Realism is inevitable because of human nature. Critique does nothing to stop states from struggling for power

The problem is that Linklater argues by fiat rather than by the weight of hard evidence, which is in scant supply here. Again and again, radical propositions are supported by nothing more than references to some other critical theorist who shares Linklater’s vision and/or tendency to rely on slippery, undefined and unmeasured concepts, primarily globalisation and fragmentation. This simply will not do. Whether Linklater, or Kant, or Marx, or Habermas, or other contemporary critical, feminist, postmodern theorists believe that something will happen, must happen, can happen, and should happen, does not make it so—or likely to be so—in the foreseeable future. Moreover, as a work of critical political theory, it is neither very critical nor very political. To believe, for instance, that the goals of the triple transformation will be advanced by wider dialogic relations, one must naively assume not only that there is an underlying global harmony of interests from which a consensus can be forged on important political and social issues, but that such ‘agreements will not be reached by ignoring or suppressing marginal and dissident voices’ (p. 41). In this view as in others, Linklater simply skates over the central rationalist-realist explanations for international conflict and the struggle for power and security, e.g., states have an incentive to misrepresent private information about their capabilities and resolve, and they may be unable to commit credibly to uphold bargains that they would mutually prefer to war;1 the nature of many international disputes are indivisible and therefore do not admit compromise; states exist under conditions of material and social scarcity with no sovereign arbiter to settle and enforce distributional disputes. As long as things commonly enjoyed cannot be commonly shared, individuals and groups will seek to influence and control others and their environment; that is, they will struggle for social and material power. That is what politics is all about and what distinguishes it from other modes of human behaviour. Politics so defined is largely absent from Linklater’s book. Leaving aside the problem of indivisible scarce goods, a meaningful reduction in global material inequality would require significant sacrifices from those enjoying the good life. Surely, no one really believes that the ‘haves’ will voluntarily hand over their riches to the ‘have-nots’. There is no historical precedent for such altruism on a global scale, and, no matter how much we all communicate with each other in the future, I cannot imagine that human nature will change so dramatically in my lifetime. Thus, unless one desperately wants to believe in this alternative future world, Linklater’s book will appear as little more than an intellectual exercise in historical speculation and theoretical wishful thinking along familar liberal lines.