One of the difficulties of writing about this kind of material is that so much of the existing literature is concerned with an entirely false problem: that of escaping from the dreaded claim to 'political realism' that is so pervasive both in the construction of Anglo-American accounts to international relations and in popular understandings of what it means to engage in political life. As I have argued extensively elsewhere and will continue to insist here, the (multiple and contradictory) claim to political realism is a consequence of a prior set of idealizations, not least of the sovereign nation-state and of its necessary relation both the system of states and to the world. Setting up a discipline of international relations on the assumption that political realism has the status of the dominant intellectual tradition has encouraged claims that we need to contemplate idealizations that might allow us to get away from political realism; hence the famous opposition between realism and various forms of utopianism in the Cold War era and the elaboration of various appeals to cosmopolitanism more recently. Again the dead-end signs are clearly in view right next to the starting line. What must be put first, in my view, are the idealizations and substantivizations (especially of sovereignty, state, nation, subjectivity, history, reason, territory, law, liberty, equality, security, polis and cosmos) that have already come to be treated as real, as the necessary starting point of analysis, and as the normative ground on which to think about the legitimation of violence at the boundaries, borders and limits of modern political life, thereby encouraging further idealizations that can work only to legitimize a prior array of reified ideals.