Linklater, Andrew. "The Transformation of Political Community: E. H. Carr, critical theory and international relations". Review of International Studies, Vol.23, No.3 (1997): 321-338.

Linklater, Andrew. "The Transformation of Political Community: E. H. Carr, critical theory and international relations". Review of International Studies, Vol.23, No.3 (1997): 321-338.

• The decline of war between major powers and globalization's erosion of national sovereignty are commonly used as evidence of the end of the Westphalian era of international politics (321).
• The author sees this present crisis in how to conceive of international relations as an opportunity to reimagine new types of political relations and systems. He compares this to the situation in the early 20th Century and believes that the work of Edward Hallett Carr on that era can provide insight on how to construct a new type of international relations (321). 
• Dr. Carr argued, in his 1945 book 'Nationalism and After', that the modern state had been responsible for both tremendous expansions in the health, education, and general welfare of the population, and the creation of totalitarian systems that excluded people based on ethnicity or race and ultimately drove the world towards WWII. He argued that going forward states should decentralize power and be more inclusive by creating new non-state structures (322).
• In his book, 'The Twenty Years' Crisis', Dr. Carr argues that the international system of nation-states had neither improved human welfare nor secured international peace. He again advocates for the expansion of political communities beyond the nation-state to prevent political exclusion and violence (322-323).
• One of the major critiques of the realist school of IR theory is that it ignores moral concerns. This means that it ignores the exclusion and oppression of minority groups with the present systems (322).
• Dr. Carr's work focuses on the question of what groups can be excluded from the body politic. The author locates this tradition as beginning with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that an internal-external divide was essential for the existence of a body politic (324).
• The views of Rousseau are echoed in the work of Michael Waltzer when he argues that enjoying exclusive benefits is a key part of defining a political community. To exist, communities must distinction between members, who can make decisions and enjoy benefits, and outsiders, who cannot (324).
• Both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Dr. Waltzer recognized the tension between the notion of exclusive communities and general human rights (324-325).
• Karl Marx saw this exclusive basis of political society as the basis for class oppression. He remarked that if the lower classes did not feel national sentiment, they would be unified enough to resist class-based exclusion (325).
• Michel Foucault also believes that selective exclusion of some groups is the basis of modern society. Society defines itself as normal and rational in opposition to abnormal and irrational people, who are excluded from that society. The cohesion of society comes from its definition in opposition to those who are excluded (325).
• Dr. Carr believed that a society needed to include the majority of its members in access to material and social goods, and that excluding too large a segment of the population would result in the collapse of a political community (326).
• In 'Nationalism and After', Dr. Carr saw the modern nation-state as coming into existence as a consequence of democratization as suffrage was given to the middle classes, and socialization, as the working classes gained suffrage (327).
• Dr. Carr argues that unionized workers used to their strength to raise protectionist measures and end immigration, while both the lower and middle classes gave their full support to nationalism (327).
• Nationalism both led to the First World War and encouraged popular demonization and hatred of the enemy during it. This led to the blurring of lines between civilians and combatants, as the entire population became involved in the war effort (327).
• Dr. Carr blamed the First World War, and ensuing violent nationalism, as the result of the tightening of political communities to exclude people of other nations. The strengthening of the state as more people identified with it allowed for use of tremendous violence against outsiders, all for the purpose of improving conditions of members of the exclusive state community (328-329).
• Contemporary observers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer claimed that the national tensions of WWI were irreversible and would kill any future transnational unity. Dr. Carr disagreed, claiming that the violence of WWI only demonstrated the need to dismantle exclusive nation-states and prioritize basic human rights (329).
• Dr. Carr envisions a new social and political order that would end the monopoly of White men on political and economic opportunities. Domestic politics should focus on ending exclusion based on race, gender, and class (330).
• International society should be reconstituted away from nation-states and towards solving the general problems of humanity. Whereas attempting to end unemployment at the national level had led to xenophobia and global recession, working across national boundaries to address these problems by granting equal rights to all people regardless of nationality (330).
• The new international system that Dr. Carr envisioned included nation-states, but did not recognize their sovereign or exclusive control over their citizens. He thought that states should provide services and protections to everyone living there, regardless of citizenship, and should work with states to guarantee that these same rights are protected everywhere and for everyone (330-331).
• Dr. Carr recognized that his ideas for a new international system were utopian and unlikely to be implemented, especially at a global level. He saw its implementation as more likely at a regional level, particularly in Europe (333).
• "The realization of this vision would mark the end of the totalizing process in which governments could destroy alternative sites of power and authority and eliminate rivals in the competition for human loyalty. It would signify the end of the period in which national governments could use their monopoly powers to create national communities which were deeply exclusionary when dealing with subaltern groups and aliens" (337).
• Dr. Carr hoped that the wartime alliance between the West and the USSR would continue, a situation that he hoped would eventually end military tensions between nations (331-332).
• The author sees the increase of state power and increased deregulation of markets as the driving forces towards increased political and economic rights, as the expansion of the state required more funds that prompted successful protests for enhanced political representation. The negative effects of market forces on the working classes prompted the political mobilization of the proletariat, which led to more political rights (334).
• Citizenship has become a hallmark of inclusion in a political community, and the expansion of political and economic rights to previously excluded groups has largely been done through the expansion of full citizenship. These political rights are important because they lay the groundwork for economically disadvantaged groups to change the economic system through political action (334-335).
• The actual inclusion of previously foreign populations into an expanded political community poses challenged. The author contends that the main challenge is how foreigners can become true citizens and transfer their formal rights into actual representation in the same way that native populations did (335-336).
• Whereas Dr. Carr focused almost entirely on how economic rights could be expanded by creating a transnational political community, contemporary [1997] populations are more interested in how civil and cultural rights can be protected from states through the expansion of non-state political communities (337).
• The field of IR theory normally stresses the immutability of the international system, the permanence of war and insecurity, and is opposed to the Enlightenment project of expanding human freedom and understanding. This is best demonstrated by the Neorealist school, which claimed that the international system was anarchic and governed by scientific laws (338).