Humanism and Pragmatism in International Relations: Canadian Context

The article analyses opportunities and constrains for combining humanist intentions and national interests of states. Do values frame foreign policy of the states? When do considerations of state pragmatism prevail? Does the contemporary foreign policymaking become more human-centered? While looking for answers, the author of this article explored Canadian sources and policies, which confirm that the promotion of humanitarian principles to the foreign policy agenda is a complicated and contradictory process, closely associated with economic, political, military and cultural dimensions of IR. Canada was selected as a pattern for its long-term traditions, broad experiences and innovative initiatives in the humanitarian area. Foreign policy of states is defined by national interests and integrates a core set of national values. Normally there is a consistent and verified public consensus around values related to the behavior of  state in IR. However, states have proven to be pragmatic in their commitments to humanism, and sacrifice human rights obligations to trade and commerce promotion. Whenever humanitarian principles do not coincide or compete with political and commercial interests of the state or of the political elite, they will be moved away to the background, give priority to achieving pragmatic goals, and used for justification or as subordinate means. The contemporary humanitarian agenda presents a combination of traditional and new dimensions. There has been certain success achieved in such established fields as the development of humanitarian law, international development programs, and peacekeeping. However, recently the focus of the debates is being shifted to new issues – e.g. protection of civilians in armed conflicts – which appeared to be extremely complex, controversial and lacking solutions. Humanitarian interventions proved that contemporary conflicts cannot be managed exclusively by military force. Normalization of the situation depends on various peacebuilding efforts. Evidently, military and humanitarian methods are meshing, accompanied by the growing significance of soft power as a component of conflict resolution.

1. Bokan Y.I. (2010). Globalnaia missia Rossii v ХХI veke [Russia’s Global Humanitarian Mission in the ХХI century // Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn. №10. Available at: http://www.interaffairs.ru/arpg.php?pg=195 (accessed: 10.04.2011)

2. Brown S. (2008). CIDA Under the Gun. In: Canada Among Nations 2007. What Room to Manoeuvre? Ed. by J. Daudelin and D. Schwanen. Montreal, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press: 91-108 Carin B., Smith G. (2010). Reinventing CIDA. Calgary: Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute. 67 p.

3. Chirkin V.E. (1997). Konstitutsionnoe pravo zarubezhnukh stran. [Constitutional Law of Foreign Countries]. Moscow. Jurist. 568 p. Available at: http://lawtoday.ru/razdel/biblo/kpzs/DOC_042.php (accessed: 05.05.2011)

4. Issraelyan E.V., Evtikhevich N.S. (2013). Gumanitarnyie aspecty vneshei politiki Kanady. [Humanitarian aspects in Canadian Foreign Policy.]. Moscow, ISKRAN. 214 p.

5. Keating T. (1993). Canada and World Order. The Multilateralist Tradition in Canadian Foreign Policy. Toronto: McClelland &Stewart Inc. 274 p.

6. Kuklina I.N. (2013). Gumanism: mirage ili orientir? [Humanism: Mirage or Landmark?]. Rossiiskii Soviet po mezhdunarodnym delam. June. Available at: http://russiancouncil.ru/library/?id_4=196 (accessed: 10.01.2014)

7. Lebedeva M.M. (2013). Socialno-gumanitarnoe izmerenie mezdunarodnykh otnoshenii v ATR. [Social and Humanitarian Dimensions of IR in Asia-Pacific.]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 11. № 1 (32). Available at: http://www.intertrends.ru/thirty-second/Lebedeva.pdf (accessed: 24.05.2013)

8. Sodeistvie Mezhdunarodnomu razvitiiu. Kurs lektsii. (2012). [International Assistance. Course of Lectures]. Ed. Barteneva V.I., Glazunova E.N. Moscow. Vsemirnyi Bank. 403 p.