Eternal peace, perpetual war? A critical investigation into Kant's conceptualisations of war

Most discussions of Immanuel Kant's political theory of international politics focus on his work on Eternal Peace and its normative and empirical relevance for contemporary international relations and international law. Yet for all his concern with peace, Kant's work is characterised by a fascinating preoccupation with the concept of war and its role in human history. The purpose of this essay is to investigate critically Kant's different conceptualisations of war and to evaluate his writing as a critique against contemporary versions of Liberal war and peace, as well as recent attempts to reduce war to an immanent logic of biopolitics.

The ecology of crusading: investigating the environmental impact of holy war and colonisation at the frontiers of medieval Europe

The Crusades in the Near East, eastern Baltic and Iberian Peninsula (in the context of the Reconquest/reconquista) were accompanied by processes of colonisation, characterising the expansion of medieval Europe and resulting in the creation of frontier societies at the fringes of Christendom. Colonisation was closely associated with — indeed, depended on — the exploitation of local environments, but this dimension is largely missing from studies of the crusading frontiers. This paper, the product of a European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop on 'The Ecology of Crusading' in 2009, surveys the potential for investigating the environmental impact of the crusading movement in all three frontier regions. It considers a diverse range of archaeological, palaeoenvironmental and written sources, with the aim of situating the societies created by the Crusades within the context of medieval colonisation and human ecological niche construction. It demonstrates that an abundant range of data exists for developing this largely neglected and disparately studied aspect of medieval frontier societies into a significant research programme.

Last charge of the knights? Iraq, Afghanistan and the special relationship

At the heart of the ‘special relationship’ ideology, there is supposed to be a grand bargain. In exchange for paying the ‘blood price’ as America's ally, Britain will be rewarded with exceptional influence over American foreign policy and its strategic behaviour. Soldiers and statesman continue to articulate this idea. Since 9/11, the notion of Britain playing ‘Greece’ to America's ‘Rome’ gained new life thanks to Anglophiles on both sides of the Atlantic. One potent version of this ideology was that the more seasoned British would teach Americans how to fight ‘small wars’ in Iraq and Afghanistan, thereby bolstering their role as tutor to the superpower. Britain does derive benefits from the Anglo-American alliance and has made momentous contributions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet British solidarity and sacrifices have not purchased special influence in Washington. This is partly due to Atlanticist ideology, which sets Britain unrealistic standards by which it is judged, and partly because the notion of ‘special influence’ is misleading as it loses sight of the complexities of American policy-making. The overall result of expeditionary wars has been to strain British credibility in American eyes and to display its lack of consistent influence both over high policy and the design and execution of US military campaigns. While there may be good arguments in favour of the UK continuing its efforts in Afghanistan, the notion that the war fortifies Britain's vicarious world status is a dangerous illusion that leads to repeated overstretch and disappointment. Now that Britain is in the foothills of a strategic defence review, it is important that the British abandon this false consciousness.