The power of reason in international negotiations: notes on Risse, Müller, and Deitelhoff

Abstract

The argumentative turn in policy analysis in general and the theory of communicative action of Jürgen Habermas in particular have inspired scholars of international relations to develop an alternative analysis of negotiation processes. According to these scholars, a logic of arguing and persuasion is predominant in those negotiations that establish new regimes and foster the acceptance of ‘universal’ norms. In this article I scrutinize their theoretical assumptions and some of their empirical findings. My main criticism is that these research designs tend to neglect the role of power in international negotiations insofar as they try to prove the correspondence between normative theory and political reality. Rather, there are two ways in which power comes in. First, even ‘islands of persuasion’ cannot completely escape the realities of international relations. Second, the negotiation processes themselves are marked by power that can be analyzed using Foucault’s concept of governmentality.

Keywords:

• communicative action
• strategic action
• deliberation
• international negotiations
• governmentality

Acknowledgments

This article arises from the author’s habilitation colloquium at the University of Greifswald in June 2009. The author would like to thank Frank Fischer and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions for the improvement of the article.

Notes

1. 1. For a good overview see Herborth (2007) and Saretzki (2009).

2. 2. However, as Saretzki (2009) stresses, there are crucial differences between Habermas’s and Elster’s distinctions. One especially should not blend Habermas’s concept of communicative action with Elster’s notion of arguing.

3. 3. Cf. Keck (1995), Zangl and Zürn (1996), Schimmelfennig (1997), and Herborth (2007).

4. 4. For an overview of the findings of these studies see Ulbert and Risse (2005) and Deitelhoff and Müller (2005).

5. 5. Cf. Risse and Sikkink (1999).

6. 6. I return to the question of moral power in the next section.

7. 7. For a more detailed description of a Foucauldian understanding of deliberative processes, cf. Jörke (2009) and Buchstein and Jörke (2012).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dirk Jörke

Dirk Jörke is Heisenberg fellow of the German Research Foundation at the Institute for Political Science, University of Greifswald, Germany. His primary areas of scholarly interest are political theory, history of political ideas and democratic theory. His most recent publications include Kritik demokratischer Praxis: Eine ideengeschichtliche Studie (Baden-Baden 2011), and together with Hubertus Buchstein ‘The Argumentative Turn towards Deliberative Democracy: Habermas’ Contribution to and the Foucauldian Critique’ in F. Fischer and H. Gottweis, eds. Discourse and Deliberation in Public Policy. The Argumentative Turn Revisited (Durham 2012).