The International System–International Society Distinction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Dunne ◽  
Richard Little
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Central Feature ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World ◽  
British Committee

The central feature of the English School is now usually considered to be its commitment to the proposition that international relations (IR) take place within an international society of shared norms and some shared values. However, an exclusive focus on norms has the effect of denuding the school of the more pluralistic dimensions that were advocated by some of the founding members of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics. Hedley Bull, in particular, stressed that to account for international order it is necessary to view IR from three divergent perspectives: the international system, the international society, and world society. The early British Committee discussions, directed toward delineating the “fundamentals” of international theory, used the terms international society, international system, and states system interchangeably. But the idea of a states system was distinctive to the emerging English School. A distinguishing marker of the English School is the claim that not only is there a need to accommodate societal norms in theoretical accounts of world politics, but that there is also a systemic logic, and that these analytics together have explanatory power in considering how the world hangs together. The essential elements of the school’s thinking were most fully and effectively realized in The Expansion of the International Society, the central work where the international system–international society distinction is employed. This grand narrative represents a crucial contribution to the field of IR but one that has been very generally underappreciated across the discipline. To generate a deeper understanding of the two concepts, it is clear that much more research needs to be carried out on international societies and systems around the world.

Order and Justice

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hurrell
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Global Justice ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Political Community ◽  
English School ◽  
Value Conflict ◽  
Theoretical Understanding

Order and justice are deeply intertwined in English School writing. The central concern of the English School is with the problem of order and with the question: To what extent does the inherited political framework provided by the international society of states continue to provide an adequate basis for world order? This kind of question links closely with the debates on international institutions and global governance that have been so prominent since the end of the Cold War. But the English School focus is less on theoretical understanding of particular institutions and more on assessing the overall character of institutionalization in world politics, the normative commitments inherent in different ways of governing the globe, and the adequacy of historical and existing interstate institutions for meeting practical and normative challenges. There are four specific themes that are central to the pluralist wing of English School writing on order and justice. The first theme concerns power and the conditions of order, while the second concerns diversity and value conflict. Meanwhile, a third theme emerges from the idea that moral values should, so far as possible, be kept out of international life and of particular international institutions. Finally, the fourth theme concerns the argument that international society has the potential not just to help manage international conduct in a restrained way but also to create the conditions for a more legitimate and morally more ambitious political community to emerge. As power diffuses away from the Western, liberal developed core, and as the intractability of the international system to liberal prescriptions becomes more evident, so one can detect new changes in the way in which global justice is understood.

DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY IN ENGLISH SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
VICTOR MIRONOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Intellectual Structure ◽  
English School ◽  
School Committee ◽  
The Social ◽  
British Committee ◽  
Hedley Bull

This article is devote to the analysis of one from the key institutions in the conception of international society. The aim of the article is identify historiographical aspects for the analysis diplomacy in the context of the English school’s approach to the study of international institutions. English school of International relations formed in the end 1950-1970. Some famous scientists (H. Butterfield, M. Wight, and H. Bull) took an active part in the creation of this scientific society. British Committee for the study of international politics was a main intellectual structure in the genesis of the school. Committee had worked during 25 years (1959-1985) and become a base for the development two first generations of English school of international relations. Herbert Butterfield was very famous English historian and first chief of British Committee during 1959-1967. He had conservative credo. He shared the idea of the decline of diplomacy and divided it into new and historical. During some time, his views on diplomacy in modern history came into conflict with wide interpretation international society - central concept of the school. Martin Wight saw in diplomacy as a minimal indicator of the social character of international system in any time, but he also inclined that diplomacy will not be play very much role in the future. At the same time, he did not accept the concept “international society” and preferred the idea of “system of state”. Concept “international society” become a symbol and different mark this scientific community thanks to the books by H. Bull in 1960-1970. Hedley Bull included diplomacy in his list main international institutes, but central place among them in his views played balance of power and international law. Modern adepts of the conception of international Society continue diplomatic research. The works of modern representatives of the English School are studies in the article. Main conclusion of this part of the article consist of that the functional analysis of the diplomacy become a base for the following development of British intuitionalism and an important part of the conception of international society today. The British institutionalism are highlighted general trends of the following development English school of international relations and some problems for the dialogue with American theory of International relations.

scholarly journals The hierarchical society: the politics of self-determination and the constitution of new states after 1919

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 372-396
Author(s):  
Maja Spanu
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
New States ◽  
History Of

International Relations scholarship disconnects the history of the so-called expansion of international society from the presence of hierarchies within it. In contrast, this article argues that these developments may in fact be premised on hierarchical arrangements whereby new states are subject to international tutelage as the price of acceptance to international society. It shows that hierarchies within international society are deeply entrenched with the politics of self-determination as international society expands. I substantiate this argument with primary and secondary material on the Minority Treaty provisions imposed on the new states in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe admitted to the League of Nations after World War I. The implications of this claim for International Relations scholarship are twofold. First, my argument contributes to debates on the making of the international system of states by showing that the process of expansion of international society is premised on hierarchy, among and within states. Second, it speaks to the growing body of scholarship on hierarchy in world politics by historicising where hierarchies come from, examining how diverse hierarchies are nested and intersect, and revealing how different actors navigate these hierarchies.

scholarly journals Rising Powers, Responsibility, and International Society

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Gaskarth
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Creative Thinking ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
English School ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
China And India ◽  
Societal Values ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Responsible Action

Responsibility is a key theme of recent debates over the ethics of international society. In particular, rising powers such as Brazil, China, and India regularly reject the idea that coercion should be a feature of world politics, and they portray military intervention as irresponsible. But this raises the problem of how a society's norms can be upheld without coercive measures. Critics have accused them of “free riding” on existing great powers and failing to address the dilemma of how to deal with actors undermining societal values. This article examines writing on responsibility and international society, with particular reference to the English School, to identify why the willingness and capacity to use force—as well as creative thinking in this regard—are seen as important aspects of responsibility internationally. It then explores statements made by Brazil, China, and India in UN Security Council meetings between 2011 and 2016 to identify which actors they see as responsible and how they define responsible action. In doing so, it pinpoints areas of concurrence as well as disagreements in their understandings of the concept of responsibility, and concludes that Brazil and India have a more coherent and practical understanding of the concept than China, which risks incurring the label “great irresponsible.”

War and international theory: a commentary on the state of the art

1984 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuen Foong Khong
Keyword(s):  
International Politics ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
The State ◽  
International Theory

The systematic critique of scientific approaches to international politics began with Stanley Hoffmann's provocative 1960 essay, climaxed with Hedley Bull's popular piece in World Politics six years later and breathed its last gasp with Oran Young's attack on Russett's International Regions and The International System in 1969, Since then, the traditionalists have chosen to ignore the behavioralists.

Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World

This text argues that theory is central to explaining International Relations (IR) and that the discipline of IR is much more relevant to the world of international relations than it has been at any point in its history. Some chapters cover distinct IR theories ranging from realism/structural realism to liberalism/neoliberalism, the English school, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, green theory, and postcolonialism. Oher chapters explore International Relations theory and its relationship to social science, normative theory, globalization, and the discipline’s identity. This introduction explains why this edition has chosen to cover these theories, reflects on international theory and its relationship to the world, and considers the kind of assumptions about theory that underlie each of the approaches.

The International Society – World Society Distinction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Williams
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
World Society ◽  
English School ◽  
Regime Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Hugo Grotius ◽  
State Organizations ◽  
The One

The English School, or society of states approach, is a threefold method for understanding how the world operates. According to English School logic, there are three distinct spheres at play in international politics, and two of these are international society and world society—the third being international system. On the one hand, international society (Hugo Grotius) is about the institutionalization of shared interest and identity amongst states, and rationalism puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules, and institutions at the centre of international relations (IR) theory. This position has some parallels to regime theory, but is much deeper, having constitutive rather than merely instrumental implications. On the other hand, world society (Immanuel Kant) takes individuals, non-state organizations, and the global population as a whole as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements, and revolutionism puts transcendence of the state system at the centre of IR theory. Revolutionism is mostly about forms of universalist cosmopolitanism. This position has some parallels to transnationalism but carries a much more foundational link to normative political theory. International society has been the main focus of English School thinking, and the concept is quite well developed and relatively clear, whereas world society is the least well developed of the English School concepts and has not yet been clearly or systematically articulated.

Sovereignty under attack: the international society meets the Al Qaeda network

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barak Mendelsohn
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
English School ◽  
State Actor

This article examines the complex relations between a violent non-state actor, the Al Qaeda network, and order in the international system. Al Qaeda poses a challenge to the sovereignty of specific states but it also challenges the international society as a whole. This way, the challenge that Al Qaeda represents is putting the survival of the system under risk. Consequently it requires that the international society will collectively respond to meet the threat. But challenges to both the practical sovereignty of states and to the international society do not have to weaken the system. Instead, such challenges if handled effectively may lead to the strengthening of the society of states: a robust international society is dynamic and responsive to threats. Its members could cooperate to adapt the principles and the institutions on which the system is founded to new circumstances. Through its focus on the preservation qualities of the international society this article also reinforces the significance of the English School to the study of international relations. It raises important questions that could be answered in the framework of the English School.

The strategist’s dilemma: Global dynamic density and the making of US ‘China policy’

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Meijer ◽  
Benjamin Jensen
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
English School ◽  
Dynamic Density ◽  
Strategy Formation ◽  
Global Dynamic ◽  
Grand Strategies

AbstractCombining the English School of International Relations and the study of grand strategy decision-making processes, this article investigates how dynamic density – growing volume, velocity, and diversity of interactions within international society – alters states’ strategy formation processes. By contrasting the perspectives of structural realism and the English School on the role of dynamic density in world politics, the piece illustrates the strategist’s dilemma: as global dynamic density in the international society increases, the ability of great powers to formulate coherent grand strategies and policies potentially decreases. Specifically, it contends that growing global dynamic density generates processual and substantive fragmentation in strategy formation. Building on a large body of elite interviews, US policy toward China – and the so-called US ‘rebalance’ to Asia – is used as a probability probe of the central idea of the strategist’s dilemma. In conclusion, we contrast our findings with complex interdependence theory and examine their implications for ‘great power management’ (GPM) as a primary institution of international society. We argue that, by generating processual and substantive fragmentation in strategy formation, global dynamic density complicates GPM by hindering the capacity of great powers to manage and calibrate the competitive and cooperative dynamics at play in a bilateral relationship.

scholarly journals The Concept of Multipolarity: Diversity of Approaches and Interpretations

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 424-445
Author(s):  
Vladislav S. Soluianov
Keyword(s):  
Regional Integration ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Regional Powers ◽  
Regional Approach ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
The Stability ◽  
The Impact

The author regards multipolarity as a question open for discussion, the variety of answers to which contribute not only to the comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon, but also to the perception of processes taking place in the world politics. The content of the multipolarity concept is revealed through the perspectives of realism, neorealism, civilizational approach, regional approach, liberalism, and constructivism. From the realism perspective, multipolarity can be considered as an objective reflection of the world development. The foundation of multipolarity consists in the growth of economic, military, and political potential of non-Western powers and the weakening of the US position as a global leader. Neorealism views multipolarity as a property of the international system which affects the behavior of states. The civilizational approach focuses on identifying civilizations as new actors and centers of power on the world stage. The regional approach highlights the importance of the increasing regionalization processes and creation of regional integration systems, which contribute to the formation of multipolarity in the context of the rise of regional powers and weakening of the USs world position. Liberalism seeks to assess the impact of multipolarity on the stability and security of the international system. Along with the predictable attitude to multipolarity as a threat to peace and security, there is another more optimistic point of view. Constructivism regards multipolarity as a foreign policy discourse and a project of several states, primarily Russia. The results allow to see multipolarity from different perspectives and develop a more comprehensive and objective understanding of this phenomenon.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document