54Received 28.12.2022. Revised 04.02.2023. Accepted 15.03.2023.
Acknowledgements. The research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant no. 22-18-00723.
Abstract. The “International Relations” (“IR”) discipline is going through a double-disciplinary crisis. Once again, there is a general feeling of increasingly fragmenting common ground within the discipline (the first crisis) and the acknowledgment that the “IR” only imports concepts and methods from other disciplines but does not export any (the second crisis). Both crises share the same origin. The subject matter – “international” – has not been rooted in any social ontology. The discipline is now searching for the social ontology of “international.” The most discussed candidate for such a role is “societal multiplicity”, a product of “uneven and combined development”. The article offers an alternative variant of the social ontology for “international,” which is based on Niklas Luhmann’s system theory and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s social theory. It argues that “international” is rooted in the segmentary systemic differentiation between inside and outside and in the struggle for recognition of these segments. The semantic marker for this ontology is “sovereignty.” In this way, “sovereignty” turns into a systemic program (in Luhmann’s terms) of international politics (as a subsystem of the world society political system), designating the common ground for the discipline and marking social processes and phenomena, which can be studied within the “IR”. This will allow the “International Relations” to export some of its concepts and methods to other social science disciplines. The article critically engages with the Theory of World Politics by Mathias Albert, reconstructing it to meet the challenge of the double-disciplinary crisis. The “balance of power” is criticized with the help of Michel Foucault, who showed: that among European powers in 19th-century Europe, the balance of power, responsible for producing international order, was linked with the police inside states, responsible for producing domestic order. Nevertheless, to keep the balance of power and to secure the domestic order, states and police used the same technique of observation – statistics, making the “balance of power” a non-autopoietic system program incapable of producing an autopoietic system of international relations. “Sovereignty” also spans both realms of the inside/outside divide but is observed mainly through external recognition and is rooted in the social ontology of “international.” The article argues that “sovereignty” is better suited for the system program of international politics than the “balance of power”.
Keywords: M. Albert, multiplicity, uneven and combined development, sovereignty
REFERENCES
1. Sylvester C. Whither the International at the End of IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2007, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 551-573. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298070350031101
2. Dunne T., Hansen L., Wight C. The End of International Relations Theory? European Journal of International Relations, 2013, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 405-425. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485
3. Hoffmann S.H. International Relations: The Long Road to Theory. World Politics, 1959, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 346-377. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2009198
4. Buzan B., Little R. Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do about It. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2001, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 19-39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298010300010401
5. Auzan A. Economics of Everything. How Institutions Shape Our Lives. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo “Mann, Ivanov i Ferber”, 2017. 192 p. (In Russ.)
6. Wight C. Agents, Structures and International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006. 347 p.
7. Patomaki H., Wight C. After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism. International Studies Quarterly, 2000, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 213-237. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00156
8. Kurki M. Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2007, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 361-378. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298070350021501
9. Kristensen P.M. Discipline Admonished: On International Relations Fragmentation and the Disciplinary Politics of Stocktaking. European Journal of International Relations, 2016, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 243-267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115586206
10. Rosenberg J. International Relations in the Prison of Political Science. International Relations, 2016, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 127-153. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662
11. Rosenberg J., Tallis B. Introduction: The International of Everything. Cooperation and Conflict, 2022, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 250-267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098490
12. Latour B. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford, Oxfrod University Press, 2007. 320 p.
13. Adler E. Seizing the Middle Ground. European Journal of International Relations, 1997, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 319-363. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066197003003003
14. Luhmann N. Introduction to Systems Theory. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012. 300 p.
15. Luhmann N. Theory of Society. Vol. 2. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 2013. 472 p.
16. Luhmann N. The World Society as a Social System. International Journal of General System, 1982, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 131-138. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03081078208547442
17. Albert M., Kessler O., Stetter S. On Order and Conflict: International Relations and the ‘Communicative Turn’. Review of International Studies, 2008, vol. 34, no. S1, pp. 43-67. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210508007791
18. Adler E. Constructivism in International Relations: Sources, Contributions, and Debates. Carlsnaes W., Risse Th., Simmons B.A., eds. Handbook of International Relations. London, SAGE Publications, 2013, pp. 112-145.
19. Noguera i Hancock R. The Systems (R)evolution: Systems Theory, Social Evolution, and International Relations. PhD thesis. Aberystwyth, University of Wales Press, 1998. 155 p.
20. Albert M. Observing World Politics: Luhmann’s Systems Theory of Society and International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1999, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 239-265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298990280020701
21. Albert M., Hilkermeier L. Observing International Relations. Niklas Luhmann and World Politics. London, Routledge, 2004. 272 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203563366
22. Albert M., Cederman L.-E., Wendt A. New Systems Theories of World Politics. London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 312 p.
23. Albert M., Buzan B., Zürn M. Bringing Sociology to International Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2013. 283 p.
24. Albert M., Buzan B. Securitization, Sectors and Functional Differentiation. Security Dialogue, 2011, vol. 42, no. 4-5, pp. 413-425. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010611418710
25. Albert M., Bathon F. M. Quantum and Systems Theory in World Society: Not Brothers and Sisters but Relatives Still? Security Dialogue, 2020, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 434-449. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010619897874
26. Albert M. A Theory of World Politics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016. 284 p.
27. Foucault M. Security, Territory, Population. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2009. 464 p.
28. Borch C. Systemic Power. Acta Sociologica, 2005, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 155-167. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699305053769
29. Schmitt C. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2005. 116 p.
30. Agamben G. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1998. 228 p.
31. Krasner S.D. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1999. 280 p.
32. Giddens A. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1985. 399 p.
33. Bartelson J. A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995. 317 p.
34. Fabry M. Recognizing States. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. 272 p.
35. Loh D.M., Heiskanen J. Liminal Sovereignty Practices: Rethinking the Inside/Outside Dichotomy. Cooperation and Conflict, 2020, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 284-304. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720911391
36. Prozorov S. Review of ‘Liminal Sovereignty Practices’. Cooperation and Conflict, 2020, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 308-309. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720931131
37. Walker R.B.J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993. 233 p.
38. Zarakol A. Sovereign Equality as Misrecognition. Review of International Studies, 2018, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 848-862. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000359
39. Hegel G.W.F. Philosophy of Spirit. Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Vol. 3. Moscow, Mysl’, 1956. 471 p. (In Russ.).
40. Epstein C. The Productive Force of the Negative and the Desire for Recognition: Lessons from Hegel and Lacan. Review of International Studies, 2018, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 805-828. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210518000347
41. Wendt A. Why a World State is Inevitable. European Journal of International Relations, 2003, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 491-542. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/135406610394001
42. Wagner G. The End of Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory. Philosophy of Social Sciences, 1997, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 387-409. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319702700401
No comments