Michael Oakeshott’s political philosophy of civil association and constructivism in International Relations

Abstract

This article shows the relevance of Oakeshott’s political philosophy for the contemporary constructivist debate in International Relations. First, the article argues that Oakeshott’s perspective stresses that political institutions are based on norms and relationships which result from human understanding. Second, it elaborates on Nicholas Rengger’s recent work and reveals that Oakeshott’s On Human Conduct presents considerations pertaining to international politics that are consistent with his broader political philosophy. These observations concern the nature of war, the historical role of colonialism and the evolution of international society. Third, this article discusses Terry Nardin’s notion of ‘practical association’ and Christian Reus-Smit’s criticism of it. It contends that international civil association is a relationship between states based on understood and socially constructed moral values and practices. Finally, the article claims that customary international law declares and reflects these values and practices. As such, it reveals that Oakeshott’s notion of authority and his theory of civil association illuminate the possibility of an international legal order without a legislative office. This is of particular relevance also because of the Hobbesian influence on Oakeshott. Overall, this article illustrates how Michael Oakeshott’s theory of civil association sheds light on the nature of international society and law.

Civil association across borders: Law, morality and responsibility in the post-Brexit Era

“…Both Oakeshott and Habermas share the view that the rule of law is ‘learned rather than inherited’ (Humphreys, 2010: 42–44). Civil association is thus consistent with both the notion of law as the codification of practices and the view that law makes moral norms obligatory (Orsi, 2015).…”

“…Civil association is a response to a predicament of the human condition: the problem of how to live together with more or less shared values, habits and goals. As several commentators have shown, Oakeshott’s concept of civil association is not void of values (Orsi, 2015). Perhaps one could say that the values of a civil association are those that sustain the association and that specify the associates as such, so that civil association preserves the civil condition among individuals and societies.…”

“…One aspect not much developed by Oakeshott but well accounted for by, among others, Annabel Brett (2011) and Andreas Osiander (2007) is that the formation of the modern state also involved a major rethinking of political space and how notions of borders evolved, eventually leading to the particular division of political space generally referred to as the Westphalian system. Oakeshott’s account of this aspect is under-theorised, although recent research shows that at least some element of civil association in Oakeshott’s work relate to international relations (Orsi, 2015, 2016; Rengger, 2013).…”