While I have always tended to think of myself as a realist when it comes to International Relations theory, my recent studies into the context of Noah and the Noahide Laws/Covenant of the post-flood world had led me to ponder on the impact of viewing this as a universal human obligation of governments on international relations and the practice of diplomacy as a whole. Here are some thoughts; let me know what you think, dear readers:

The Noahide Covenant, as outlined in Jewish tradition, refers to the set of moral and legal obligations that apply universally to all humanity, based on the covenant God established with Noah after the flood. These are commonly known as the Seven Noahide Laws, which include prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual immorality, theft, eating flesh from a living animal, and the requirement to establish a system of justice.

Implications for Universal Morality and Ethics

1. Universal Moral Standard: The Noahide covenant presents a vision of a basic, shared ethical code for all humanity. This aligns with natural law theories, which posit that fundamental moral truths exist universally and can be known through reason.
2. Interfaith and Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Because the Noahide laws are considered binding on all peoples, they provide a framework for religious and ethical dialogue beyond the boundaries of Judaism, potentially serving as a foundation for interfaith cooperation.
3. Human Rights and International Law: The emphasis on justice and prohibitions against acts like murder and theft parallels modern human rights discourse and international legal norms. Some have suggested that the Noahide laws offer a theological basis for universal human rights.

Implications for International Relations Theory

1. Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism: The Noahide framework supports natural law traditions in international relations, which argue that ethical principles should underpin international law. This contrasts with legal positivism, which sees law as derived only from state consent and not from any moral or divine order.
2. Sovereignty and Global Governance: While the Noahide covenant suggests a universal moral order, it does not necessarily advocate for a single global government. Instead, it supports the idea of nations maintaining their sovereignty while adhering to shared ethical principles.
3. Ethical Realism: In international relations, realism often emphasizes power over morality. However, a Noahide-based perspective introduces an ethical dimension to realism, suggesting that nations have moral responsibilities beyond self-interest.
4. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The Noahide principle of establishing courts of justice could be interpreted as supporting international intervention in cases of severe injustice (e.g., genocide, crimes against humanity), reinforcing modern doctrines like R2P.
5. Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Ethics: The Noahide framework challenges extreme cultural relativism by asserting that some ethical norms (e.g., justice, prohibition of murder) are binding on all societies, regardless of their traditions.

Conclusion

The Noahide covenant provides a theological and ethical foundation for discussing universal human obligations, justice, and moral responsibility in international relations. It reinforces the idea that ethical norms transcend cultural and national boundaries while still allowing for political pluralism. As such, it remains a valuable lens through which to explore questions of law, morality, and global order.