![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The article reconstructs Shklar's thoughts on war. It argues that these thoughts constitute a crucial pillar of her political theory. Of particular significance is the interpretation of her book Legalism, where Shklar criticised efforts to streamline the complex issue of the causes of war into a simple theory of power and aggression, and her work on Montesquieu, which ultimately allowed her to link thoughts on war and extraordinary cruelty to her interest in cruelty as an ordinary vice. In this way, the article answers the question about the relationship between Shklar's explicit cosmopolitanism and her negative political theory. It demonstrates that her thoughts on war were politically cosmopolitan, while allowing her to eschew the type of global ethics that underwrites just war theorising, she was critical of. The article makes a case for considering Shklar's work as a contribution to Global Political Theory, calling for the latter to look beyond the just war tradition to pursue its interests in both theoretical prescription and political reality. This because Shklar's thoughts on war successfully combined empirical analysis of world affairs with normative dismissal of human actions that place others in situations of existential fear.
Acknowledgement
An earlier version of this article was presented at the conference ‘The International Thought of Judith Shklar’ at the University of St. Andrews in October 2019. I’m grateful to the conference’s organisers and participants for very useful comments. My biggest thanks goes to Jan Ruzicka, for both generously commenting on several versions of the article and for taking care of our two children while I wrote it.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Shklar, “Liberalism of Fear,” 17.
2 Stullerova, “Rethinking Human Rights.”
3 Spencer, “Putting Cruelty First.”
4 Stullerova, “Cruelty and International Relations.”
5 Allen, “The Place of Negative Morality.”
6 Misra, “Doubt and Commitment.”
7 Rengger, “Realism Tamed or Liberalism Betrayed.”
8 IPT is understood as the application of political theory (traditionally concerned with the domestic political setting) to global political problems and international politics. International Relations (IR) theory is narrowed down to the inquiry about world politics developed out of interest in the causes of war. Not everyone agrees with these definitions, but many do.
9 A rare example, and one using Shklar’s work, is Jan Ruzicka’s critique of the humanitarian initiative to ban nuclear weapons. Ruzicka, “The Next Great Hope.”
10 Floyd, “Should Global Political Theory,” 93.
11 Heins, “Realizing Honneth”; Bohman, “Domination”; Royer, “International Criminal Justice.”
12 Williams, “Realism and Moralism”; Forrester, “Judith Shklar”; Stullerova, “Knowledge of Suffering.”
13 Beitz, Political Theory, 3.
14 Williams, The Realist Tradition; Boucher, Political Theories.
15 Shklar, Men and Citizens, 216.
16 Boucher, Political Theories.
17 Shklar, “Introduction,” 17.
18 Ibid., 10.
19 Shklar, After Utopia, 114.
20 Ibid., 210.
21 Ibid., 220.
22 Ibid., 210.
23 Shklar, Legalism, 1, 122, 123.
24 Shklar, Men and Citizens, 207.
25 Ibid.
26 Waltz, Man, State and War.
27 Williams, The Realist Tradition, 65.
28 Shklar, Men and Citizens, 213.
29 Shklar, Legalism, 178.
30 Ibid., x.
31 Ibid., 178.
32 Ibid., 194.
33 Ibid., 199.
34 Van Evera, Causes of War; Levy, “Causes of War.”
35 Levy, “Causes of War,” 140.
36 Suganami, On the Causes, 6.
37 For instance, she expressed debt to Joel Feinberg who analysed the concept of cruelty, she was working with, in an analytical manner. Shklar, Faces of Injustice, 128, fn. 5.
38 Aron, Main Currents, 56–7.
39 Stullerova, “Knowledge of Suffering.”
40 Shklar, Montesquieu, 68.
41 Wolfers, “Discord and Collaboration,” 82.
42 Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace.
43 Shklar, Legalism, 194.
44 Ibid., 178.
45 Together with Montaigne. See also, Yack, “Shklar’s Montaigne.”
46 Published three years before Montesquieu.
47 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 1.
48 Ibid., 12.
49 Ibid., 78.
50 Shklar, “Michael Walzer.”
51 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 80.
52 Ibid.
53 Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, “Chapter 1: Against ‘Realism’.”
54 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 80.
55 Ibid.
56 Ibid., 81.
57 Ibid., 86.
58 Williams, Kant and the End.
59 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 80.
60 Shklar, Legalism, 191.
61 Ibid., 162.
62 Ibid., 191.
63 The Soviet Union being an exception. Shklar, Legalism, 164.
64 Shklar, Legalism, 192.
65 Ibid.
66 Shklar, Faces of Injustice, 49.
67 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 22.
68 Shklar, Legalism, 193.
69 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 80.
70 Shklar, Montesquieu, 68.
71 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 12.
72 Hess, The Political Theory; Gatta, Rethinking Liberalism.
73 Lilla, “Very Much a Fox,” 9.
74 See Stullerova, “Knowledge of Suffering.”
75 Shklar, Ordinary Vices, 213–4.
76 Ibid., 216.
77 Hoffmann, Chaos and Violence, 40.
78 Shklar, “Liberalism of Fear,” 9.
79 Stullerova, “Knowledge of Suffering”; Royer, “International Criminal Justice.”
80 Stullerova, “Rethinking Human Rights,” 2013, 689.
81 Shklar, “Liberalism of Fear,” 11.
82 Sleat, “Value of Global Justice,” 175.
83 Ibid., 174.
84 Ibid., 178, 176.
85 Farr, “Remembering the Revolution.”
86 Shklar, Legalism, 193.