1. 1
What is just and moral in international politics?
Introduction: is there a place for justice and morality in international relations?
A debate whether International Relations is a normative discipline has been and remains a
subject of highly contested disputes within academic world. (Hopf 1999: 173) While many
prominent scholars argue that ideas of norms and morality are a power tool implemented by the
influential actors in world politics, others attempted to provide a strong theoretical basis for the
presence of certain ethical standards and universal values that apply to all actors in international
arena. (Carr 1992:265; Bull 1977: 42) The criticism against norms and morality existence in
international relations refers to an idea that international norms are created by the elites for their
own purposes, that often states simply pressured to act in a certain way due to rationality factor and
that existence of ethical standards reduces political uncertainty and relaxes the electorate. (Checkel
1997:487; Moravcsik 2000: 220) Normative theory in International Relations argues the opposite
and implies that general public shapes norms and ideas of what is moral and just, rather than being
passively subjected to the elites needs. (Hopf 1999: 171)
Though one can be a supporter of either sides, this essays foundation is an assumption that
indeed norms are inseparable part of the world politics operation. Our understanding and judgement
of what is the right and moral thing to do has a direct impact on the events, outcomes and
implemented policies in the political world. (Hopf 1999: 171; Kratochwil 1989: 37) As noticed by
Brown `The strongest point against amoralism in international relations stems from the observable
fact that individuals and states employ moral language – the language of rights and duties – in their
relations with each other in such a way as to preclude any argument that this language is
inappropriate. Any `realistic` account of state practice must recognise and reflect the fact that this is
so. ` (1992: 25)
However, the normative theory presents a conflicting dichotomy on how we define what is
just and moral. There are several interpretations of those concepts and so far the International

2. 2
Relations discipline is unable to reach an agreement on the ultimate definitions of justice and
morality. (Brown 1992: 27) In this essay, the discussion focuses on two dominant approaches to
normative theory of International Relations: cosmopolitanism and communitarianism. (Cochran
1999: 49) Cosmopolitanism refers to a popular idea of human equality, universal human rights and
value of individual life. Communitarianism in contrast emphasizes the importance of particular
cultural aspects in various societies that create a platform for norms and morality that are specific to
certain groups of people. (Kratochwil 1989: 37) Despite the attractiveness of the cosmopolitan
approach to International Relations, communitarianism demonstrates a more practical, realistic and
effective depiction of how norms are implemented in international arena. In world politics, the
moral and just thing to do is to provide security for state`s citizens and follow the interest of the
state. The aim of this essay is to illustrate this claim through the critical evaluation of both
approaches and an analysis of the Syrian Refugee Crisis.
This essay is structured as followed: in order to reinforce and justify the above statement, I
will first introduce and critically discuss both communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. Secondly, I
will attempt to apply this approaches to the Refugee Crisis by evaluating actual facts and
observations of the international community`s response to the crisis. Finally, based on the case
study evaluation there will be a discussion on why communitarianism appears to be a more suitable
way to explain international politics. Overall it will be argued that in international arena, an
understanding of what is just and moral rests predominantly on the communitarian assumptions.
Introducing the Cosmopolitanism/Communitarianism debate
In order to answer the question of what is just and moral in world politics, it is necessary
first to introduce the relevant concepts. As mentioned above, indeed both cosmopolitanism and
communitarianism remain the dominant approaches to explain norms in international relations.
Communitarian position stands for the variety of cultures in international community, which despite

3. 3
constant interaction hold contradicting and incompatible values. Cosmopolitanism stands for
universal notion of human rights and insist that same rules are to be applied to everyone, regardless
of their origin. (Morrice 2000: 235) In contrast, communitarian approach emphasises the
importance of cultural identity. As international politics is operated by sovereign states and consists
of varied societies, each community generates its own beliefs and interpretations of justice and
morality. Rights and the idea of justice are specific to each society`s culture, history and tradition
(Morrice 2000: 237; Kymlicka 2002:209) In regards to various international organisations,
communitarianism refers to it as a platform for states interaction, rather than an individual actor in
world politics.
Communitarianism certainly does not reject an idea of morality being present in
international relations, however it argues that no moral assumption is adequately legally endorsed
among nations, at least not to an extent of becoming stronger than a voice of a sovereign state.
Separate communities (though not always nation-states, as division can be drown on geographical
or religious ground) have designed institutions that provide the execution of rights. Of course there
are issues that require global cooperation, but according to communitarianism the best way to
address such issues is through states cooperation and non-interference. Human rights are not
universal. To sum up the ‘very idea of human rights implies limits to the range of variation in
domestic regimes that is acceptable internationally’ (Brown 2001: 610). Many human rights are in
fact conflicting with each other, thus it is practically impossible to universalise them.
From a cosmopolitanism perspective, reason is in the centre of human interaction and
applies to all. It provides the general foundation for moral principles creation. The theory builds its
assumption on the basis of Kants claim that `the peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying
degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in
one part of the world is felt everywhere`. (Kant 1795:107) Therefore, in the international arena
boarders are irrelevant: people have same rights, duties, and obligations to everyone else. (Erskine

4. 4
2010: 43; Brown 1992: 55). States prime role is to ensure the fair distribution of this universal
rights to people. (Morrice 2000: 238)
Discussion of the Cosmopolitanism/Communitarianism debate
This sections concentrates on the cosmopolitan/communitarian debate and provides an
outlook on its major theoretical dichotomies, which open up a space for the understanding of what
is just and moral in world politics. It is important to point out that communitarianism’s basic
postulates are known to be formulated by Hegel in his attempt to reject Kant`s political philosophy.
Hegel’s problem with Kant’s theory was that first of all it was quite abstract, and secondly ignored
the importance historical practices and cultural traditions that have been taking place in every
society for centuries. (Kymlicka 2002:209) The importance of cultural identity for communitarian
philosophy provides a foundation for the theory`s narrative of the international system. World
politics should be seen as an interaction between sovereign states which provide essential protection
and resources for its citizens. The `individuality of citizens demands the preservation of the
individuality of the state`. (Brown 1992:66)
Cosmopolitanism in contrast adopts liberal individualism as method of explaining politics
and claims that states are not ethically or morally significant (Cochran 1999: 43) As
communitarianism praises the cultural values and particular communities, cosmopolitanism would
criticise it from a spectre that certainly everything outside of such communities would appear less
important for the community`s members. (Brown 1992: 67) Also, cultures, communities and even
boarders often overlap which imposes several challenges on the communitarian philosophy.
(Kymlicka 2002: 211) Adler describes that `even though it is true, as communitarians argue, that
individuals enter a previously existing society and draw on its understandings to know how to be
agents, society is nevertheless constituted by human beings. Hence, as in methodological
individualism and liberalism, they must be taken as the basic units of analytic and moral inquiry`.

5. 5
(2005: 5) Thus, the cosmopolitanism critique of communitarianism can be reduced to an
observation that communitarian philosophy poses too much effort into dividing people into separate
groups and ignores the fact that we are all human beings. (Kymlicka 2000: 214)
As mentioned in the above section, communitarianism argues for the particular norms and
values in oppose to an idea of universal moral foundations. All states have different historical
experiences which reflect on the cultural aspects. Thus, from communitarian perspective
cosmopolitanism is not possible on practice: we are too different to be a subject to a universal
standards and even though there are socially accepted norms of behaviour, none of these is strong
enough to override an authority of a sovereign state. (Erskine 2010:45) Therefore in communitarian
philosophy, key units of analysis are state, its welfare and its boarders. Sovereign state preserves
and protects rights, cultural values and identity of its citizens. For cosmopolitanism the main unit of
analysis is an individual, as everyone is ought to enjoy the same universal human rights. (Brown
1992:69) This observation leads to a conclusion that choice of the unit of analysis is defined by
what is the right thing to do. In order to answer this essay`s question it is therefore necessary to
identify what is the main unit of importance for the international community. Through identifying
the unit of most importance for the actors in international relations, it becomes possible to trace
back actors understanding of what is the just and moral thing to do in international politics. In order
to achieve this illustration, next section presents a case study on currently ongoing Syrian Refugee
Crisis in Europe.
Case Study: Syrian Refugee Crisis and response of the international community
Tension between international human rights and basic postulates of a sovereign state, as
mentioned in the above section, is reflected in the policy making on the specific issues. In order to
demonstrate this tension on practice, this section provides an evaluation of international relations
operation at the time of current Syrian Refugee Crisis and an analysis of the crisis from both

6. 6
communitarian and cosmopolitan perspectives. First there will be a brief intro on the origin and
intensity of the crisis. Secondly I will discuss how both approaches refer to the refugee crisis in
theory. Following the discussion, there will be an observation of the international community`s
actions aiming to solve the crisis. Finally, an analysis of international community actions would be
used to defend this essay position regarding the practicality, rationality and dominance of the
communitarian approach in the decision making of what is just and moral in international politics.
Since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011, fought by both government and various
non-state violence groups, such as ISIS, more than 2, 5 million Syrians fled the country in hope of
settling elsewhere. The conflict have been escalating for nearly five years and Syrians have
experienced the use of chemical weapons, rise of jihadists, poverty and bombings. (Washington
Post 2015; BBC 2015) An International Organization for Migration indicates that currently more
than 750,000 migrants arrived by the sea have entered Europe on legal basis through asylum
seeking applications, as well as an estimated 350,000 undetected people who have entered
European countries illegally. Furthermore it has been reported that at least 3,500 people have died
in 2015 while trying to cross Mediterranean Sea in an attempt to reach Europe. (IOFM report 2015)
The shockingly high numbers of the refugees undoubtedly require a cooperation between European
countries and Europe`s alliances. (BBC 2015)
The theoretical foundations of cosmopolitanism suggest that countries have obligations
towards foreigners. From communitarian perspective citizens of the sovereign state would expect
their government to promote self-determination and strong individual position on the crisis outside
of the state. Population’s economic interests and security should be the main priority of the elected
government. (Brown 1992: 62). Walzer suggested that in the world made up of sovereign states first
of all refugees will always be present, secondly international relations are shaped by the mutual aid
and cooperation and finally that states should accept asylum seekers in case if the costs are low and
numbers are reasonably low and do not pose threat to the countries security and economy. (1983:

7. 7
49) Therefore, the fact that countries do accept refugees could be explained by both cosmopolitan
notion of universal human rights and communitarian assumption that it might be due to a
cooperation necessity or perhaps even a mean to reduce security threat to the state’s population.
(Haddad 2010: 1) Refugees themselves can be perceived as a separate community with certain
cultural values and strong identity. (Cohen 2009:587) Based on the observation that most of the
times refugees are not passive and very selective about the immigration destinations, Cohen
concludes that they in fact exercising a very powerful agency. (2009: 590) The
communitarian/cosmopolitan debate subsequently places refugee crisis in the centre of the
contradiction: from one point of view the existence of the refugees represents the weakness of the
sovereignty and the failure of the state system. However, simultaneously the existence of the
insiders, who are citizens of the not-failed sovereign states, and outsiders, refugees and asylum
seekers, as well as the social discourse between them presents a strong argument of the social
construction of states power and autonomy. (Betts & Loescher 2011:15; Haddad 2008: 41)
At first it appears that international community has been acting in accordance with the
cosmopolitan normative approach. In 2014, European Union countries collectively granted
indefinite right to remain to more than 185,000 refugees. (IOM report 2015:2) Indeed there is a
cooperation between states. Major resources are invested into accommodating and protecting
refugees. Thousands of aid workers and volunteers are getting involved into the refugee-protection
programmes. From another point of view, the total number of asylum applications in the EU
countries in 2014 has reached nearly 600,000, which means that in total Europe only accepted less
than a third of the total amount of applicants. Taking into consideration the time consuming nature
of the asylum application processes it should also be noticed that the granted applications might be
the one submitted back in 2013 or potentially earlier years. Furthermore, recent events had caused
profound disagreements among European Union states in regard to the numbers of refugees that
each state ought to accept as well the way how such procedures are carried out. Unbalanced

8. 8
numbers of the arriving asylum seekers is explained by the geographical proximity of certain
regions such as Hungary and Greece, with thus places countries into difficult position. The
willingness of other member-states to take part in the refugee’s redistribution has been slow and not
well-organised. (BBC 2015)
Furthermore, various issues have been raised in regards to the way how refuges are being
treated while waiting for the application approval. UNICEF most recent report indicates several
violations of the refugees’ treatment in Europe including physical abuse, human trafficking,
paedophilia and rape by aid workers. (2015: 5) It thus becomes apparent that refugees’ experiences
after the displacement are not in compliance with the universal declaration of human rights, as the
settlement is not monitored and handled properly on many occasions. In regards to the countries
that are accepting refugees, there are multiple complications in the European Union discussions on
what numbers of the refugees each country required to accept. As noticed in the International
Organisation for Migration Report, it is a well-known fact that states tend to prioritise certain
destinations for granting asylum. (2015: 7) Indeed, countries tend to prioritise specific nationalities
for resettlement and also use ties with other countries to send some asylum seekers back. Moreover,
many countries, in particular those who are Commonwealth members, have very strict selection
process and in depth-investigations of the applicants background in order to exclude “economic”
migrants. (BBC 2015) This selection reinforces the discussed above dichotomy between universal
and particular. In cosmopolitan philosophy there is no space for prioritising specific individual over
others. Communitarianism however provides a realistic explanation for such practices and the way
how it used to ensure that state is carrying out all the policies in the efficient and reliable way.
(Kymlicka 2000:220)
In regards to the steps that international community has taken to resolve the crisis in Syria,
indeed it can be observed that states are not passive actors and many countries engaged into military
activities with an aim to stabilise the region. One might argue that by bombing certain regions there

9. 9
is a risk of harming civilians. Furthermore, in some cases such as with Russia, it remains unclear
whether military involvement is launched to support Syrian president exclusively and “clear” his
rivals or to fight an extremist organisation ISIS as it was announced to the international community.
(BBC 2015; Guardian 2015)
To summarise the outlined above statements, there are several apparent trends that can be
traced from the Syrian Refugee Crisis analysis. First of all European countries are struggling to
reach the consensus on the numbers of refugees to accept or to redistribute. Secondly, only one third
of the applications get accepted on average in Europe. Finally, the acts of international community
in regard to Syrian conflict appear to reflect states interest, rather than being a humanitarian mission
to save civilians. Therefore, in this battle between universal and particular, the communitarian
narrative of the specific particular values certainly provides a stronger explanation of the world
politics operation. All major actors in international politics place the well-being of the state and its
citizens as a priority, while aid for the refugees and care of the Syrian civilians who haven’t left the
country remain secondary issue of concern.
Conclusion: what is just and moral in world politics?
A closer view on the international community`s attitude towards 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis
demonstrates the dominance of communitarian theoretical stands over cosmopolitan doctrine of
universal human rights. States interests are above the value of the life of an individual. Though
actors of world politics are cooperating in order to solve an issue of international importance,
refugees are not prioritised and treated with the equality that cosmopolitanism would expect. It is
clear that the notion of sovereignty and states remain the priority for world leaders, and even in case
of powerful and resourceful Europe that remains the main strategy. (Haddad 2008: 85) Since the
main unit of analysis for the policy makers remains the welfare of the states over the necessity to
help out thousands of Syrian refugees, it can be concluded that communitarian philosophy is most

10. 10
suited to explain major policy-makers` activities in world politics. Preservation of states sovereignty
and welfare of its citizens has been and remains the moral and just thing to do in the international
politics.
Bibliography
1) Adler, E. (2005) Communitarian International Relations The epistemic foundations of
International Relations New York: Routledge
2) BBC (2015) Migrant Crisis: Migration to Europe explained in graphics. [online] Available
at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911 [Accessed: 01 December 2015]
3) Brown, C. (1992) International Relations Theory: new normative approaches London:
Harvester Wheatsheaff
4) Brown, C. (1997) `Theories of International Justice`, British Journal of Political Science,
27:2, 273-297
5) Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society New York: Columbia University Press
6) Bull, H. (1971) ‘Order vs. Justice in International Society’, Political Studies19:3, 269-83.
7) Carr,E.H. (1992) `The Nature of Politics.` in Viotti, P.R. and Kauppi,M.V. International
Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism. New York, London: Macmillan, 562-566.
8) Checkel (1997) `International Norms and Domestic Politics: Bridging the Rationalist-
Constructivist Divide` in European Journal of International Relations, 3:4, 473-495
9) Cochran, M. (1999) Normative Theory in International Relations. A Pragmatic Approach.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10) Cohen, R. (2009) ` Up Close and From the Tower: Two Views of Refugee and Internally
Displaced Populations`, International Studies Review, 11:3, 585-592
11) Dunne, T. and Wheeler, N. (1999) Human Rights in Global Politics Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press

11. 11
12) Erskine, T. (2010) `Normative International Relations Theory` (Chapter 2), Dunne T., Kurki
M & Smith S. (eds.) International Relations Theories, Second Edition Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 36-57
13) Evans, G. & Sahnoun, M. (2002) `The Responsibility to Protect` in Foreign Affairs, 81: 6,
99-110
14) Haddad, E. (2008) The Refugee in International Society: Between Sovereigns. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
15) Hopf, T. (1999) `The promise of constructivism in International Relations theory` in
International Security, 23:1, 171-200
16) International Organisation for Migration (2015) World Migration Report 2015. [online]
Available at: https://www.iom.int/world-migration-report-2015 [Accessed: 01 December
2015)
17) Kant, I. (1795) `To Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Project` in Reiss, H. Kant`s Political
Writings Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
18) Kratochwil, F. (1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions. On the Conditions of Practical and
Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
19) Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy An introduction, Second Edition
Oxford: Oxford University Press
20) Mertus, J. (2003) `Reviewed Work: Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in
International Society by Nicholas J. Wheeler` in American Journal of International Law,
97:1, 224-227
21) Morrice, D. (2000) `The Liberal-Communitarian Debate in Contemporary Political
Philosophy and Its Significance for International Relations` in Review of International
Studies, 26:2, 233-251

12. 12
22) Ross, J. (2015) `The politics of the Syrian Refugee Crisis explained` in The Washington Post
[online] Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/11/the-
politics-of-the-syrian-refugee-crisis-explained/ [Accessed: 1 December 2015]
23) Smith, S. (1992) `The forty years detour: the resurgence of normative theory in International
Relations` in Millenium: Journal of International Studies, 21:3, 489-506
24) The Guardian (2015) Europe is being broken apart by Refugee Crisis [online] Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/23/yanis-varoufakis-europe-is-being-broken-
apart-by-refugee-crisis [Accessed: 01 December 2015]
25) UNICEF (2015) Migrant and Refugee Crisis in Europe. [online] Available at:
http://www.unicef.org/emergencies/index_85510.html [Accessed: 01 December 2015]
26) Vincent, R.J. (1987) Human Rights and International Relations Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
27) Wendt, A. (1992) `Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power
politics`, International Organization , 46:2, 391-425
28) Wheeler, N. (2000) Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention in International Society.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Word count: 3,116
Word count with bibliography: 3,652