Norms and the idea of great power responsibility in international society

2013 ◽  
pp. 38-56
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Great Power

The Responsibility Not to Veto

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Morris ◽  
Nicholas Wheeler
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
International Society ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Pros And Cons

The responsibility to protect (R2P) and the question of UN Security Council veto constraint are intimately linked, but whilst the R2P has become increasingly embedded in diplomatic discourse and practice, the idea that in relation to it the Council’s five permanent members should recognize a ‘responsibility not to veto’ (RN2V) has fared less well. This chapter examines why this should be so. In its assessment of the prospects for, and pros and cons of, veto-restriction, the chapter argues that opposition amongst the P5 to the idea of a RN2V is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and it charges advocates of the idea with a failure to recognize that it is ill-conceived to believe that R2P can transcend great power cleavages in international society, whether these stem from principles of prudence, conflicting value systems, or the play of self-interest and great power jockeying for position.

Peaceful Change in English School Theory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelia Navari
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Power Management ◽  
International Society ◽  
Great Power ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
English School ◽  
Security Community ◽  
The Third ◽  
Structural Determinant ◽  
Structural Conflict

The English School has made three contributions to the science of peaceful change: the inevitable conflict of order and justice; the necessity of Great Power management of peaceful change; and regional orders as the locus of peaceful change. The first refers to a structural conflict between state sovereignty and human rights and also serves as the parameters of a discourse on ethical possibilities among sovereign states. The second—the requirement of Great Power management—is both an observation on the course of history and a structural determinant, arising from the gross inequalities among states. The third—the notion that regional international societies can be peacemakers—is not unique to the English School. Its contribution is that any region can be a form of international society with its own distinctive rules and adjudicative procedures, and that accordingly, any region is potentially able to become a “security community.”

Community of common destiny: China’s “new assertiveness” and the changing Asian order

2018 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-463 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen N. Smith
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Great Power ◽  
English School ◽  
Xi Jinping ◽  
The West ◽  
Normative Basis ◽  
Common Destiny ◽  
Modes Of Governance

This essay will discuss China’s re-emergence as a great power through the lens of the English School. Following Ian Clark, I reconceptualize international society as a set of historically changing principles of legitimacy. I argue that China’s “new assertiveness” under Xi Jinping is best explained by China’s pursuit of legitimacy in an international arena where norms of legitimate modes of governance, development, and ordering principles have long been defined by the West. Furthermore, this essay will examine one recent development in Chinese International Relations theory, gongsheng, which purports to offer an alternative normative basis for interstate order, and probe its relationship to Xi Jinping’s recent declaration to build a “community of common destiny” in Asia.

Great power management and ambiguous order in nineteenth-century international society

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 367-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Zala
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Power Management ◽  
International Society ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Power Structure ◽  
Social Institution ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
Specific Focus ◽  
The Social

AbstractThis article considers what the nineteenth century can tell us about the nature of great power management under conditions of ambiguity in relation to the holders of great power status. It charts the development of an institutionalised role for the great powers as managers of international society but with a specific focus on the mutual recognition, and conferral, of status. Such a focus highlights the changing, and sometimes competing, perceptions of not only which states should be thought of as great powers, but also therefore whether the power structure of international society remained multipolar or shifted towards bipolarity or even unipolarity. The article argues that a ‘golden age’ of great power management existed during a period in which perceptions of great power status were in fact more fluid than the standard literature accounts for. This means that predictions surrounding the imminent demise of the social institution of great power management under an increasingly ambiguous interstate order today may well be misplaced.

scholarly journals Interpreting great power rights in international society: Debating China’s right to a sphere of influence

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Zala
Keyword(s):  
East Asia ◽  
International Society ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Great Power ◽  
English School ◽  
Special Responsibilities ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
Special Rights ◽  
Scholarly Attention

The special rights and responsibilities of the great powers have traditionally been treated as a key component – even a primary institution – of international society in the English School literature. Recent interpretivist work has focused on the meanings of special responsibilities in contemporary international society with far less scholarly attention being given to the corollary of this – special rights. This article uses an interpretivist approach to attempt to uncover what recent debates over China’s right or otherwise to a sphere of influence in East Asia tells us about understandings of great power rights in contemporary international society. The argument advanced is that if Beijing’s right to a sphere of influence is successfully rejected by the rest of international society without repudiating its status as a great power more broadly, China will indeed be a great power without historical precedent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document