Research
You will find a complete range of our monographs, muti-authored and edited works including peer-reviewed, original scholarly research across the social sciences and aligned disciplines. We publish long and short form research and you can browse the complete Bristol University Press and Policy Press archive.
Policy Press also publishes policy reviews and polemic work which aim to challenge policy and practice in certain fields. These books have a practitioner in mind and are practical, accessible in style, as well as being academically sound and referenced.
Many International Relations (IR) theories have not excluded benevolence, especially neoliberalism and some realist thinkers. Nevertheless, they have confined this conduct to materialist motivations whose finality depends on state self-interest without a strong and genuine recognition process. They have not factored in the links that benevolence has set up with the transformation of interstate society into a more global society. And lastly, these approaches have not explored the notion of relation per se, relation which can be made up of components beyond rationality. All these characteristics help us to cultivate theoretical bridges thanks to our conception of benevolence inspired by the philosophies of moral sense and a subtle approach that includes the potential side effects of the conducts it inspires. This chapter sees how my reflection meets three main theories that have triggered a series of academic debates, some of which underlie the limits of materialist theories: recognition; the English School of IR, and especially those ideas aiming to take up the concept of the civilization process elaborated by Norbert Elias; and, finally, the logic of relationality, which takes the very concept of international relations seriously.
From an etymological point of view, benevolence initially refers to willing – wanting – before referring to the spirit of watchfulness – applying one’s attention to something. The 19th-century Littré dictionary associates it with a ‘favourable disposition of the will’ in order to do good to others. But what are the properties of this will and what is its destination? The philosophers of the moral sense are clearly those who offer the most consistent answers to these questions, notably those belonging to the Scottish Enlightenment in modernity whose aim was to update the teachings of ancient Stoicism. But to revive this conception of benevolence implies proposing a subtle reading of conduct driven by the moral sense. It is based on the idea of a continuum of actions making benevolence a median virtue that cannot oblige everyone to a form of moral heroism in their daily lives. In other words, a virtue situated between ethical minimalism and maximalism. Such an approach is a clear alternative to realist perspectives in International Relations (IR), but it is distinct from the philosophies of care while building some bridges with the ethics of virtues.
The main aims of this book are to explore benevolence with determination and lucidity and to highlight the density of a phenomenon that has been overlooked because of its complexity. Benevolence is an empirically middle-range phenomenon, somewhere between power and law. It has a median ethical position on the normative level: neither a call for moral maximalism (which would tip over into a tyranny of benevolence) nor for moral minimalism (which would deny the transformative potential of benevolent figures as a source of exemplarity in the public sphere).
Two types of actors in international relations tend to increase the extension of sympathy, to push back the limits of its intrinsic bias as a source of benevolence: cities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The former are not only involved in the preservation of the natural environment through their presence in the COP (Conferences of Parties) on environmental negotiations. They also stretch the circles of knowledge and friendship of their inhabitants through the establishment of various networks of cooperation whose purpose is to improve the well-being in the heart of cities. When cities cover a field of intervention beyond their borders according to an associative and non-profit logic, they can be defined as contributors to benevolence by helping the vulnerable. These watchdogs of good beyond the restricted circle are nevertheless exposed to dilemmas because the extension of benevolence risks the tipping over to the dark side of the force, the virtues being metamorphosed into instruments of more or less domination. Extending benevolence means being aware of these potential pitfalls.
The concluding chapter takes stock of the overall experience of Russia’s membership to distil certain lessons for the future. It notes that although the authorities of Russia are exclusively responsible for their violations of the Convention and the Statute, the experience of engagement and the asymmetric responses by the CoE to the serious breaches of its norms point to systemic and structural weaknesses within the CoE. The chapter refers to these as the ‘Triple Fault’ scenario whereby the primary responsibility rests with Russia, due to its pattern of bad faith over many years, culminating in its gross violations of the Statute. A secondary failure relates to the inability or unwillingness of the CM to effectively safeguard the Statute despite progressive democratic decay in Russia and increasing hostility towards the rules-based international order, as demonstrated by the illegal annexation of Crimea. A third more conditional failure is that of the CoE system (to include the Convention system) to effectuate compliance with CoE values and standards. The chapter concludes by considering how the CoE might adapt to the ‘post-peace’ Europe, as well as the prospects of a future relationship with Russia.
The chapter covers the period from 1998 to 2013, although its conclusion looks a little beyond that, to 2016. The focus is on aspects of an evolving and increasingly troubled relationship over the 2000s and into the 2010s, including major human rights abuses in Chechnya. The chapter demonstrates how, under its government, Russia was not a willing patient of ‘therapeutic admission’ over the period examined. It observes that at no point did Russia ever come close to being a fully-fledged democracy, even if it may have been taking steps along a democratic path up to around 2004–2005. However, things changed then, with Russia regressing from that point and thereafter. This is reflected towards the endpoint of the chapter which highlights the critical juncture reached by 2012, when, in the words of a Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Monitoring Committee report, Russia was at a ‘crossroads, confronted with the choice of its own future’.
