This piece is based off an article written by Tomáš Korda, where he directs his theories on the question: “Is the West doomed to walk alone?” on the realist and progressive philosophical views of Hegel.
As a ethics philosopher myself and a student counsellor and administrator for our IR courses here in Geneva, I feel compelled to promote the concepts of philosophy throughout any IR query and for you to understand as IR students that philosophy is not just on the fringe of what you will be learning, it is the all encompassing foundation of what you will explore from study to career development so, I do hope you consider this as much as possible on your journey!
Here is an intro piece into WHY philosophy is such a relevant add on to any IR discussion or exploration:
Philosophy and International Relations: Why Do States Need an “Other”?
International Relations is often introduced through the language of states, governments, alliances, conflict, diplomacy, security and power. But beneath all of these concepts are much older philosophical questions.
What is a state? What makes a nation legitimate? Why do states cooperate? Why do they fight? What does peace actually mean? And, perhaps most importantly, do we understand who we are partly through understanding who we are not?
These questions take us beyond the immediate events of world politics and into philosophy.
An excellent starting point is the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), whose ideas continue to provoke debate about how states relate to one another. A recent article by Tomáš Korda for the Institute for Human Sciences, Hegel on International Relations: Is the West Doomed to Walk Alone?, explores precisely this problem.
Why should an International Relations student study philosophy?
Philosophy gives us something that political events alone cannot: a framework for questioning the assumptions behind international politics.
Imagine that two countries are in conflict…..
A conventional IR analysis might ask:
- Who has greater military power?
- What are their economic interests?
- What alliances do they have?
- What resources are at stake?
- What are their strategic objectives?
These are important questions.
But philosophy asks something different:
Why do these states understand their interests in the way that they do in the first place?
That is a much deeper question.
Our political decisions are shaped by ideas about justice, freedom, sovereignty, identity, morality, human nature and even our understanding of history. If students study only what states do, they can miss the ideas that explain why states believe they should do it.
This is where Hegel becomes particularly interesting.
Hegel: Realism or Idealism?
One of the fascinating things about Hegel is that he does not fit comfortably into one category.
Some scholars interpret him as a realist. In this reading, states are fundamentally independent political entities pursuing their own interests, and international politics contains no overarching authority capable of completely preventing conflict.
This resembles the thinking associated with thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli.
But other scholars see Hegel as offering a more progressive or Kantian interpretation of international relations. States are not simply isolated objects competing for power. They can recognise one another, develop relationships and form communities.
This creates a fascinating tension.
Is international politics fundamentally about competition, or is it capable of developing towards cooperation?
Hegel’s importance lies partly in the fact that he does not make the student choose too quickly.
The article argues that Hegel’s philosophy can actually bring these apparently contradictory positions together. For Hegel, contradiction is not necessarily evidence that one side is wrong. Contradiction can reveal something deeper about reality itself.
And this is an enormously valuable lesson for an IR student.
International politics is full of contradictions.
A country can want peace while preparing for war.
A state can defend human rights while protecting its own strategic interests.
Countries can cooperate economically while competing politically.
An alliance can create security for its members while making outsiders feel less secure.
A state can believe it is acting defensively while another state interprets exactly the same action as aggressive.
The contradiction is not necessarily a mistake in the system. It may be part of the system.
The importance of recognition
One of Hegel’s most interesting contributions to thinking about international relations concerns recognition.
States do not exist entirely in isolation. They seek recognition from other states.
To be recognised as a sovereign state is not simply to possess territory and a government. It involves being treated as a legitimate political actor by others.
This introduces a psychological and philosophical dimension to international relations.
A state may ask:
Who are we?
But another question immediately follows:
Who recognises us as who we claim to be?
This is remarkably relevant to contemporary diplomacy.
Recognition can involve sovereignty, borders, legitimacy, political status, national identity and international institutions.
It also means that identity in international politics is relational.
We do not necessarily define ourselves entirely by looking inward.
Sometimes we define ourselves through comparison.
We are democratic because they are authoritarian.
We are peaceful because they are aggressive.
We defend freedom because they threaten it.
We belong to this alliance because we perceive a threat from outside it.
This brings us to perhaps the most provocative argument in Korda’s article.
Can peace itself create an enemy?
Hegel proposes something deeply uncomfortable.
Groups of states can form relationships resembling a “family”. They can develop shared values, institutions and interests. Cooperation can therefore become possible.
But the creation of a group can simultaneously create an outside.
If a group defines itself as us, there is inevitably the possibility of a them.
This means that an alliance can create security internally while simultaneously creating an external distinction.
The article applies this idea to the West and NATO, arguing that the question of who constitutes a common friend or enemy has become increasingly complicated as members of the alliance develop different perceptions of global threats.
Whether students agree with this contemporary application is almost less important than the philosophical question behind it:
Can human communities define themselves without creating someone outside the community?
And if the answer is no, what does that mean for the possibility of permanent global peace?
The paradox of global peace
Here we encounter one of the most interesting philosophical problems in International Relations.
Imagine a world in which countries cooperate peacefully.
It sounds like the ultimate objective.
But if countries form increasingly close communities, those communities may develop their own identities and boundaries.
The more strongly one group defines itself, the more clearly it can distinguish itself from another.
Hegel therefore creates a paradox:
Cooperation can produce peace, but cooperation can also produce exclusion.
This is why philosophy is so valuable to IR.
A political scientist might ask:
How can we create stronger international institutions?
A philosopher might ask:
What happens when those institutions create their own boundaries of belonging?
Both questions matter.
The “Other” in International Relations
This idea of the Other is one that students can carry far beyond Hegel.
Countries frequently construct their identity in relation to something external.
The “Other” might be:
- another country;
- another ideology;
- another religion;
- another political system;
- another civilisation;
- another economic model;
- another cultural identity;
- or even an imagined future threat.
This does not mean that every enemy is imaginary.
Real threats exist.
But philosophy encourages us to ask whether the way we perceive threats is also shaped by the stories we tell about ourselves and others.
This is particularly important for diplomacy.
A diplomat who sees the opposing country simply as “the enemy” has already narrowed the possibilities for negotiation.
A diplomat who asks:
Why does the other side see the world this way?
has opened a different door.
Understanding does not mean agreeing.
Empathy does not mean surrender.
And recognising another state’s perspective does not mean abandoning your own values.
Instead, it creates the possibility of seeing the structure of the disagreement.
That is one of the foundations of sophisticated diplomacy.
Philosophy teaches students not to accept the obvious
Perhaps the greatest lesson from Hegel is methodological.
International Relations students are constantly presented with apparently obvious statements:
“This country is the aggressor.”
“That country is defending itself.”
“These states are allies.”
“Those states are enemies.”
“This action is in the national interest.”
“Peace is the opposite of war.”
Philosophy asks students to stop and interrogate those statements.
What do we mean by “aggressor”?
Who determines what counts as “defence”?
Why does a country consider something to be in its “national interest”?
Can two countries simultaneously believe they are acting defensively?
Can peace exist without justice?
Can security for one state produce insecurity for another?
Can an alliance survive if its members no longer agree about the nature of the threat?
These are not abstract classroom exercises.
They are questions that diplomats, governments and international organisations encounter every day.
Why this matters for the future diplomat
An International Relations student should therefore not think of philosophy as something separate from their subject.
Philosophy is underneath the subject.
It helps students examine the assumptions behind power.
It asks them to think about morality before making judgements.
It teaches them to recognise contradictions rather than immediately trying to eliminate them.
It encourages them to question their own worldview.
And perhaps most importantly, it teaches them that understanding another actor does not require becoming that actor.
A successful diplomat needs to be able to hold two ideas simultaneously:
I may strongly disagree with you.
and
I need to understand why you believe what you believe.
That intellectual distance is extraordinarily powerful.
The diplomat who cannot understand the worldview of the other side can negotiate only from their own perspective.
The diplomat who can understand both perspectives can begin to search for the space between them.
And this is where philosophy becomes practical.
It teaches us how to think before we decide what to do.
Questions for International Relations Students
Understanding
- Why does the article argue that Hegel can be interpreted both as a realist and as a progressive/Kantian thinker?
- What does Hegel mean by the importance of recognition between states?
- What is meant by the idea of an international “family” of states?
Analysis
- Can a group of states create peace among themselves while simultaneously creating an “enemy” outside the group? Give a contemporary example.
- Do states define their identity partly through comparison with other states? How?
- Is contradiction necessarily a weakness in international politics, or can it reveal something fundamental about how international relations works?
Philosophical debate
- Can there ever be genuine global peace if states continue to define themselves through national identities and borders?
- Does security for one state inevitably create insecurity for another?
- Can diplomacy succeed if we refuse to understand the worldview of our opponent?
- Is it possible to have a truly universal international order, or will every international “community” inevitably exclude someone?
The bigger question
If we understand ourselves partly through the people or states we define as “other”, what would happen to international politics if there were no “other” left?
HUMANOLOGY 