When liberal peoples turn into outlaw states: John Rawls’ Law of Peoples and liberal nuclearism

Abstract

John Rawls’ account in Law of Peoples of a realist utopia composed of a society of liberal and decent peoples is a stark contrast to his description of “outlaw states,” which seek to undermine the legal and moral frameworks that constitute a pacific global order. Rawls argues that outlaw states cannot conceive of political accommodation with their external enemies; instead, they opt for the rule of force, terror, and brutality. Rawls even urges that liberal peoples are justified in maintaining a nuclear deterrent to prevent outlaw states from obtaining and then using nuclear weapons on liberal societies if the opportunity arose. This article examines the paradoxical question of liberal societies that, in the name of opposing outlaw states, undertake security policies which correspond to “outlaw” statist behavior. It then explores the implications of liberal roguishness for the legitimacy of liberal international security arrangements, such as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Regime.

The ethics of Carr and Wendt: Fairness and peace

“…These revelations open up the prospect of a closer engagement between mainstream and normative IR, two communities that have hitherto been quite skeptical of one another’s respective approaches. Indeed, Carr’s concern with fairness overlaps with the interests of Rawlsians in IR and the conception of justice as fairness (Doyle, 2015; Eckert, 2015; Rawls, 1971; Risse, 2016; Tong, 2017; Williams, 2014), whereas Wendt’s project for global peace is also a concern of cosmopolitans (Brown, 2012a; Hayden, 2013; Hibbert, 2013; McManus, 2013; Vernon, 2013). This may enable closer engagement between these diverse communities that rarely speak to one another and strengthen the disciplinary research on ethics as a result.…”

The Cultural Role of Civil Societies and the National Parliament in the Domestic Enforcement of International Laws on Corruption in Tanzania

“…From the realism perspective, a lasting system of international law requires individual states of the international society to compete to arrive at a mutually beneficial system of international law (Doyle, 2015;Sandholtz & Whytock, 2017). Yet, one must recognize the role of a country's culture and organization in creating a lasting system of international law.…”

Debating global justice with Carr: The crisis of laissez faire and the legitimacy problem in the twenty-first century

“…The implicit acceptance of the violence committed by the status quo under laissez faire can also be seen in the statist argument centred on the Rawlsian ‘peoples’ (Eckert, 2015; Rawls, 1999; Tong, 2017). Thomas Doyle (2015) argues that under certain conditions of intense securitization, for example, in the case of nuclear deterrence or the US war on Iraq (2003), Rawls’ liberal peoples can turn into outlaw states. What is significant here is what Doyle’s critique reveals: that Rawls’ liberal/outlaw categories are not only unstable but can also overlap.…”