This book offers an original analysis of the relationship between twentieth-century theories of international relations, and the political theory of civil society. The author views theories of international relations both as an ideological expression of the modern state, and as a clear indication of the difficulties of thinking about a world politics distinct from relations among states. Theories are examined in the light of recent debates about modernity and post-modernity, the rearticulation of political space/time, and the limits of modern social political theory.
I fully agree with Naeem's review: this is one of the most important books I have read. It's difficult going, which is unavoidable and a pity. The premise is that modern political theory was co-constituted with the emergence of the modern national, territorial state, both of which produced a politics that would be contained within the state. There are a lot of implications of this but for this book, the key implication is that the realm of international relations cannot be a realm of politics by this understanding or practice, and this is a huge political problem. I just read the book for the third time as I prepared to teach it to a group of first-year PhD students but I wish I was brave enough or smart enough to teach it to first year undergraduates so that they would not be able to take for granted what they think they know about international relations or global politics.
A refreshing, critical analysis on the so-called theory of Realism being less of a normative and descriptive analysis of international relations but rather a heavily idealistic ideological expression of early-modern understandings of state sovereignty. I'll have to re-read this book slowly and carefully (it is very dense and above my comprehension) but for the meantime this paragraph is a great primer for the critique Walker engages in:
"At best, theories of international relations predicated upon the claim to state sovereignty involve an extraordinary degree of oversimplification and wishful thinking. In this sense, they offer an explicitly normative account of how the world must be, a way of constructing empirical evidence on the basis of prior assumptions about how lines are to be drawn through messy appearances and contested subjectivities. The practices through which these lines are drawn, and by which profound metaphysics is rooted in an implicit geometry, I have argued, are much more interesting than the substantive claims that these practices have made so familiar." p. 180