Latha Varadarajan

On the Practical Significance of Critical International Relations Theory

The question of relevance of international relations theory must be approached through an awareness of the distinctiveness of various perspectives’ relations to existing structures of power. It becomes, in effect, a matter of asking for whom and for what purposes of practical action the theory is or is not relevant. Critical theories of international relations, ranging from modernist to post‐structural forms, share a commitment to challenging the naturalness of the existing world order and the acceptability of its dominant relations and practices of power. Critical theory focuses analysis on the effects of power on the differential ability of actors to control their own circumstances. It also goes beyond that theoretical contribution to provide impetus for practical political action in challenging, confronting, and disrupting existing relations of power. Thus, in the contemporary era, critical IR theory is relevant, among other ways, as a stimulus to resist empire in its many guises.

The Transnationalism of the Embattled State

In the past few decades, states across several disparate geographical contexts have adopted policies and initiatives aimed at institutionalizing their relationship with groups constituted as “their” diasporas. These practices, which range from creating new ministries for diaspora affairs and reserving seats in the national legislature to granting dual citizenship and allowing members of the diaspora to participate in domestic elections, seem to have a very specific purpose. They are aimed at integrating diasporas as part of a larger “global” nation that is connected to, and has claims on the institutional structure of the home state. This article argues that the best way to understand this phenomenon, conceptualized here as the “domestic abroad”, is to see it as the product of two simultaneous, ongoing processes: the diasporic imagining of the nation, and the neoliberal restructuring of the state. Furthermore, to make sense of the nature and relationship of these processes, we need to focus on the development of capitalist social relations on both global and national scales. This, it is contended, can be best done through the development of a theoretical framework based on the historical materialist concept of hegemony.

Taking Milosevic seriously: Imperialism, law, and the politics of global justice

Notwithstanding his premature death, the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is widely hailed as a landmark moment in the development of international criminal law. To many, the trial, in conjunction with the broader record of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), represents the beginning of a new era of global justice characterized by the impending triumph of law over politics. This article dissents from the prevailing consensus by emphasizing the enduring role of imperialist relations in shaping international relations. Without defending Milosevic, we provide a critical reassessment of the ICTY’s most celebrated trial. We do so to reveal the manner in which seemingly progressive legal institutions - far from furthering an abstract notion of justice – serve to re-inscribe a violent and highly unequal post-Cold War imperialist world order. Because the ICTY is far from a sui generis experience, we argue that it is critical to take Milosevic seriously in making sense of the nature and implications of global tribunals.

Out of Place: Re-thinking Diaspora and Empire

Much of the recent scholarly work analyzing the changes in the contemporary international system celebrates diasporas as embodying not just a break from the past, but the emergence of a new world order. This article presents a critical engagement with these claims — in particular, as they appear in two influential texts, Arjun Appadurais Modernity at Large, and Michael Hardt and Antonio Negris Empire — to argue that the existence of diasporas should not be automatically understood as a challenge to structures of dominance at the international level. I make this argument by analyzing the constitutive relationship between imperialism and diasporas. Through an examination of the colonial diasporas created by the British Empire in the late 19 th and early 20th centuries, I contend that significant continuities exist between past and present, and that they should caution us against an uncritical celebration of the role played by diasporas in the contemporary international system.

The trials of imperialism: Radhabinod Pal’s dissent at the Tokyo tribunal

At the end of the Second World War, the leaders of the defeated Axis powers were tried for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in two specially established international military tribunals. Unlike at the vaunted Nuremberg trials, the judgment of the less-illustrious Tokyo tribunal was not unanimous. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Radhabinod Pal of India comprehensively disagreed with all aspects of the trial, finding all defendants “not guilty” of the charges leveled against them. Despite being considered quite incendiary at that time, the dissenting opinion has been largely ignored by International Relations scholarship analyzing the development of legal norms and institutions in global politics. Notwithstanding its many limitations, the questions raised in Pal’s dissent about criminality, power, and justice, while situated in a specific historical moment, remain far from settled. This article provides a second look at Pal’s dissent in order to recover its unique and critical insights into the relationship between imperialism and the development of international law.

Courtiers of the New Empire

In an article that appeared in the New York Times in July 2005, Michael Wines bemoaned the fact that Zimbabwe’s African neighbors were following a hands-off approach as the country fell into shambles. At a time when the Western world was calling for African nations to play a more active role in confronting Robert Mugabe and restoring order in Zimbabwe, African leaders from South Africa, Tanzania, Namibia, and Nigeria were expressing their solidarity with the Zimbabwean leader, praising his policies, characterizing the problem as an “internal matter” and caustically telling Western leaders to “mind their own business.” The reasons for this show of defiance, Wines argues, can be found in Mugabe’s framing his policies as a necessary corrective to the legacy of British rule and painting his opponents as stooges of Western imperialism. Mugabe’s policies, the reporter suggests, exemplify the clever exploitation of a “grudge” that Africans seem to bear over the common legacy of Western colonialism. For, “if the West has put colonialism behind it, Africa has not.” Apart from the sheer effrontery of reducing the colonial encounter to a schoolyard fight that one party has yet to get over, the most striking feature of Wines’ analysis is the throwaway line that sums up Western attitude towards colonialism. For, as even a cursory glance at the political firmament reveals, the “West” (and I use the term very loosely here) has in fact turned back towards its colonial past in an attempt to re-write history and embrace it as a model for future engagement with the rest of the world. In these endeavors, the contemporary would-be imperial autocrats are being ably assisted by a new breed of courtierscribes: academics who write glowing accounts of past empires while advocating a stronger, more consciously imperial role for the United States in the contemporary international system. This essay is, for the most part, a review of three such accounts that have been published recently. Niall Ferguson, the author of two of the books under review, is arguably one of the most visible and articulate defenders of imperialism today and has been rewarded for his views within Western academia, as his career trajectory makes obvious. Deepak Lal, though less visible than Ferguson, has published extensively in the field of developmental economics and currently occupies an endowed chair