Political Discourse and Conflict Resolution:Debating peace in Northern Ireland

This book offers new insights into the close relationship between political discourses and conflict resolution through critical analysis of the role of discursive change in a peace process.

Just as a peace process has many dimensions and stakeholders, so the discourses considered here come from a wide range of sources and actors. The book contains in-depth analyses of official discourses used to present the peace process, the discourses of political party leaders engaging (or otherwise) with it, the discourses of community-level activists responding to it, and the discourses of the media and the academy commenting on it. These discourses reflect varying levels of support for the peace process – from obstruction to promotion – and the role of language in moving across this spectrum according to issue and occasion. Common to all these analyses is the conviction that the language used by political protagonists and cultural stakeholders has a profound effect on progression towards peace.

Bringing together leading experts on Northern Ireland’s peace process from a range of academic disciplines, including political science, sociology, linguistics, history, geography, law, and peace studies, this book offers new insights into the discursive dynamics of violent political conflict and its resolution.

James Anderson's Political Economy--His Influence on Smith and Malthus

James Anderson's powerful critique of Adam Smith's position on the corn export bounty was published in 1777. It focuse d on Smith's proposition that the bounty could not lead to increased corn production because it could not increase corn's real price. Smit h's response to the critique is traced in later editions of Wealth of Nations. While Anderson's critique of Smith influenced Thomas Malthu s's writings from 1803 onwards, his theory of differential rent did n ot influence Malthus at this stage. An examination of the evolution o f Malthus's ideas on rent between 1803 and 1815, however, indicates t hat Malthus knew and used Anderson's work on rent.

Alasdair MacIntyre and the Hope for a Politics of Virtuous Interdependence

Rebellion, philosophic and political, impels the work of Alasdair MacIntyre. Neither of the left nor the right, he treads a borderline path between conservatism and radicalism in holding to a socialist Thomistic Aristotelianism underpinned by a deliberative ‘ethic of care’ that is implacably opposed to modernity and the advanced capitalist nation-state. The depth of this opposition arouses strong opinions in friend and foe alike. To some he is an eminently dispensable reactionary whose sole consistent feature is an inexplicable ‘hatred of liberal individualism’ (Lessnoff 1999: 4). To others he appears a revolutionary enunciating a departure capable of legitimating the activities of ordinary persons so ‘that previously isolated struggles might be transformed into a new class war of attrition’ (Knight 1996: 896). However, neither interpretation rings true. MacIntyre does develop a cogent critique of the present, but this critique points in directions towards which no politics could hope to move.

The politics of ethical foreign policy::A responsibility to protect whom?

Ethical foreign policy persists as a problem of international relations, especially regarding humanitarian intervention. However, despite apparent international upheavals, the debate about the ethics of humanitarian intervention has remained fundamentally unchanged. To escape the limits of this debate, this article deconstructs British claims to ethical foreign policy since 1997, reading these claims against themselves and against contemporary humanitarian intervention literature. It finds that Britain’s ethical framework, the ‘doctrine of international community’, which justifies interventions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan, is undone by the anomalous, yet exemplary, invasion of Iraq. This demonstrates the politics of ethical foreign policy: first, that any intervention, no matter how ‘ethical’ or ‘right’, produces suffering and death; and, second, that we cannot know for sure whether we are doing the right thing by intervening. Embracing, rather than effacing, the political nature of ethical foreign policy opens up a more intellectually honest and positive potential future for relating to the foreign in a responsible manner.