| The confrontation between the United States and North Korea continues not because of a security dilemma, but because the two states are enemies, as they have been for over 50 years. Operating almost entirely from within the horizons of liberalism, International Relations has traditionally done a poor job of understanding enmity. This inadequacy results from a tendency to view international politics primarily in terms of the quest for security, or self-preservation. The meaning of enmity is examined with reference to the thought of Carl Schmitt, and IR's traditional understanding of it is examined with reference to Hans Morgenthau's response to Schmitt. While Schmitt treats enmity in essentialist terms, as an irreducible structure, Morgenthau treats it as reducible to interests. Both positions are rejected in favour of a view that sees enmity as socially constructed, and thus at least potentially transformable. |
