Davide Barile

For a long time, the sections of the Philosophy of Right dedicated to the relations among states have been neglected by contemporary International Relations theories. However, especially since the end of the Cold War, this discipline has finally reconsidered Hegel’s theory, in particular by stressing two aspects: the thesis of an ”end of history” implied in it; and, more generally, the primacy of the state in international politics. This paper suggests a different interpretation. It argues that, in order to really understand Hegel’s theory of international relations, it is necessary to consider how it is related to the momentous changes that occurred in the wake of the French Revolution and to previous philosophical developments in the Age of Enlightenment. Indeed, the convergence of these two aspects in his own philosophy of history should suggest that, according to Hegel, by the early nineteenth century international politics had finally entered a new era in which states would still interact as the foremost actors, but would be bound nonetheless by an unprecedented awareness of their historical character.

Wie kann die italienische Philosophie dazu beitragen, die gegenwärtige Krise der modernen politischen Theorie zu lösen? Der vorliegende Text berücksichtigt die Werke einiger zeitgenössischer italienischer Hauptdenker und betont trotz der verschiedenen Standpunkte die unterschwelligen Verbindungen. Insbesondere lässt sich der Konflikt, oft im Sinne des griechischen Begriffs stasis, als Schlüssel zur Krise des modernen Staates bestimmen. Das Thema Konflikt durchquert alle besprochenen Werke und wirft ein Licht auf die Spannung zwischen der Fortdauer eines politisch-theologischen Rahmens und dem ständigen Verweis auf die Biopolitik. Wie von Esposito vorgeschlagen, ist diese Anpassung von fremden Begriffen seitens einer Philosophie, die konstitutiv entterritorialisiert ist, die beste Möglichkeit, eine wirksame Herangehensweise zu erarbeiten, um aus der gegenwärtigen Lage herauszufinden. Giorgio Agamben: Stasis. La guerra civile come paradigma politico. Torino 2015. Bollati Boringhieri. 84 S.; Massimo Cacciari: Il potere che frena. Mailand 2013. Adelphi. 217 S.; Paolo Virno: Saggio sulla negazione. Per una antropologia linguistica. Torino 2013. Bollati Boringhieri. 204 S.; Roberto Esposito: Da fuori. Una filosofia per l'Europa. Torino 2016. Einaudi. 256 S.

This book proposes a new theoretical framework to move beyond the traditional tenets of modern international relations theory to investigate European integration and shed light on current events. Based on contemporary analyses, Hegel’s political philosophy, and the fundamental role of historical interpretation, this book addresses the institutional dynamics as well as the discursive practices behind both the Eastern enlargement and the current critical situation. Looking back in particular at European integration in one of its most significant events, namely the enlargement of the European Union to include former Socialist countries, it offers a unique conceptualisation of the nature and limits of European integration and for understanding the current crisis between Brussels and the Visegrád countries, 30 years since the revolutions of 1989. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European integration, European politics and history, and political theory and philosophy.

In September 2019, the European Parliament adopted a resolution that sparked controversy due to its equation of Nazism and Communism. The document made the USSR jointly responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War and accused the Russian government of whitewashing communist crimes and glorifying the Soviet totalitarian regime. This article presents the resolution as the latest expression of a broader discursive process that started with the accession process of the Central and Eastern European countries. To support this hypothesis, I examine the genealogy of the resolution, namely the documents that originally outlined the stances expressed by the latter, as well as the debates at the EU Parliament that preceded its adoption. This analysis highlights in particular two fundamental tendencies, i.e. the entanglement of history and memory characterising the recent discourse on European integration and the frequent identification of the Central and Eastern European member states as victims. In the final paragraphs, I suggest that the construction of a shared ‘historical memory’ may represent a legitimising framework for the implementation of specific sets of political and economic ideas, but I also note that processes such as the one described in the article may ultimately damage the cohesion among the member states and the ability of the EU institutions to address relevant internal and external issues.