Critical Reflections on a Discipline: A Canadian Perspective

By Teresa Healy and Mark Neufeld, Trent University, Canada

The traditional view of social science is that it is a value-neutral enterprise concerned with capturing, in objective a fashion as possible, the realities of the world around us. This traditional view has certainly informed much of the thinking about our discipline – International Relations. There is, however, another admittedly minority view that says that any effort to produce a body of knowledge is informed by normative and political interests – in the words of Robert Cox, “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose”.² It is this second view which forms the starting point for our reflections here. And in the context of discussions about the future of International Relations as scholarly enterprise, it raises some important issues.

International Relations has, virtually from its beginnings in the early part of this century, been a quintessentially “American” social science.³ The United States has been the dominant actor in global politics in the 20th century, and the global order it helped to construct can legitimately be termed “pax americana”.

In this context, the question of whom and what “International Relations” was for is more than clear: its purpose was to produce policy-relevant knowledge for American leaders as they set to create and direct a world order consistent with the interests of America’s economic and social elites.

Of course, the United States could not erect and legitimate a world order on its own. It had help from “loyal allies” like Britain and Canada, whose social and economic elites shared the worldview of their American counterparts.⁴ Indeed, it can be argued that Canada played a crucial function in its “middle power” role of “helpful fixer” and “mediator”, in helping to legitimize pax americana as an order which served not parochial American interests, but the common good.⁵

Teori Perdamaian Demokratik: Sebuah Tinjauan Kritik

Oleh Asrudin

 

‘even though liberal states have become involved in numerous wars with nonliberal states, constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another’

Michael Doyle (1983)

If only it were so…

 

George W. Bush pernah mengatakan bahwa Yesus adalah filsuf politik favoritnya, akan tetapi gagasannya tentang kebijakan luar lebih condong pada filsuf kenamaan asal Konisberg (Jerman) Immanuel Kant.

 

Dalam pidato pelantikan keduanya sebagai presiden, Bush menawarkan suatu formulasi kebijakan luar negeri yang jelas dan tepat mengenai “Perluasan Demokrasi di Luar Negeri Sebagai Kunci bagi Keamanan Domestik Amerika Serikat”. Menurutnya, upaya penyelenggaraan hubungan internasional bersama negara-negara bebas dalam mendorong terciptanya demokrasi adalah suatu pendahuluan untuk mengalahkan musuh kita dan untuk menciptakan perdamaian bersama negara-negara bebas.

 

Strategi kebijakan luar negeri presiden G.W. Bush ini sesungguhnya didasari oleh teori yang cukup terkenal dalam studi Hubungan Internasional: “Teori Perdamaian Demokratik”, teori yang mengakar kuat dalam essainya Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (Lihat http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/ kant1.htm). Dalam essainya, Kant sangat mendukung dibangunnya sistem republikan (demokrasi) dalam kehidupan politik bernegara. Karena baginya, konstitusi republik, disamping karena kemurnian asal usulnya (juga muncul dari kemurnian tentang konsep hukum), (juga memberikan prospek yang menguntungkan terhadap konsekuensi yang diinginkan), yaitu perdamaian abadi (perpetual peace). Alasannya adalah :

 

“if the consent of the citizens is required in order to decide that war should be declared (and in this constitution it cannot but the case), nothing is more natural than they would be very cautious in commencing such a poor game, decreeing for themselves all the calamities of war”.

 

Alasan teoretik ini menarik untuk diuji lebih lanjut: benarkah negara demokrasi tidak akan memerangi negara demokrasi lainnya, atau benarkah Amerika Serikat sebagai kampiun demokrasi tidak pernah memerangi negara demokrasi lainnya.