Possessive individualism in modern diplomacy: a critical approach to diplomatic theory
This paper argues that C. B. Macpherson's political theory of possessive individualism is useful in furthering a critique of the ontological development of modem diplomacy, to the extent that diplomatic theory as informed by its practice has constructed state personhood centered on the...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Theses and Dissertations |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/65005 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
Summary: | This paper argues that C. B. Macpherson's political theory of possessive
individualism is useful in furthering a critique of the ontological development of
modem diplomacy, to the extent that diplomatic theory as informed by its practice
has constructed state personhood centered on the exclusive business of the stateaccredited
diplomatic apparatus in its international relations. Given that modem
international society behaves in ways that acknowledge states as proprietors of their
own sovereignty, modem diplomacy as an instrument of the state may be considered
possessive individualist because it affirms a sovereign right over its own capacities to
engage in the conduct of international relations. Existing approaches to diplomatic
theorising are limited because they cast diplomacy within a loss-averse frame with
regard to state sovereignty, privileging the state-accredited diplomatic apparatus and
perpetuating the very relational conditions that necessitate and legitimise such
possessive individualist diplomacy in the first place. A paradoxical problematique
arises from this tension between the possessive individualist frame of diplomatic
theory and the goals of liberal society: it is only through the sharing of oneself that
the individuality can truly be affirmed. Likewise states, and by extension the domain
of diplomacy, must often share their sovereignty in order that their very basis for
sovereignty may be affirmed in the first place. |
---|