Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

International affairs involve the actions of both state and non-state actors. Some of these actions appear to be legitimate objects of moral judgement. But what assumptions underlie this judgement? Typically, actors in international relations contexts are not individuals, with individual consciences, but bodies of diverse and distributed decision-makers. Under which conditions, then, does it make sense to attribute moral responsibility to them? This is a particularly important question within international relations scholarship because international relations scholars have generally under-utilized the concept of moral agency. Toni Erskine puts the point this way:

. . . while, inter alia, realist, neorealist, neoliberal institutionalist, and some constructivist approaches rely on the agency of the state, the idea that the state might be a bearer of moral burdens is either precluded or (perhaps most notably in the case of classical realist positions) allowed but unexamined. This combination of an uncritical acceptance of the state as an agent and the rejection, or evasion, of its possible role as a moral agent is a puzzling feature of much International Relations scholarship
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationRoutledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations
EditorsBrent Steele, Eric Heinze
Place of PublicationLondon
PublisherRoutledge
Chapter6
ISBN (Electronic)9781317535492
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

International Relations
Realist
Rejection
Burden
Moral Agents
Evasion
Moral Judgment
Non-state Actors
Moral Agency
Moral Responsibility
Acceptance
Constructivist

Cite this

Cox, D. (2018). Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations. In B. Steele, & E. Heinze (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations London: Routledge.
Cox, Damian. / Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations. Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations. editor / Brent Steele ; Eric Heinze. London : Routledge, 2018.
@inbook{0022e8acd20941a991d1a1061c707b39,
title = "Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations",
abstract = "International affairs involve the actions of both state and non-state actors. Some of these actions appear to be legitimate objects of moral judgement. But what assumptions underlie this judgement? Typically, actors in international relations contexts are not individuals, with individual consciences, but bodies of diverse and distributed decision-makers. Under which conditions, then, does it make sense to attribute moral responsibility to them? This is a particularly important question within international relations scholarship because international relations scholars have generally under-utilized the concept of moral agency. Toni Erskine puts the point this way:. . . while, inter alia, realist, neorealist, neoliberal institutionalist, and some constructivist approaches rely on the agency of the state, the idea that the state might be a bearer of moral burdens is either precluded or (perhaps most notably in the case of classical realist positions) allowed but unexamined. This combination of an uncritical acceptance of the state as an agent and the rejection, or evasion, of its possible role as a moral agent is a puzzling feature of much International Relations scholarship",
author = "Damian Cox",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "14",
language = "English",
editor = "Brent Steele and Eric Heinze",
booktitle = "Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations",
publisher = "Routledge",
address = "United States",

}

Cox, D 2018, Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations. in B Steele & E Heinze (eds), Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations. Routledge, London.

Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations. / Cox, Damian.

Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations. ed. / Brent Steele; Eric Heinze. London : Routledge, 2018.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations

AU - Cox, Damian

PY - 2018/6/14

Y1 - 2018/6/14

N2 - International affairs involve the actions of both state and non-state actors. Some of these actions appear to be legitimate objects of moral judgement. But what assumptions underlie this judgement? Typically, actors in international relations contexts are not individuals, with individual consciences, but bodies of diverse and distributed decision-makers. Under which conditions, then, does it make sense to attribute moral responsibility to them? This is a particularly important question within international relations scholarship because international relations scholars have generally under-utilized the concept of moral agency. Toni Erskine puts the point this way:. . . while, inter alia, realist, neorealist, neoliberal institutionalist, and some constructivist approaches rely on the agency of the state, the idea that the state might be a bearer of moral burdens is either precluded or (perhaps most notably in the case of classical realist positions) allowed but unexamined. This combination of an uncritical acceptance of the state as an agent and the rejection, or evasion, of its possible role as a moral agent is a puzzling feature of much International Relations scholarship

AB - International affairs involve the actions of both state and non-state actors. Some of these actions appear to be legitimate objects of moral judgement. But what assumptions underlie this judgement? Typically, actors in international relations contexts are not individuals, with individual consciences, but bodies of diverse and distributed decision-makers. Under which conditions, then, does it make sense to attribute moral responsibility to them? This is a particularly important question within international relations scholarship because international relations scholars have generally under-utilized the concept of moral agency. Toni Erskine puts the point this way:. . . while, inter alia, realist, neorealist, neoliberal institutionalist, and some constructivist approaches rely on the agency of the state, the idea that the state might be a bearer of moral burdens is either precluded or (perhaps most notably in the case of classical realist positions) allowed but unexamined. This combination of an uncritical acceptance of the state as an agent and the rejection, or evasion, of its possible role as a moral agent is a puzzling feature of much International Relations scholarship

M3 - Chapter

BT - Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations

A2 - Steele, Brent

A2 - Heinze, Eric

PB - Routledge

CY - London

ER -

Cox D. Agency, explanation and ethics in international relations. In Steele B, Heinze E, editors, Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations. London: Routledge. 2018