Morals in Political Thought: The Case of Georg Schwarzenberger

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

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

3. 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

4. Georg Schwarzenberger (1908-1991) • 1929 - Das Völkerbunds Mandat für Palestina • 1934 – fled to England (№3333) • 1941 – Power Politics (3rd-1964) • Interdisciplinary approach to international studies • Derive knowledge from analysis of state practice as expressed in legal documents

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

6. 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

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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”

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

13. 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

14. 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?

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

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