The core argument of this work is that the individualist conceptions of agency and
responsibility inherent in the contemporary ethical structure of international relations
are highly problematic, serve political purposes which are often unacknowledged, and
have led to the establishment of an international institutional regime which is limited
in the kind of justice it can bring to international affairs. Cosmopolitan liberalism has
led to the privileging of the discourse of rights over that of responsibility, through its
emphasis on legality and the role of the individual as the agent and subject of ethics;
this has culminated in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC, described by its supporters as the missing link in human rights enforcement,
is a result of changing conceptions of agency and responsibility beyond borders –
normative discourse has moved from state to individual, from politics and ethics to
law, and from peace to justice, but I argue that it has not yet moved beyond the
dichotomy of cosmopolitan and communitarian thinking. I contend that neither of
these two positions can offer us a satisfactory way forward, so new thinking is
required. The core of the thesis therefore explores alternative views of agency and
responsibility – concepts which are central to international political theory, but not
systematically theorized within the discipline. I outline models of agency as sociality
and responsibility as a social practice, arguing that these models both better describe
the way we talk about and experience our social lives, and also offer significant
possibilities to broaden the scope of international justice and enable human
flourishing. I end the research by considering the implications of these more nuanced
accounts of agency and responsibility for ongoing theorising and practice
