© GROUP 1 , PAGE 1 /42

© GROUP 1 , PAGE 2 /42

© GROUP 1 , PAGE 3 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 4 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 5 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 6 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 7 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 8 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 9 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 10 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 11 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 12 /42
 INTRODUCTORY
CONCEPTS
Utopia & reality are the 2
facets of political science.
UTOPIANISM
» Teleology precedes analysis: an aspiration to work
towards an ideal is essential to human thinking.
» Aspiration behind international politics was the
desire to prevent war. Attention is concentrated
exclusively on the end to be achieved
REALISM
» Assumes a critical and somewhat cynical aspect
» Places emphasis on the acceptance of facts and
on the analysis of their causes and consequences
» Realism is the necessary corrective to the
exuberance of utopianism, just as in other periods
utopianism must be invoked to counteract the
barrenness of realism.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 13 /42
 UTOPIANISM
» An essential foundation of liberal creed, it relies
on public opinion to judge rightly on any question
rationally presented to it and assumes that it will
act in accordance with this right judgment.
» Jeremy Bentham founded the doctrine of
salvation by public opinion and strongly believed
in infallibility of public opinion (public opinion =
opinion of educated & enlightened men).
» The belief that a priori rational principles had only
be applied in other contexts to produce similar
results dominated the world after WW1.
PRIMACY OF ETHICS > POLITICS
(U): It is the duty of the individual to submit for the
sake of the community as a whole, sacrificing his
own interest to the interest of others who are more
numerous, or in some other way more deserving.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 14 /42
 LEAGUE OF
NATIONS
FREE CONSENT:
(1)  Public opinion was the voice of reason
(2)  Public opinion was bound to prevail.
COVENANT: ultimate and most effective sanction
must be the public opinion of the civilised world
Bryan treaties dropped arbitration in favor of
conciliation. Thus, the League approached material
sanctions reluctantly, enacted a provision that
declaring war required a 1-year grace period, and
molded efforts in the spirit of peaceful cooperation
easy and hence customary trust in public opinion.
The League of Nations, being the first large-scale
attempt to standardise international political
problems on a rational basis, was particularly
liable to embarrassments. When transplanting
theories of liberal democracy to a period and to
countries whose stage of development and whose
practical needs were utterly different sterility and
disillusionment were the inevitable sequel.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 15 /42
 HARMONY OF
INTERESTS
POSTULATE: The highest interest of individuals &
of the community naturally coincide.
Common Interest in Peace
COROLLARY: Moral laws can be established by
right reasoning.
» Admission of any divergence of interests will be
fatal; any apparent clash of interests must therefore
be explained as a result of wrong calculation.
Liberal nationalism believed in a division of labour
between nations. Each nation had its own special
task its special aptitudes fitted; performing this task
was its contribution to humanity’s welfare. If all
nations acted in this spirit, int’l harmony prevails.
REALIST CRITIQUE: Such harmony was established
through the sacrifice of "unfit". International peace
is a special vested interest of predominant Powers;
The ruling class in a community prays for domestic
peace (guarantee own security/predominance), and
denounces class-war (might threaten them).
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 16 /42
 DARWINISM IN
INT’L POLITICS
»Laissez-faire, in IR as in those between capital
and labour, is the paradise of the economically
strong. The good of the community was still
identical with the good of its individual members,
but only of those individuals who were effective
competitors in the struggle for life
» The good of the minority will be sacrificed for
the majority. The material success of the weaker
Powers in building up protected industries is
foregone in internationalism.
REALIST CRITIQUE ON INTERNATIONALISM:
Pleas for national solidarity in domestic politics
always come from a dominant group to strengthen
its own control over the nation as a whole; pleas for
international solidarity & world union come from
those dominant nations which may hope to
exercise control over a unified world.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 17 /42
 REALISM
(1)  All thinking is pragmatic & purpose-driven.
(2)  Theories are instruments of power.
Realism functions “to reveal, no merely the
determinist aspects of historical process, but the
relative &pragmatic character of thought itself.”
» Niccolo Machiavelli recognized morality as the
product of power & argued 3 points of realism:
• History is a sequence of cause & effect;
analysed by intellectualism, not "imagination”.
• Practice makes theory.
• Ethics are a function of politics. Men "are
kept honest by constraint".
PRIMACY OF POLITICS > ETHICS
(R): Obligation is derived from recognising that
might is right. The ruler rules because he is the
stronger, and the ruled submit simply because they
are the weaker.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 18 /42
 REALIST CRITIQUE
Rationalism can create a utopia, but cannot
make it real. It’s difficult to regard an absolute
standard independent of the interests of those who
promulgate policies. Ingenious moral devices are
invoked, in perfect sincerity, by privileged groups
to justify & maintain their dominant position.
Intellectual theories and ethical standards of
utopianism, far from being the expression of
absolute and a priori principles, are historically
conditioned, being both products of
circumstances and interests and weapons framed
for the furtherance of interests.
After the war every country struggled to
maintain its expanded production; and an
enhanced and inflamed national consciousness
was invoked to justify the struggle. The object was
now to eliminate a competitor, a revival of whose
prosperity might menace your own.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 19 /42
 NATURE OF POLITICS
Politics deals with the behavior of men in
organized permanent/semi-permanent groups
» Some sanction is required to produce the
measure of solidarity requisite for its maintenance
which is applied by a controlling group or
individual acting in the name of the society. In the
modern world, it was observed that:
• membership to a state is compulsory
• state is based on some sense of common
interests and obligations among its members
• coercion regularly exercised by a governing
group to enforce loyalty and obedience
State – principal organ of political power
(a)  “..built upon the consciences of men”
(b)  War = main agency in producing the state
» Every state is built out of 1 conflicting aspects of
human nature (coercion & conscience, enmity &
goodwill, self-assertion & self-subordination);
inextricably blended in these are: Utopia & reality,
Ideal & the institution, Morality & power)
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 20 /42
 POWER POLITICS
Politics is the science of power & self-assertion;
it excludes actions inspired by moral consciousness.
» Politics can’t be divorced from power but a homo
politicus who pursues nothing but power is as unreal
a myth as a homo economicus pursuing only gain.
Some non-realists identify politics with power:
(1)  Doctrine of non-resistance: boycott of politics;
political power as an evil but regards the use of
power to resist power as a still greater evil
(2)  Anarchism: spontaneous revolt of the outraged
individual conscience; does not seek to create a
new political society, but a moral society from
which completely eliminates power (& politics)
(3)  Coexistence: separate political & moral spheres;
evades the insoluble problem of finding a moral
justification for the use of force
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 21 /42
 CATEGORIES OF
POWER IN POLITICS
(1)  Military: Ultima ratio of power in IR is war. Military
power, an essential element in the life of the state, is
not only an instrument, but an end in itself; just as
how territorial ambitions are just as likely to be
products as they are causes of war.
» Theory of Collective Security Fallacy: war can be
waged simply to “resist aggression”
(2)  Economic: Autarky (self-sufficiency) is primarily a
form of preparedness for war. It is pressed to serve
national policy via acquiring power & influence
abroad. 2 principal forms of acquisition include
capital exports & foreign market controls.
» granting of loans or credits to finance exports
» reciprocal trade agreement: barter system
(3)  Opinion: the art of persuasion (propaganda) has
always been a necessary part of the equipment of a
political leader; contemporary politics is vitally
dependent on the opinion of large masses of more
or less politically conscious people
» Propaganda is ineffective as a political force until
it acquires a national home and becomes linked
with military + economic power
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 22 /42
 TRUTH/MORALITY
IN PROPAGANDA
Opinion is conditioned by status & interest. A
ruling class/nation//dominant group of nations not
only evolves opinions favorable to maintaining its
privileged position, but can, via military/economic
superiority, easily impose these opinions on others.
Power over opinion is never absolute; it has limits:
a) necessary degree of conformity with fact
» education – a strong instrument of this
power & its strongest antidote (promotes
a spirit of independent enquiry)
b) inherent utopianism of human nature:
national propaganda eagerly cloaks itself in
ideologies of a professedly international
character, proving the existence of an
international stock of common ideas and that
these ideas stand somehow in the scale of
values above national interests
» stock of common ideas = int’l morality
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 23 /42
 INT’L MORALITY
Fundamental dilemma of int’l morality: the sense of
obligation to an int’l community results in general
good (humanity as a whole) tending to override the
good of the particular (welfare of each member).
STATE VERSUS INDIVIDUAL MORALITY:
» Morality of the state is confined to a formal kind and
can be codified in a set of rules approximating to law
» Individual morality focuses on essentially personal
qualities (love, hate, jealousy, other intimate emotions)
» States are repositories of political power; there is no
authority above the state capable of imposing moral
behavior on it as a certain minimum of moral behavior
is imposed on other group-persons by the state
It becomes a moral duty to promote the welfare,
and further the interests of the group as a whole.
Loyalty to the group comes to be regarded as a
cardinal virtue of the individual and may require him
to condone behavior by the group person which he
would condemn in himself.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 24 /42
 INT’L MORALITY
(ORDINARY MAN)
International moral codes
are binding on states.
» State-Individual
Obligations:
• not to inflict unnecessary
death /suffering on another
human being
• international protection
of national minorities or
“backward races”
» State-State Obligations:
•“comity of nations” –
states are members of a
community and have
obligations as such
(PHILOSOPHERS)
INT’L MORALITY
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 25 /42
individuals and to states
morality is applicable to
that the same code of
» Utopian writers believe
plays no part in them
power and that morality
governed solely by
between states are
believe that relations
» Realist Philosophers
by the philosopher.
made almost exclusively
standards to IR has been
The relevance of ethical
 PRINCIPLE OF
EQUALITY
A capital shortcoming of the int’l community is its
failure to secure general acceptance of the postulate
that the good of the whole takes precedence over
the good of the part. Resolving this dilemma can be
done through ways fatal to any effective conception
of int’l morality…
• identifying the good of the whole with the
good of the fittest (Darwinian thought)
• identifying the good of the whole with the
security of those in possession (neo-liberal
doctrine of the harmony of interests)
In the international order, the role of power is greater
and that of morality less. Any international moral
order must rest on some hegemony of power
which is in itself, a challenge to those who do not
share it. The process of give-and-take operates only
within the existing order and that sacrifices (especially
self-sacrifice on the part of individual members)
should be made by all to maintain that order.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 26 /42
 FOUNDATIONS
OF INT’L LAW
NATURE OF INT’L LAW (IL):
(1)  IL recognizes no court competent to give on any
issue of law/fact decisions recognized as binding
by the community as a whole
(2)  IL has no agents competent to enforce
observance of the law.
(3)  IL shares similarity with primitive communities,
customs being the main source of law (treaties
are only binding if accepted by a state).
LAW AS A FUNCTION OF POLITICAL SOCIETY
» No political society can exist without law; law
cannot exist except in political society.
» IL = function of the political community of nations
» Rules will constantly be aimed at a particular state
or group of states; for this reason, the power element
is more predominant/obvious in IL
• Fallacies: personification of law, the idea that
law is more moral than politics
» What makes law necessary in political society is not
its subject-matter, nor ethical content, but its stability.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 27 /42
 © GROUP 1 , PAGE 28 /42
NATURAL
LAW
» Utopian naturalists think in
ethical terms & find legal
authority in natural law .
» Natural law with variable
content—no longer
connotes something
external/ fixed/invariable,
but men’s innate feeling at
any given time or place for
what “just law” ought to be.
»Natural law can be just as
easily invoked to incite
disobedience to the law as
to justify obedience.
LAW
REALIST
oppressive.
it can sometimes seem
arm of authority; hence,
enforced by the strong
as binding because it is
» Realist Law is regarded
common good.
instrument of the
community; it is an
the sense of right of the
» Realist Law represents
will of states.
authority of law in the
in terms of power & find
» Realist positivists think
 TREATIES
» States enjoy the unconditional right to denounce
any treaty at any time. Some breaches of treaties were
excused not on legal basis but rather, on the ethical
grounds of lacking moral validity.
» Principle of “necessity” or “vital interests”— nobody
can be called to perform the impossible (including
acts detrimental to a state’s vital interests).
TREATY SIGNED UNDER DURESS: treaties to end war
are almost inevitably accepted by losers under duress
INEQUITABLE TREATY: States reserve the moral right
to repudiate a treaty which is not necessarily immoral,
but inequitable in the sense that it imposes
conditions flagrantly incompatible with the existing
relations of power between the contracting parties
TREATY AS INSTRUMENT OF POWER: Stronger states
will insist on the sanctity of the treaties concluded by
them with weaker states
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 29 /42
 IR’S JUDICIAL
SETTLEMENTS
Power differences are irrelevant in judicial
procedure; a court recognizes no inequality
other than inequality of legal right. In politics,
power is an essential factor in every dispute.
» IL disputes are not justiciable. No court is
competent unless parties agreed to confer jurisdiction
on it & recognize decisions as binding.
» Obstacles to int’l arbitration: difficulty of finding
impartial judges, no accepted view of the
community’s good overriding a member’s good (int’l
morality problem), no objective criterion of
“suitability” of a dispute for judicial settlement
» No principle of law enables one to decide that a
given issue is suitable for treatment by legal methods.
The decision is a political one.
ALL-IN ARBITRATION: The way to establish an int’l
‘rule of law’ and avoid future wars was for states to
submit all international disputes of every kind to an
int’l arbitral tribunal having power to decide them at
its discretion on grounds either of strict law or of
equity and common sense.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 30 /42
 PEACEFUL
CHANGE
There is a need for political change.
» The attempt to make a moral distinction between
wars of “aggression” and wars of “defense” is
misguided. The moral criterion must be not the
“aggressive” or “defensive” character of war, but the
nature of the change which is being sought and
resisted.
» If a change is necessary and desirable, the use or
threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may
be morally more culpable than the use or threatened
use of force to alter it.
Problems of “peaceful change” in national politics
is how to effect necessary & desirable changes
without revolution; in international politics, how
to effect such changes without war.
» Every solution of the problem of political change,
whether national or international, must be based on a
compromise between morality and power
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 31 /42
 © GROUP 1 , PAGE 32 /42

POWER IN
POLITICAL CHANGE
equilibrium of forces.”
» Use of force (war to a changed
threats, tacit /overt) mechanical adjustment
seems a necessary conception of a
condition in order for and the realist
important political common feeling of right
changes happen in the conception of a
international sphere. between the utopian
» Grievances of states the compromise
are strong enough to only be achieved with
create a danger of war. » “Peaceful change can
» Legislation (“legal affected.
revolution”) is the most the mass of people
obvious & regular way of influence the attitude of
bringing about political transaction will
change within the state. » The morality of a

POLITICAL CHANGE
MORALITY IN
 NATIONS AS A
UNIT OF POWER
» The Inequality between nations threaten us with a
world upheaval. Thus, the harmony we must
establish is a harmony between nations.
» Nations as a unit of power may be superseded: At
present, nations remain territorial but International
relations may be supplanted by a new set of group
relationships in the future.
» There may be striking developments in the near
future for nations to take approximately the form of
the contemporary nation-state.
•Trend towards integration and the formation
of ever larger political and economic units
• Trend toward disintegration may still be
found at work
• Concept of sovereignty becoming more
blurred and indistinct
• Group units will survive as repositories of
political power.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 33 /42
 TRAGEDIES OF
OUR UTOPIA
The collapse of our utopia: What was good for
one country is not good for others.
Breakdown of our basis of international morality:
» Darwinian doctrine: identifies the good of the
whole with the good of the fittest and the
elimination of the unfit
» Doctrine of a natural harmony of interests:
international morality is identified not by the
strongest by those in possession
The breakdown of these doctrines has left us unable
to reconcile the good of the nation with the good of
the world community
We must now explore the ruins of our international
order and discover where we may rebuild it. This
problem must be considered from the standpoint
of both power and morality.
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 34 /42
 MORALS IN THE
NEW INT’L ORDER
» Power still affects international order.
morality: We can’t avoid restore the power of
a tyranny of the majority. own interests may
» A need to sacrifice defend and assert their
economic advantage for power that strive to
social ends often occurs » A coalition of states in
despite how economic declines.
and moral goodness do international order also
not always equate. power decreases, the
» The best hope for » As the superior state’s
progress is economic 19th Century = Britain)
reconstruction because of a single power (e.g.
mankind often revolts was a product of the rise
against naked power. past to a world society
» Every approach in the
NEW INT’L ORDER
POWER IN THE
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 35 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 36 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 37 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 38 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 39 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 40 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 41 /42
© GROUP 1 , PAGE 42 /42
 REFERENCES
•  Carr, E.H. (1939). The Twenty Years Crisis. Retrieved
from https://www.scribd.com/doc/167060273/E-H-
Carr-the-Twenty-Years-Crisis-1919-1939-an-
Introduction-to-the-Study-of-International-
Relations-1946
•  Phanprasit, P.P. (2010). How convincing is E.H. Carr’s
Critiques of Utopianism?. E-International Relations
Students. Retrieved from http://www.e-ir.info/
2010/06/09/how-convincing-is-e-h-carr%E2%80%99s-
critique-of-utopianism/
•  Wilson, P. (1998). The myth of the ‘First Great Debate’.
Review of International Studies, 24(5), 1-16.
DISCLAIMER
We do not intend to infringe copyright laws. Our
group makes no claims of ownership regarding the
Monopoly game franchise. Under Sec 173.1 of the
Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, parodies
are referred to as a form of derivative work which can
include “Dramatizations, translations, adaptations,
abridgments, arrangements, and other alterations of
literary or artistic works”, which should be, according to
the code, protected of copyright as new work provided
that “such new work shall not affect the force of any
subsisting copyright upon the original works employed
or any part thereof, or be construed to imply any right to
such use of the original works, or to secure or extend
copyright in such original works.”
(https://nhiceyscribe.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/
parody-as-free-speech-in-the-philippine-context/)