Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T17:03:30.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universal languages?: A reply to Moravcsik1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Beate Jahn
Beate Jahn*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9SN, UK
*
* E-mail: B.Jahn@sussex.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Correspondence: Is Liberal IR Theory Ideological?
Information
International Theory , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 140 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

This article is a response to Andrew Moravcsik, ‘Wahn, Wahn, Überall Wahn’: A reply to Jahn’s critique of liberal internationalism, International Theory (2010), 2:1, 113–139. I would like to thank the editors of International Theory for instigating this debate and Alex Wendt in particular for shepherding the process so smoothly. Thanks also, of course, to Andrew Moravcsik for picking up the challenge. I also owe him an apology for not sending the first article (2009) directly – I do it now on the second round. And I am grateful to Justin Rosenberg for his comments and suggestions.

References

Anderson, M.S. (1961), Europe in the Eighteenth Century 1713–1783, London, UK: Longmans.Google Scholar
Arblaster, A. (1984), The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Armitage, D. (2004), ‘John Locke, Carolina, and the “Two Treatise of Government” ’, Political Theory 32(5): 602–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneil, B. (1996), John Locke and America. The Defence of English Colonialism, Oxford, UK: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, C. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boucher, D. (2006), ‘Property and propriety in international relations: the case of John Locke’, in B. Jahn (ed.), Classical Theory in International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 156–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, S., Knutsen, T.L.Moses, J.W. (1996), ‘Democracy and peace: a more sceptical view’, Journal of Peace Research 33(1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, J. (1986), Liberalism, Minneapolis, MA, USA: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, F.Cobe, J. (2003), ‘Multiple dialogs, layered syntheses, and the limits of expansive cumulation’, International Studies Review 5(1): 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, D. (1996), Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. (1995), ‘The crisis of liberal internationalism’, Foreign Policy 98: 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivison, D. (2003), ‘Locke, liberalism and empire’, in P.R. Anstey (ed.), The Philosophy of John Locke: New Perspectives, London: Routledge, pp. 86–105.Google Scholar
Jahn, B. (2007a), ‘The tragedy of liberal diplomacy: democratization, intervention, statebuilding I’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1(1): 88–106.Google Scholar
Jahn, B. (2007b), ‘The tragedy of liberal diplomacy: democratization, intervention, statebuilding II’, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 1(2): 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, B. (2009), ‘Liberal internationalism: from ideology to empirical theory – and back again’, International Theory 1(3): 409–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, F. (2003), ‘The monologue of “Science” ’, International Studies Review 5(1): 124–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I.Musgrave, A. (eds) (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapid, Y. (2003), ‘Through dialog to engaged pluralism: the unifinished business of the third debate’, International Studies Review 5(1): 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1996), Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence, Boulder, CO, USA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Lebovics, H. (1986), ‘The uses of America in Locke’s second treatise of government’, Journal of the History of Ideas 47(4): 567–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1959), An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 2 Vol., collated and annotated by Alexander Campbell Fraser, New York, USA: Dover.Google Scholar
Locke, J. (1994), Two Treatise of Government, ed. by P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacPherson, C.B. (1962), The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Hobbes to Locke, Oxford, UK: Clarendon.Google Scholar
McNally, D. (1988), Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism. A Reinterpretation, Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, K. (1960), Ideology and Utopia, London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Marks, R.B. (2007), The Origins of the Modern World. Fate and Fortune in the Rise of the West, Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (1997), ‘Taking preferences seriously: a liberal theory of international politics’, International Organization 51(4): 513–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2003a), ‘Liberal international relations theory: a scientific assessment’, in C. Elman and M.F. Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field, Camdridge: MIT, pp. 159–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2003b), ‘Theory synthesis in International relations: real not metaphysical’, International Studies Review 5(1): 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2007a), ‘A rogue reforms’, Newsweek, 16 July 2007.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2007b), ‘The self-absorbed Dragon’, Newsweek, 29 October 2007.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, A. (2010), ‘ “Wahn, Wahn, Überall Wahn”: defending liberal theory against relativism’, International Theory, this issue.Google Scholar
Oren, I. (1996), ‘The subjectivity of the “Democratic” peace. Changing US perceptions of imperial Germany’, in M.E. Brown, S.M. Lynn-Jones and S.E. Miller (eds), Debating the Democratic Peace, Cambridge: MIT press, pp. 263–300.Google Scholar
Perelman, M. (2000), The Invention of Capitalism. Classical Political Economy and the Secret History of Primitive Accumulation, Durham, NC, USA: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Rapaczynski, A. (1987), Nature and Politics: Liberalism in the Philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.L. (2001), Contending Liberalisms in World Politics. Ideology and Power, Boulder, CO, USA: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, D.E. (1996), ‘The insignificance of the liberal peace’, in M.E. Brown, S.M. Lynn-Jones and S.E. Miller (eds), Debating the Democratic Peace, Cambridge: MIT press, pp. 202–233.Google Scholar
Tuck, R. (1999), The Rights of War and Peace. Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tully, J. (1993), An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, L. (2006), ‘Locke on the moral basis of International Relations’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washbrook, D. (1997), ‘From comparative sociology to global history: Britain and India in the pre-history of modernity’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 40(4): 410–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zacher, M.W.Matthew, R.A. (1995), ‘Liberal international theory: common threads, divergent strands’, in C.W. Kegley Jr (ed.), Controversies in International Relations Theory. Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge, New York, USA: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 107–150.Google Scholar