Appraisal of Order in ASEAN and SAARC: A Comparative Inquiry

The paper examines how ASEAN has emerged as a face of Southeast Asia: from anarchy to order, to promote stability, strengthen sovereignty, reduce the role of great powers and build the harmony of interests among the states, while SAARC remained less effective in maintaining Order in South Asia. While combating the challenges of communism and regional instability, ASEAN’s has minimized the involvement of non-state actors while keeping the state’s sovereignty at the forefront. On the other hand, SAARC remained less influential in maintaining Order under common norms, values and interests due to a lack of the conflict management mechanism and inbuilt hostility between India and Pakistan. To understand the reason for the effectiveness of ASEAN Vis-à-vis SAARC, the conceptual framework of Order proposed by Hedley Bull provides a befitting context to examine both regional platforms. Both ASEAN and SAARC had the aim to solve interstate conflicts, but SAARC turned out to be ineffective. Hence, a comparative analysis critically evaluates how and why ASEAN has performed better than SAARC in conflict management. Eventually, the paper discusses the possible changes that SAARC can make to maintain Order in South Asia.

The Institutions of International Society

The “fundamental” or “primary” institutions of international society, among them sovereignty, diplomacy, international law, great power management, the balance of power, trade, and environmental stewardship, have been eagerly discussed and researched in the discipline of international relations (IR), at the theoretical, meta-theoretical, and empirical levels. Generations of scholars associated with not only the English School, but also liberalism and constructivism, have engaged with the “institutions of international society,” as they were originally called by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull in their attempt to develop a historically and sociologically informed theory of international relations. The fact that intense historical, theoretical, and empirical investigations have uncovered new institutional layers, dynamics, and complexities, and thus opened new challenging questions rather than settling the matter is part of its attraction. In the 1960s and 1970s, the early exponents of the English School theorized fundamental institutions as historical pillars of contemporary international society and its element of order. At the turn of the 21st century, this work was picked up by Kal Holsti and Barry Buzan, who initiated a renaissance of English School institutionalism, which specified the institutional levels of international society and discussed possibilities for institutional change. Meanwhile, liberal and constructivist scholars made important contributions on fundamental institutions in key engagements with English School theory on the subject in the late 1980s. These contributions and engagements have informed the most recent wave of (interdisciplinary) scholarship on the subject, which has theorized the room for fundamental institutional change and the role of international organizations in relation to the fundamental institutions of international society.

Revisitando a Escola Inglesa – da velha via média das Relações Internacionais à nova escola inglesa

Este artigo procura posicionar a Escola Inglesa na via intermédia entre o Realismo e o Idealismo, focando-se no pensamento de Hedley Bull e Martin Wight, e analisar a evolução da Escola Inglesa após o derrube do muro de Berlim, quando novas problemáticas foram agregadas ao estudo da sociedade internacional e das instituições internacionais. Pretende-se ainda demonstrar como a Escola Inglesa, fundada nas normas e nos padrões regulares de comportamento, é uma grande influência para a abordagem construtivista. Frente a estas realidades, surge a grande pergunta de partida: por que razão, apesar dos estudos de Hedley Bull e de Martin Wight sobre a sociedade internacional e as instituições internacionais, a Escola Inglesa se manteve, à época, marginalizada frente à Escola Norte-Americana de Relações Internacionais?, a qual origina objetivos, alguns dos quais já mencionados, e hipóteses de trabalho, que serão alcançados e comprovadas.

COX, TEORIA CRÍTICA DAS RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS E O REALISMO

Este texto busca responder ao seguinte problema de pesquisa: a partir fundamentalmente da bibliografia de autoria de Robert W. Cox, como caracterizar diferenças e semelhanças da teoria crítica com o realismo e explicar seu apreço pelo legado teórico de Hedley Bull, considerando-o, por consequência, compatível com o enfoque da teoria crítica? O texto busca também testar a seguinte hipótese, que responderia ao problema enunciado: considerando várias diferentes possibilidades referentes a semelhanças e diferenças entre realismo e teoria crítica das Relações Internacionais, o principal ponto de semelhanças e diferenças reside na consideração comum da história, mas na abordagem de Cox o conceito de história de Cox é definido implicitamente de modo eclético, incoerente e impreciso.

A quantitative approach to studying hierarchies of primary institutions in international society: The case of United Nations General Assembly disarmament resolutions, 1989–1998

In this article, we aim to contribute to two contemporary debates within the English School. The debate about how to observe primary institutions and the debate concerning hierarchy between primary institutions. Specifically, we analyse references to primary institutions in United Nations General Assembly disarmament resolutions in the decade 1989–1998 and their distribution using descriptive statistics. In this way, the article offers a novel approach to identifying primary institutions empirically, and provides some insight into the hierarchy-question in the sense of documenting the relative numerical presence of references to different primary institutions in a specific issue area and temporal context. With respect to the latter, the key finding is that great power management, diplomacy and international law are by far the most prominent primary institutions in the analysed material. This is an intriguing finding, not least given the importance attached to them by Hedley Bull in his classic work The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. The main contribution of the article is thus to spell out a new approach to how the aforementioned debates might proceed empirically.

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

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.