On the Notion of "Interest" in International Relations Friedrich Kratochwil International Organization, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Winter, 1982), 1-30. Stable URL: http//links jstor.org/sici?sict=0020-8183%28198224%2936%3A 1%3C1%3AO TNO 221%3E2,0,CO%3B2-D International Organization is currently published by The MIT Press, ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup://uk,jstor.org/abouvterms.himl. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you ‘may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/fuk,jstor.org/joumalsimitpress. hl, Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission, STOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals, For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support @jstor.org. hups/uk.jstororg/ Thu May 20 21:43:58 2004On the notion of “interest” in international relations Friedrich Kratochwil As the decline of America’s position in the world becomes obvious to the observer of international reality, the reexamination of our national inter- ‘est does not seem to need special justification. Given the Vietnam legacy, a possible disintegration of the old foreign-policy consensus, the difficulties with Third World challenges ranging from OPEC to Iran, and what is per- ceived as increasing Soviet intransigence on many issues, there is no lack of advice regarding what ought to be done.’ The mood, though, is far less confident than in the great debate of nearly three decades ago, which cen- tered on the concept of the national interest.* But now, as then, the concept of the national interest, celebrated by its champions as “the main signpost that helps political realism through the landscape of international politics,”"? proves elusive. Scholars who try to clarify the concept also appear to be at a loss, since the conflicting demands made in the name of the national interest clearly defy a substantive definition of its content.‘ Three strategies come to mind, by which the scientist of our day might deal with this embarrassment. ‘This article was writen under the auspices ofthe Center of Intemational Studies, Princeton University, whose support is hereby gratefully acknowledged. also owe a debt of gratitude to my colleagues and friends Nick Onus, John Rugg, and Sherri Conyers as well aso the Editor, Peter Kalzenstein, and an anonymous reviewer who read an earlier draft and made valuable suggestions. "For a stocktaking of American interests inthe post-Vietnam era see Stanley Hoffmann, Primacy or World Order (New York: MeGraw-Hil, 1977); see also the special sue, "America and the World 1978,” Foreign Affairs 57, 3 (197). "Hans Morgenthau, In Defense of the National Interest (New York: Knopf, 1951); Morgenthau, “Another Great Debate: The National Interest and the United States.” Amer an Potical Science Review 46, 4(1952): 961-88; Reinhold Niebubr, The Children of Light and ‘he Children of Darkness (New York: Scribner, 1950); George F. Kennan, American Diplomacy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Amold Wolfers, ‘The Goals of Foreign Policy” in Wolters ed. Discord and Collaboration (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963), pp. 67-80; C. B. Marshal, “National Interest and National Responsibility,” Annals of the American Society of Palical and Social Setence 282 Jay 1952). 1-8, “Hans Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, Sth ed. (New York: Knopf, 1978, p. 5. ‘See, for example, the somewhat confused aitempt of Joseph Frankel in National Interest (London: Pall Mall 1970), which fails to tellus why a given classification is sensible or fting ‘International Organization 36, 1, Winter 1982 (0020-818382/010001-30 $1.50 © 1982 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2 International Organization ‘There is first the notion of denying the relevance of such a concept for ‘any sensible inquiry on the grounds that the concept is a myth—a meaning- less phrase or at best an indication of subjective preferences’—which ex- cludes the possibility of the term’s having an intersubjective content. But to abandon the concept would probably cause embarrassment, since the notion of the national interest is part of our political reality and is integral to our discourse on public affairs. We cannot eliminate with impunity the part of political reality for which the term stands. On the one hand the concept of the national interest is analytically fuzzy, while on the other hand itis important and used by decision makers.® As a second strategy we therefore might deal with the problem in terms of false consciousness or ideology. Oddly enough, in this respect the Marxist position is similar to the radical liberal one, holding that particular interests ‘masquerade as the national interest while in some miraculous manner the interest of groups (liberal version)’ or the proletarian class interest (Marxist deviation)* is accepted as a given. Third, there is the possibility of arguing for further empirical study, in the hope of discovering some yet-unperceived pattern in terms of which the divergent claims embodying the “true” national interest can be viewed or categorized. Thus “the best and perhaps the only available procedure may bbe to take the official definition and the policy output as the basis for our understanding.””* But Charles Beard’s study, in 1934, surveying the national interest arguments from the inception of the Republic to the interwar pe- riod"? and Osgood’ similar, though more sophisticated, work on Ideals and Self-Interest in America’s Foreign Relations" led to difficulties. An inven- tory of the national interest arguments might not lead to a clarification of the issues. What can be learned from such nuggets of wisdom as Mahan’s advo- cacy of a large navy in order to defend not only the U.S. homeland but “our just national interests, whatever they be and wherever they are’"?!* Is not the determination of the “whatever” and ‘wherever’ at issue? Similarly, Osgood’s work advances our understanding somewhat since it shifts atten- ‘See, for example, Edgar Furniss and Richard Snyder, Am Introduction to American Foreign Policy (New York: Rinehart, 1955) on p. 5: "The national interest is what the nation, i.e, the decision-maker decies iti." “This seems to be James Rosenau's postion in his article, '“National Interest," Interna: tional Encyclopedia ofthe Social Science’ (New York: Free Press, 1968), 11: 35-4 "Perhaps most clearly stated in the context ofthe public interest debate: see David Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1951) and Glendon Schubert, The Public Iner- est (New York: Free Pres, 1960). "Differing from this traditional Marxist point of view, Isaak Balbus tried to utilize the Marx- in distinction of clas am sich and fr sich to render objective the notion of interest. Balbus, “The Concept of Interest in Puralist and Marxian Analysis,” Politics and Soctety 1, 2 (1978) 151-79, Fred Sondermann, “The Concept of the National Interest," Orbis 21, 1 (1977), p. 132. Charles A- Beard, The Idea of the National Imerest (New York: Macmillan, 1934). "Robert E, Osgood, Ideals and Selflnterest in America's Foreign Relaions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), "Quoted in Beard, Idea of the National Imerest, p. 339.