Table Of Content

POLITICAL THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS POLITICAL THEORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS With a New Afterword by the Author Charles R. Beitz PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY Copyright © 1979 by Princeton University Press Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 3 Market Place, Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1SY Afterword © 1999 by Princeton University Press All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Beitz, Charles R. Political theory and international relations / Charles R. Beitz. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-691-07614-6 1. International relations. 2. World politics. I. Title. JZ1305.B45 1999 327. 1'01— dc21 99-12992 This book has been composed in VIP Baskerville www.pup.princeton.edu Contents Preface vii Introduction 3 Part One. International Relations as a State of Nature 11 1. The Skepticism of the Realists 15 2. The Hobbesian Situation 27 3. International Relations as a State of Nature 35 4. The Basis of International Morality 50 5. From International Skepticism to the Morality of States 63 Part Two. The Autonomy of States 67 1. State Autonomy and Individual Liberty 71 2. Nonintervention, Paternalism, and Neutrality 83 3. Self-determination 92 4. Eligibility, Boundaries, and Nationality 105 5. Economic Dependence 116 6. State Autonomy and Domestic Social Justice 121 Part Three. International Distributive Justice 125 1. Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of Justice 129 2. Entitlements to Natural Resources 136 3. Interdependence and Global Distributive Justice 143 4. Contrasts between International and Domestic Society 154 5. The Rights of States 161 6. Applications to the Nonideal World 169 Conclusion 177 Afterword 185 Works Cited 221 Index 237 Preface POLITICAL theorists have paid insufficient attention to a variety of philosophically interesting and practically im- portant normative problems of international relations be- cause they have accepted uncritically the conception of the world developed by Hobbes and taken over by many recent writers. By accepting the conception of international relations as a state of nature, they have committed themselves to the view that international relations is primarily concerned with "the rivalries of nation-states, and with the traditional ultima ratio of those rivalries—war."1 As a result, other pressing questions of contemporary international relations have been neglected, and the current debate about new structures of world order has taken place without benefit of the insight and criticism that political philosophers should provide. This book is an attempt to work out a more satisfactory international normative political theory through a critique and revision of orthodox views. To assert the possibility of international political theory, one must first reexamine the traditional image of international relations as a state of nature and purge it of its skeptical elements. The traditional alterna- tive to this view, which I call the morality of states, must be reconstructed to correct for the persistent misunderstand- ing of the notion of state autonomy. The result is a third view of international morality, which might be described as cos- mopolitan. Many people helped me to develop these thoughts. It is a pleasure to record my thanks to these people here. Thomas Scanlon and Dennis Thompson supervised the preparation of an earlier version of this book as a doctoral dissertation in the political philosophy program at Princeton and continued to help when I undertook extensive further revisions. It is impossible to imagine more supportive advisors or rigorous critics. They cheerfully read a seemingly endless 1 Stanley Hoffmann, The State of War, p. viii. viii PREFACE series of drafts of the manuscript and provided warm encouragement in the periods when my doubts and second thoughts gained the upper hand. In a larger sense, I benefited from their efforts, with others, to create a flourishing community of interest in political theory at Princeton, in which writing a thesis could be, and was, a pleasure. For all of this, and for their continuing friendship, I am most grateful. Huntington Terrell stimulated my interest in international ethics when I was an undergraduate at Colgate and has en- couraged my work in this area ever since. He read the present manuscript with exceptional care and pointed out many phil- osophical errors and infelicities of language that I would not have noticed otherwise. I am indebted to him for this, and for teaching me some Socratic virtues, as well: he combines a skepticism of received ideas with a conviction that moral philosophy can meet the highest analytical standards without sacrificing relevance to practical affairs. Several other people commented on the manuscript in its various incarnations. Paul E. Sigmund and Robert C. Tucker offered criticisms at my final public oral examination for the Ph.D. and were good enough to amplify their remarks later. Written comments on a subsequent version from Brian Barry and Robert O. Keohane helped me to improve the argument in many ways. Portions of the manuscript were reviewed and criticized by Jeffrey Hart, William Hirsch, David Hoekema, J. Roland Pennock, and Sheldon S. Wolin. I benefited from their criticisms and suggestions even when I was not per- suaded by them, since I was at least forced to make my own views clearer. I was lucky to have the help of Eleanor Bennett in the preparation of the final manuscript. She not only brought order out of a chaos of revisions, but also contributed a good measure of whatever literacy the manuscript now possesses. I am also happy to thank Paula Smith for her careful and effi- cient work on the index. For financial support at various stages of my work, I am grateful to Princeton University, the Morris Abrams Award in International Relations, and Swarthmore College. The dis- cussion of international distributive justice is based on my PREFACE ix article, "Justice and International Relations" (Philosophy and Public Affairs 4, no. 4 [Summer 1975], pp. 360-89), portions of which are reproduced by permission of Princeton University Press, the holder of the copyright. Finally, I owe debts of a different kind to my parents, Jean and Richard Beitz, whose sacrifices made possible much of my education; and to Sherry Swirsky, my best friend, whose encouragement of my work on this book has meant more to me than I can say. Swarthmore College October 1978