Refusing an Ethical Approach to World Politics in Favour of Political Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent efforts to identify and challenge the universalist ethics inherent to the historical conventions of International Relations are to be applauded. Drawing largely from poststructuralism and phenomenology, several theorists have productively shown how traditional approaches committed to moral and rational autonomy may and ought to be interrupted with attention to questions of difference, heterogeneity and social interrelation. As exemplified most pronouncedly in the works of David Campbell, though, such attempts to rethink ethics in international affairs tend generally to also re-introduce an ethical totality. Missing from these otherwise provocative interventions is sufficient recognition that the moral universe projected in traditional International Relations theory is inherent to any view towards the international, even when reinscribed as world politics or global politics. Concern for the international, read in any manner, and a total ethics are mutually constitutive. Critical evaluation of these alternative ethical approaches therefore demonstrates that the moral dogma associated with International Relations may be overcome only insofar as the international itself is quit as an organizing concept. Moreover, the politics of difference advocated in these critical interventions may be served only once ethics itself is renounced as an appropriate entry point to the political.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.116 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".