harold Ralph Pettman

“Is There a ‘Japanese’ Approach to Conflict Resolution?”, Proceedings of the Fifth Afrasian International Symposium, (ed.) Nobuko Nagasaki, Pauline Kent, Kosuke Shimizu, Shiro Sato and Kazue Demachi, Afrasian Centre for Peace and Development Studies, Ryukoku University,

The relationship between psychopathology and world politics can be considered firstly from the world politics perspective. This means examining the dysfunctional forms of human behaviour manifest there-both individual and collective/communal. It means examining how such behaviour can be described and explained in psychiatric or psychological/psychoanalytical terms. The relationship between psychopathology and world politics can also be considered from the psychopathology perspective. This means examining some of the key psychopathological concepts that are of relevance to world affairs. It means examining paranoia or narcissism, for example, and the way understanding syndromes like these helps further our understanding of world affairs.

“Is There a ‘Japanese’ Approach to Conflict Resolution?”, Proceedings of the Fifth Afrasian International Symposium, (ed.) Nobuko Nagasaki, Pauline Kent, Kosuke Shimizu, Shiro Sato and Kazue Demachi, Afrasian Centre for Peace and Development Studies, Ryukoku University,

This article critically addresses E H Carr's dichotomy of power and morality by demonstrating that all analytical languages used to articulate world affairs systematically refer to both power and morality, albeit in a different manner. The distinction between the two concepts is an analytical one, rather than a dichotomy of the kind that Carr constructs. Although Carr's dichotomy has recently resurfaced as a distinction between 'communitarianism' and 'cosmopolitanism', such an interpretation of his work remains problematic. This is demonstrated through a case study of President Jimmy Carter-whose policies manifest both realist and liberal approaches and combine power-centred concerns with moralistic ones. Therefore, in practical world affairs, there is no power-morality dichotomy; there are only different accounts of what both power and morality entail.