Description
Despite the acknowledged prevalence of hypocrisy within international politics the International Relations (IR) discipline has failed to explicitly define what hypocrisy is (Lawson and Zarakol 2023). This lack of definition is especially evident in relation to debates on United States (US) foreign policy. US foreign policy hypocrisy comprises one of the biggest tropes of IR. Analysts regularly describe US policy as hypocritically inconsistent, especially in relation to the controversial issue of humanitarian intervention. Yet the term ‘hypocrisy’ is used here without any deeper thought as to what hypocrisy is. Inspired by the extensive literature within philosophy and political theory as to how we should define and understand hypocrisy – and even whether hypocrisy can be a good – this paper asks what we learn about inconsistencies within US foreign policy when we consider policy analysis within the context of this significantly wider debate. Furthermore, the paper considers how we apply this philosophical debate – which focuses primarily on the domestic individual – to the international realm, not least in light of the levels-of-analysis. Where do we locate hypocrisy in the international system and how far does this shift to the international change what we think hypocrisy is?
