Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:50:39.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Global Order: The Power of Principle in a Pluralistic World*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2012

Charles W. Kegley Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Kegley asks whether in a culturally pluralistic global community it is possible to find a common normative principle that statesmen from diverse ethical traditions might embrace to discipline democratic behavior. He sets the stage for a discussion of ethical precepts that transcend artificial boundaries between East and West, North and South.

Type
Articles
Information
Ethics & International Affairs , Volume 6 , March 1992 , pp. 21 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fukuyama, Francis, “The End of History?” The National Interest 16 (Summer 1989), pp. 719–32Google Scholar.

2 Hoffmann, Stanley, “What Should We Do in the World?” The Atlantic Monthly 264 (October 1989), pp. 84–96Google Scholar.

3 For a survey, see Gaddis, John Lewis, “Toward the Post-Cold War World,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), pp. 16–32Google Scholar.

4 See Banks, Michael, “The International Relations Discipline: Asset or Liability for Conflict Resolution?” in Azar, Edward E. and Burton, John W., eds., International Conflict Resolution (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1986)Google Scholar, and Vasquez, John, The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1983Google Scholar).

5 Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 42Google Scholar.

6 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, 1958), p. 9Google Scholar.

7 Gordis, Robert, “Religion and International Responsibility,” in Thompson, Kenneth W., ed., Moral Dimensions of American Foreign Policy (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1984), p. 36Google Scholar.

8 Suganami, Hidemi, “A Normative Enquiry in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 9 (January 1983), p. 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cohen, Marshall, “Moral Skepticism and International Relations,” in Kipuis, Kenneth and Meyers, Diana T., eds., Political Realism and International Morality (Boulder: Westview Press, 1987), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar This argument and distinction is elaborated in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Raymond, Gregory A., When Trust Breaks Down: Alliance Norms in World Politics (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1990).Google Scholar

10 Schlesinger, Arthur M. Jr., The Cycles of American History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986), p. 77Google Scholar.

11 Newman, Charles, “What's Left Out of Literature,” New York Times Book Review (July 7, 1987), p. 25.Google Scholar

12 Wright, Quincy, “The Outlawry of War and the Law of War,” American Journal of International Law 47 (July 1953), pp. 365–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Mueller, John, “Deterrence, Nuclear Weapons, Morality, and War,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Schwab, Kenneth L., eds., After the Cold War: Questioning the Morality of Nuclear Deterrence (Boulder: Westview Press, 1991), p. 94Google Scholar.

14 Morgenthau, Hans J., The Purpose of American Politics (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960), p. 8Google Scholar. This, arguably, is reflective of mainstream realism's position on morality in international affairs; for elaboration, see Rosenthal, Joel H., Righteous Realists (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991).Google Scholar

15 Butterfield, Herbert, The Statecraft of Machiavelli (New York: Collier, 1962), p. 8Google Scholar.

16 See Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932Google Scholar).

17 Higgins, Ronald, Plotting Peace (London: Brassey's, 1990), p. 205Google Scholar.

18 Kennan, George F., “Morality and Foreign Affairs,” Foreign Affairs 64 (Winter 1985–86), p. 208CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See Bernardin, Joseph Cardinal, “Ordering Our Destiny: Politics, Strategy, and Ethics,” in Kegley and Schwab, After the Cold War, pp. 149–56.Google Scholar

20 Mueller, John, “The Obsolescence of Major War,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Global Agenda, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992), pp. 39–48.Google Scholar

21 Cited in McNamara, Robert S., “Alternative Visions of a Post-Cold War World,” Wingspread 13 (Summer 1991), p. 12Google Scholar.

22 Luttwak, Edward, “From Geopolitics to Geo-Economics,” The National Interest 20 (Summer 1990), pp. 17–23Google Scholar.

23 Moran, Theodore H., “International Economics and U.S. Security,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), p. 337Google Scholar.

24 Nye, Joseph S. Jr., “The Changing Nature of World Power,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Global Agenda, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992), p. 318.Google Scholar

25 See Rosenau, James N., Turbulence in World Politics: Toward a Theory of Change and Continuity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

26 Joffe, Josef, “Entangled Forever,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), p. 35Google Scholar.

27 Gaddis, John Lewis, “Coping with Victory,” in Kegley, Charles W. Jr., and Wittkopf, Eugene R., eds., The Future of American Foreign Policy (New York: St Martin's Press, 1992), p. 146Google Scholar.

28 Morgenthau, Hans J., In Defense of the National Interest (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951), p. 242Google Scholar.

29 See Stoessinger, John G., Crusaders and Pragmatists (New York: Norton, 1985).Google Scholar

30 See VanEvera, Stephen, “American Intervention in the Third World: Less Would Be Better,” in Kegley and Wittkopf, The Future of American Foreign Policy, pp. 285–300.Google Scholar

31 Herz, John H., Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).Google Scholar

32 Kegley, Charles W. Jr., “Neo-Idealism: A Practical Matter,” Ethics & International Affairs 2 (1988), pp. 173–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kegley, Charles W. Jr., “The Lost Legacy: Idealism in American Foreign Policy,” USA Today 117 (March 1989), pp. 25–27Google Scholar.

33 Kober, Stanley, “Idealpolitik,” Foreign Policy 79 (Summer 1990), pp. 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Gaddis, “Coping with Victory,” p. 28.Google Scholar

35 This rule, moreover, is deeply rooted in political philosophy worldwide since antiquity. Consider Diogenes Laërtius' dictum, “We ought to behave to our friends … as we wish our friends to behave toward us”; Isocrates' adage, “Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others”; Pittacus' injunction, “Do not that to thy neighbor that thou wouldst not suffer for him;” Plato's statement of the same principle, “Do to others as I would say they should do to me;” and Hillel's pronouncement, “What is hateful to thyself do not do to another. This is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary.”Google Scholar

36 Komorita, S. S., Hilty, J. A., and Parks, C. D., “Reciprocity and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 35 (September 1991), p. 495CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 See Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar, for an elaboration and demonstration of this principle.

38 Rielly, John E., “Public Opinion: The Pulse of the ′90s,” in Kegley and Wittkopf, The Future of American Foreign Policy, p. 125.Google Scholar

39 Americans Talk Security, Compendium: Results from Twelve National Surveys on National Security Issues Conducted from October 1987 to December 1989 (Boston: Americans Talk Security, 1988), pp. 287–89Google Scholar.

40 Rielly, “Public Opinion.”.Google Scholar

41 See Diebel, Terry L., “Bush's Foreign Policy: Mastery and Inaction,” Foreign Policy 84 (Fall 1991), pp. 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 See Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York: Random House, 1987Google Scholar).

43 Calleo, David, “American National Interests and the New Europe: The Millennium Has Not Yet Arrived,” in Kegley and Wittkopf, The Future of American Foreign Policy, p. 190.Google Scholar

44 See Carpenter, Ted Galen, “The New World Disorder,” Foreign Policy 84 (Fall 1991), pp. 24–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Gergen, David, “A New American Order,” US. News and World Report (June 17, 1991), p. 68.Google Scholar

46 Weisband, Edward, The Ideology of American Foreign Policy: A Paradigm of Lockean Liberalism (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1973Google Scholar).

47 Dolbeare, Kenneth M. and Dolbeare, Patricia, American Ideologies (Chicago: Markham, 1971Google Scholar).

48 Lipsitz, Lewis and Speak, David M., American Democracy, 2nd ed. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989).Google Scholar

49 Cited in Gaddis, “Toward the Post-Cold War World,” p. 30.Google Scholar

50 Patterson, James and Kim, Peter, The Day America Told the Truth: What People Really Believe About Everything That Really Matters (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991Google Scholar).

51 Schlesinger, , The Cycles of American History, p. 73Google Scholar.

52 Ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar

53 See Kegley, Charles W. Jr., “The New Containment Myth: Realism and the Anomaly of European Integration,” Ethics & International Affairs 5 (1991), pp. 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54 Carpenter, “The New World Disorder,” pp. 37–38.Google Scholar