Customer Reviews

Political Theory and International Relations

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This book is now a bit out of date, but is still worth reading. It was something of a ground-breaking book when it was published (early 80's) but now seems somewhat simple compared to more sophisticated treatments of the same problems. These later books, however, largely build from Beitz, so this criticism should be taken in this light. The attack on "Realism" is the best part of the book. The attacks on nationalism and communitarianism are also worth-while though the positive theory offered in their place is clearly under-theorized and not, I think, satisfactory in the end. The worst part of the book is the attempt to "globalize" Rawls in a way that clearly doesn't work and shows a pretty serious (though very common) misunderstanding of what Rawls is up to. Finally, the almost total lack of discussion of problems relating to democracy, self-determination, and legitimacy is pretty surprising and a serious short-comming. It's worth reading the book (it's an enjoyable read) but the short-commings should be kept in mind.

Actually Beitz isn't a communitarian (Walzer is); he's a cosmopolitan. He argues against communitarians (he calls them "morality of states" theorists). But anyway I agree with the first reviewer--this book is great!! Beitz presents an airtight argument, adressing counter arguments on all levels. Although I don't entirely agree with Beitz, his argument is compelling--read this book with Walzer to contrast the perspectives.

The content is not easy to read, but it provides the comprehensive assessment on different views towards international relations.

I hate Realism theory sometimes for the world seems so vulnerable to the current status. Beitz stands up to talk about what the world really should be and most importantly, he talks about the moral sense of "border and sovereign". If his opinions hold true, Nathan Hale's "i only regret that I have but one life for my country" should be revised for "for the world". I like his argument on the communitarain views. His critism on Realism is also fascinating.