We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2012
What can critical geopolitics contribute to an understanding of the political dynamics of humanitarianism within International Relations? This article demands a reconsideration of the concept of humanitarianism by examining the spatial ordering of international society and the geopolitics of international law that condition our understanding of humanitarian agency and conduct within IR. The focus on critical geopolitics seeks to identify the normative structure of humanitarianism and how humanitarian claims – which are seemingly universal – are constituted through specific geopolitical discourses that structure agency and conduct within international life. Considering how humanitarianism is discursively structured as a geopolitical concept involves taking humanitarianism beyond its methodological privileging of impartiality, neutrality, and universality in making sense of humanitarianism. Critical humanitarianism does not accept the grounding of humanitarianism within an intuitive moral framework but instead locates humanitarian agency and conduct within a spatialised understanding of the international system. Such a spatialised ordering of humanitarianism takes the analytical focus away from ‘saving strangers’ (Wheeler) and ‘global conscience’ (Linklater) towards a consideration of the ways in which international law is the product of historical particulars that reflect a complex political sociology of the state (Schmitt).
1 Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso, 2001), p. 142Google Scholar.
2 Ibid.
3 I am particularly grateful to one of the anonymous reviewers for highlighting this demarcation.
4 Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 10Google Scholar.
5 Eudaily, Sean Patrick and Smith, Steve, ‘Sovereign Geopolitics? – Uncovering the “Sovereignty Paradox”’, Geopolitics, 13:2 (2008), p. 313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 Ibid., p. 315.
7 Bellamy, Alex J., ‘Humanitarian responsibilities and interventionist claims in international society’, Review of International Studies, 29:3 (2003), p. 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Ibid., p. 337.
9 Hutchings, Kimberly, ‘Happy anniversary! Time and critique in international relations theory’, Review of International Studies, 33:S1 (2007), p. 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Habermas, Jürgen, ‘Bestiality and Humanity: A War on the Border between Legality and Morality’, Constellations, 6:3 (1999), p. 269CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 Ibid., p. 268.
12 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘International Law in a World of Liberal States’, European Journal of International Law, 6:1 (1995), p. 503CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Ibid.
14 Chandler, David, ‘Potemkin Sovereignty: Statehood Without Politics in the New World Order’, The Monist, 9:1 (2007), p. 94Google Scholar.
15 There has been an extensive discussion amongst IR scholars within the past decade concerning the critical reception of Carl Schmitt within international political theory. Notable contributions include: Chandler, David, ‘The Revival of Carl Schmitt in International Relations: The Last Refuge of Critical Theorists?’, Millennium: Journal of International Relations, 37:27 (2008), pp. 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Odysseos, Louisa, ‘Dangerous ontologies: the ethos of survival and ethical theorizing in International Relations’, in Petito, Fabio and Odysseos, Louisa (eds), The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War and the Crisis of Global Order (London and New York: Routledge, 2007)Google Scholar; Williams, Michael C, ‘Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2007), pp. 511–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Axtmann, Roland, ‘Humanity or Enmity? Carl Schmitt on International Politics’, International Politics, 44 (2007), pp. 531–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The special edition of the Leiden Journal of International Law, 19:1 (2006) contains some insightful interventions concerning the status of Carl Schmitt's ideas within international legal thought.
16 Balakrishnan, Gopal, The Enemy: An Intellectual Portrait of Carl Schmitt (London: Verso, 2000), p. 9Google Scholar.
17 Lilla, Mark, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review Book, 2001), p. 63Google Scholar.
18 Schmitt, Carl, The Concept of the Political (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976), p. 26Google Scholar.
19 For further consideration of the paradoxical dimensions of the friend and enemy distinction within Carl Schmitt's writings see Moore, Thomas, ‘The Paradox of the Political: Carl Schmitt's Autonomous Account of Politics’, The European Legacy, 15:6 (2010), pp. 721–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘The Politics of International Law – 20 Years Later’, The European Journal of International Law, 20:1 (2009), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 Walzer, Michael, Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 107Google Scholar.
22 Walzer, Michael, ‘On Promoting Democracy’, Ethics & International Affairs, 22:4 (2008), pp. 351–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Agnew, John, ‘The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory’, Review of International Political Economy, 1:1 (1994), pp. 53–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Ibid.
25 US National Security Strategy (2002), {http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2002/nss.pdf} accessed 15 May 2011.
26 Fixdal, Mona and Smith, Dan, ‘Humanitarian Intervention and Just War’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42:2 (1998), p. 307CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also, Bobbio, Noberto, Peace, War and International Politics (Turin: Centro Studi Di Scienza Politica Paolo Farneti, 2007), p. 49Google Scholar.
27 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 86.
28 Ibid., p. 89.
29 Ibid., p. 90.
30 Fitzpatrick, Joan, ‘Speaking Law to Power: The War Against Terrorism and Human Rights’, European Journal of International Law, 14:2 (2003), p. 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 Brunnée, Jutta and Toope, Stephen J., ‘The Use of Force: International Law After Iraq’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 53:4 (2004), pp. 785–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johns, Fleur E., ‘Guantanamo Bay and the Annihilation of the Exception’, European Journal of International Law, 16:4 (2005), pp. 613–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
32 ‘International Commission on Intervention and States Sovereignty’, The Responsibility to Protect (Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2001), p. 75Google Scholar.
33 Walzer, Michael, Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 100Google Scholar.
34 Ibid., p. 3.
35 Ibid., p. 101.
36 Dauber, Cori, ‘Image as Argument: The Impact of Mogadishu on US Military Intervention’, Armed Forces & Society, 27:2 (2001), p. 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. 146.
38 Stockton, Nicholas, ‘In Defence of Humanitarianism’, Disasters, 22:4 (1998), pp. 352–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.
39 Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 190Google Scholar.
40 Ibid.
41 Linklater, Andrew, ‘Distant Suffering and Cosmopolitan Obligations’, International Politics, 44 (2007), p. 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
42 Ibid., p. 27.
43 Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 189.
44 Pattison, James, ‘Representativeness and Humanitarian Intervention’, Journal of Social Philosophy, 38:4 (2007), p. 569CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
45 Ibid., p. 569.
46 Ibid., p. 573.
47 Matthew, Penelope, ‘Lest We Forget’, International Journal of Refugee Law, 1:1 (1999), pp. 7–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 Mouffe, Chantal, The Democratic Paradox (London: Verso, 2000), p. 37Google Scholar.
49 Ibid., p. 40.
50 Chantal Mouffe, The Democratic Paradox, p. 49.
51 Linklater, Andrew, ‘Distant Suffering and Cosmopolitan Obligations’, International Politics, 44 (2007), p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
52 Ibid., p. 44.
53 Ibid.
54 Dalby, Simon, ‘Calling 911: geopolitics, security and America's new war’, Geopolitics, 8:3 (2003), pp. 62–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 Munslow, Barry and O'Dempsey, Tim, ‘From War on Terror to War on Weather? Rethinking humanitarianism in a new era of chronic emergencies’, Third World Quarterly, 31:8 (2010), p. 1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
56 Duffield, Mark, ‘The Liberal Way of Development and the Development-Security Impasse: Exploring the Global Life-Chance Divide’, Security Dialogue, 41:53 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 Watson, Scott, ‘The ‘human’ as referent object? Humanitarianism as securitization’, Security Dialogue, 42:3 (2011), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
58 Ibid.
59 Erskine, Toni, ‘Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: The Case of States and Quasi-States’, Ethics & International Affairs, 15:2 (2001), p. 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 Ibid.
61 Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society: A study in Ethics and Politics (London: Continuum, 2005), p. 72Google Scholar.
62 Ibid.
63 Erskine, Toni, ‘Assigning Responsibilities to Institutional Moral Agents: The Case of States and Quasi-States’, Ethics & International Affairs, 15:2 (2001), p. 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
64 Wheeler, Nicholas, Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 Duffield, Mark, ‘The Liberal Way of Development and the Development-Security Impasse: Exploring the Global Life-Chance Divide’, Security Dialogue, 41:1 (2010), p. 54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
66 Ibid., p. 69.
67 Deudney, Daniel, ‘Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:1 (2000), p. 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
68 Tuathail, Gearóid Ó, ‘Understanding critical geopolitics: Geopolitics and risk Society’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 22:2 (2000), p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
69 Ibid.
70 Simpson, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
71 Roberto Unger defines objectivism within law in the following way: ‘Objectivism is the belief that the authoritative legal materials – the system of statutes, cases, and accepted legal ideas – embody and sustain a defensible scheme of human association. They display, though always imperfectly, an intelligible moral order.… The laws are not merely the outcome of contingent power struggles or of practical pressures lacking in rightful authority.’ Unger, Roberto Mangebeira, The Critical Legal Studies Movement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), p. 2Google Scholar.
72 Koskenniemia, Martti, ‘International law and hegemony: a reconfiguration’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs (2004), 17:2, p. 213Google Scholar.
73 Schmitt, Carl, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum (New York: Telos Press, 2003), p. 50Google Scholar.
74 Ibid., p. 70.
75 Ibid., p. 71.
76 See also Schmitt, Carl, ‘Ethic of State and Pluralistic State’, in Mouffe, Chantal (ed.), The Challenge of Carl Schmitt, (London: Verso, 1999)Google Scholar. Schmitt argues against the universalism of humanity and in favour of concrete political communities through the state. See, in particular, p. 205.
77 Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum, pp. 78–9.
78 See the translator's introduction to Schmitt's Nomos of the Earth. Ulmen argues that Schmitt envisaged a ‘concrete territorial spatial order’ (that is, a nomos of the earth) which would allow new friend/enemy groupings to emerge in international politics. Concrete order thinking is contrasted to normative thinking. See, for deeper discussion of this point, Ulmen's claim that Schmitt is critical of those who think that ‘law, not men’ should rule. Ibid., pp. 19–20.
79 Dean, Mitchell, ‘A Political Mythology of World Order: Carl Schmitt's Nomos’, Theory, Culture & Society, 23:5 (2006), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Dean argues that Schmitt ‘is a thinker concerned with humankind's necessarily telluric (or earth-bound) character; the philology of nomos reveals not the primacy of appropriation but the concrete existence of human communities in their occupancy of the earth and orientation on it. This nomos exists prior to nomads, movement, borders, territories, settlements and households, and above all, positive laws. Nomos – at least in the versions familiar to non-nomadic societies – is, as he sharply puts it, a “fence-word”: it creates territory, defines locality, marks places, separates backyards and defines households.’ Ibid., p. 7.
80 Schmitt, Carl, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of Jus Publicum Europaeum (New York: Telos Press, 2003), p. 39Google Scholar.
81 This is evident in Schmitt's claim that ‘we can disregard the philosophical generalizations of the Hellenistic period, which made a cosmopolis [world-state] out of a polis [city-state], because they lacked a topos [orientation], and thus had no concrete order’. Ibid., p. 50.
82 Ibid., p. 47.
83 Ibid.
84 Schmitt expresses this in the following terms: ‘Concretely speaking, nomos is, for example, the chicken in every pot that every peasant living under a good king has on Sunday, the parcel of land every farmer cultivates as his property, and the car every American worker has parked in his garage.’ Ibid., p. 327.
85 Ibid., pp. 327–8.
86 Ibid., p. 335.
87 Ibid., p. 117.
88 Schmitt, Carl, Constitutional Theory (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008), p. 381CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 Schmitt argues that ‘one can portray general and abstract norms as the “constitution” of the international legal community to the same limited degree that one can find the “constitution” of a family in general norms such as that “you should honor your father and mother” or “love thy neighbour.” In particular, it is a fruitless endeavour to portray general principles like “right before might” or the “sanctity of contracts as the constitution of the international legal community and to falsely ascribe the character of a genuine federation to the general “international legal community”.’ Ibid., p. 381.
92 Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 4Google Scholar.
