofinternational ethics by outlining three phases of ethical inquiry within the British Committee. It is ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines a crucial issue in Hannah Arendt’s thinkingâ€"that of the relationship between morality and times of political crisis. It argues that her work as a whole is marred by a fateful discord involving this central problematic. The initial ins ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of civil society actors in global governance spans many of the issues included on these joint panels on the ?Ethics of Global Governance,? including humanitarianism, feminism, and democracy promotion. In addition to the vast range of issues and the rapidly growing number of civil society actors in global governance (women, religious actors, environmentalists, labor, peace activists, humanitarians, etc.), the stances they take appear increasingly to embody tensions and contradictions vis-à-vis each other, state and multilateral institutions, and the range of possible ethical positions on world affairs. This paper examines these tensions and contradictions in the light of contemporary neo-liberalism and the reactions to it, and assesses the challenges that the intersection of issues and groups poses for ethical action by civil society in the 21st century. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children?s Narratives of Traumatic Losses Due to Political Conflict or War: The Role of Moral Disruption and Mourning. In this paper we argue for the inclusion of a moral dimension in the study of loss and trauma in the context of children?s or their relevant community?s response to war. We argue that, in contexts of political violence, just when the child may be experiencing traumatic losses, so is his or relevant community, nation or culture. The (re)-construction of a life narrative is often prescribed as a therapeutic means of attenuating the impact of potentially traumatic events on an individual or community?s life. Increasingly the recreation of continuity following life-shattering events is seen as involving transformations rather than adaptations alone. However, following political violence, the losses and trauma associated with it, the child must re-create a narrative at the same time that his or her relevant culture(s) or nations(s) are struggling to do so and in the context of conflictual historical accounts, memories and narratives. Disruptions experienced by children in contexts of critical social and political conflict and war include fragmentation and loss in the moral as well as the physical, relational and social order. This conceptualization, which may account for the potentially traumatic impact of these experiences, extends beyond the more narrow construct of posttraumatic stress. In this way, psychological and socio-moral approaches need not be seen as opposing positions. Children?s play and verbal narratives are media par excellence to explore the fragmentation, integrations and transformations associated with disruptive events.We present research of our own as well as other studies that indicate that the loss of a rule-governed moral universe is reflected in the representations of the children who had encountered such contexts. Dilemmas related to good and evil, trust and betrayal, protection and aggression are prevalent in children?s representations yet death looms as the consequence of a wrong choice. Retaliation fantasies may be intense but attribution of blame uncertain. Ideological beliefs strongly affect response. Children?s ability (in parallel to their parent?s ability) to address these issues affected their clinical status. The difficulty in mourning the loss of a moral universe as well as a relational one contributes to traumatic grief. The recognition that a rule-governed moral universe has been disrupted or lost is critical in designing interventions for children who have experienced potentially traumatic life events. Such a conceptualization permits interventions to integrate the political, social and psychological dimensions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Political Possibilities of Conscience. Since the end of the Cold War, humanitarianism and human rights have have merged in important ways, most notably in lobbying efforts for humanitarian interventions and transitional justice. While some fear that the depoliticization of violent conflict inherent in this trend masks power with false assertions of neutrality, others champion depoliticization as a way of locating values that transcend partisan struggles. In this paper, I consider how Arendt’s spatial conception of the relationship between ethics and politics provides critical insight in evaluating and addressing the depoliticization inherent in these contemporary movements. Specifically, I draw on Arendt’s discussions of goodness, conscience, and truth to argue for a conception of human rights as a process of negotiating a basis for political judgment, rather than a set of transcendent values. More generally, I suggest that the analysis provides a basis for connecting the work of humanitarian and human rights movements to broader struggles for democratic change and political protest. Drawing on the example of Doctors without Borders, I also suggest that Arendt was too pessimistic regarding the political implications of conscience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Realist and liberal understandings of ethics as the dominant approaches to ethics in international relations are unable to respond efficiently to the call of the other in the age of war against terrorism as they revolve around the needs and the interests of the self. Such self-centred understandings of ethics cannot respond to the other ethically and respect the other in its otherness. Therefore, today, the questions like “why is it so difficult to situate and respond to a set of specific others- ethically, politically or theoretically?” or “what possibilities are there for concrete responses that do not merely or finally reduce otherness to a subset of the same?” take us to what I call responsive ethics which creates possibilities for responses that do not reduce the other to the same or that treats alterity as difference which cannot be subsumed into the same. Responsive ethics as such also disrupts the dominant identity politics which remains “unable to deal with the other as other; it continues to thematize differences among persons, groups, and discourses in terms of (the impossibility of their) sameness”. Also such an ethical understanding offers a way to understand specific differences and enact specific ethical commitments, without falling back on the totalizing gestures of a universalising, rule or norm-governed structure and creates a mode of response for this end. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International politics is inescapably conditioned by negotiations of difference, and, therefore, it is unavoidably caught within ethical acts. International politics is a series of responses to questions regarding how one ought to and may act, where no sovereign point is available from which these questions of difference may be answered. It could not be said, though, that international politics is well established as an ethics of difference, because, as a politics, its conventions are to translate difference into either something locatable within the already known world or as something already known to be intolerable within its supposed limits. Even within critical discourses of international politics, the ethical convention is to authorise the subsumsion of difference into the same. And this must be so, insofar as difference, even if deemed unknowable, is understood as something locatable, bounded, and identifiable as such within an allegedly knownable world. Rather than confronting one with a boundary or an other, difference is the experience of change, that things are no longer the same as they are known to be. The encounter with difference is facing mutability and movement, both in terms of what one might consider the same and the different. Thus the question of ethical acts in terms of difference within the context of international politics is not satisfied in responses to difference as such. Rather the challenge of acting ethically in terms of difference can be satisfied only insofar as one can respond politically to change as one who is already conditioned by change oneself. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]