Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T09:58:50.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Obligations: To Whom Are They Owed?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

David Clinton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much of what states do in the international system they do as a response to their perceived obligations, commitments, or responsibilities. Not all of these obligations are owed to the same sort of recipient, however: some may be owed to other identifiable parties with whom one has arrived at a bargain or an exchange of benefits, but obligations may also be owed to a chosen rule of conduct or guide to action, as in the case of deterrence, and to oneself, as in the case of selfpreservation or one's sense of honor. All three types of international obligation have been recognized in international law and practice, but no one of the three categories encompasses all the duties of states. A complete understanding of international relations requires attention to all three parties to which international obligations may be owed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , Spring 1993 , pp. 291 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1993

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. Paskins, Barrie, “Obligation and the Understanding of International Relations,” in The Reason of States: A Study in International Political Theory, ed. Donelan, Micha (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1978), p. 167.Google Scholar See also Wright, Moorhead, “An Ethic of Responsibility,” in The Community of States: A Study in International Political Theory, ed. Mayall, James (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1982) 158–66.Google Scholar I wish to express my appreciation for the many useful revisions to earlier drafts of this article suggested by Professor Inis L. Claude and by the anonymous reviewers for the Review of Politics. The responsibility for the arguments and error presented here, of course, remains my own.

2. See Prichard, H. A., Moral Obligation (London: Oxford University Press, 1949)Google Scholar; Flathman, Richard E., Political Obligation (New York: Atheneum, 1972).Google Scholar

3. Congressional Record, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 1969, 115, pt. 13: 17245.

4. Locke, Don, “The Object of Morality and the Obligation to Keep a Promise,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2 (09 1972): 141, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Maccormick, Neil, “Voluntary Obligations and Normative Powers,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 46 (Supplementary Volume -07 1972): 59–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For recent examples of states exchanging promises, see “Caution on Helping Soviet Economy is Emphasized by Industrial Nations,” New York Times, 10 July 1991, sec. A, p. 4, and “Big 5 on U.N. Council Vow to End All Devastating Arms in Mideast,” Ibid., 10 July 1991, sec. A, p. 6.

6. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), pp. 193–94.Google Scholar Terry Deibel argues that “commitments of all kinds are created by the committed party; commitment is never involuntary.” Yet he lists a number of factors tending to lead to national commitments, such as American direct private investment in a country, a country's foreign debt held by American citizens and institutions, and public perceptions of vital interests, that are not created by government, even if government officials can affect them. But it is the government mat becomes committed. Commitment in American Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Examination for the Post-Vietnam Era (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Research Monograph, 1980)Google Scholar, National Security Affairs Monograph Series 80–4.

7. Beitz, Charles R., Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 128.Google Scholar Cf. Tucker, Robert W., The Inequality of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 1977)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Stanley, Duties Beyond Borders: On the Limits and Possibilities of Ethical International Politics (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981).Google Scholar

8. Schelling, Thomas, Arms and Influence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), pp. 49–69.Google Scholar See also Lebow, Richard Ned, Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), pp. 82–97Google Scholar; Deibel, Terry L., “Hidden Commitments,” Foreign Policy 67 (Summer 1987): 46–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Morgan, Patrick M., “Saving Face for the Sake of Deterrence,” in Psychology and Deterrence, ed. Jervis, Robert et al. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), pp. 125–152.Google ScholarLockhart, Cf. Charles, “Flexibility and Commitment in International Conflicts,” International Studies Quarterly 22 (12 1978): 545–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. Claude, Inis L., American Approaches to World Affairs (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), p. 63.Google Scholar

11. See Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 243–59.Google Scholar Cf. Thompson, William R. and Zuk, Gary, “World Power and the Strategic Trap of Territorial Commitments,” International Studies Quarterly 30 (1986): 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. The Basis of Obligation in International Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1958), p. 66.Google Scholar

13. Vattel, Emmerich De, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns: A Work Tending to Display the True Interest of Powers (Philadelphia: P. H. Nicklin and T. Johnson, 1929), pp. 59–64Google Scholar, passim, 220–21.

14. Oppenheim, Lassa, International Law (London: Longmans, Green, 1920), 1:688–90.Google Scholar But see Brierly, , The Basis of Obligation, p. 111.Google Scholar

15. “The Concept of a Commitment in International Relations,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 13 (03 1969): 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. “Liberal States and International Obligations,” Millennium 17 (06 1988): 321–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Especially in the case of democratic states, one can change the level of analysis and, instead of studying “the state” and its obligations to “itself,” think of the duty owed by governments or leaders to the people who have entrusted them with responsibility for their welfare. While this approach may avoid the dangers posed by reifying the state, it does not alter the direction of this type of obligation, which is inward rather than outward toward other parties or a set of rules.

17. See Best, Geoffrey, Honour among Men and Nations: Transformations of an Idea (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Memoirs of Hope: Renewal and Endeavor, trans. Kilmartin, Terence (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971), p. 166.Google Scholar

19. Weiner, Joel H., ed., Great Britain: Foreign Policy and the Span of Empire, 1689–1971—A Documentary History, 4 vols. (New York: Chelsea House, 1972), 1: 388.Google Scholar

20. The Cloud of Danger: Current Realities of American Foreign Policy (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977), pp. 108–110Google Scholar; “Morality, Politics and Foreign Policy,” in The Virginia Papers on the Presidency, ed. Thompson, Kenneth W. (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979), pp. 22–23Google Scholar; Realities of American Foreign Policy (New York: W. W. Norton, 1966), p. 47.Google Scholar

21. Senate Report 91–129,91st Cong., 1st sess., p. 26.

22. “On Removing Certain Impediments to Democracy in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly 92 (Spring 1977): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitmen (New York: The Free Press, 1977), pp. 283, 280.Google Scholar

24. New York Times, 1 August 1991, sec. A, p. 7.

25. The Future of Law in a Multicultural World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), pp. xvi, 184.Google Scholar See also Bozeman, , Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960), pp. 196–212.Google Scholar

26. See Axelrod, Robert, “The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists,” American Political Science Review 75 (06 1981): 306–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar; The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984), pp. 6,173-74.Google Scholar Cf. Mcginnis, Michael, “Issue Linkage and the Evolution of International Cooperation,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30 (03 1986): 141–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. In Carty, Anthony, The Decay of International Law? A Reappraisal of the Limits of Legal Imagination in International Affairs (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986), p. 66.Google Scholar

28. The Peloponnesian War, trans. Crawley, , X. 82,83.Google Scholar