Does the concept of International Society enrich or hinder our understanding of IR?

Introduction

Acknowledging that the concept of International Society has a broad framework of interpretation, and that its development has occurred -still is- through a long period of time and different historical context, this essay is going to engage with the argument that the view of International Society, especially the one held in the period between the 18th and early 20th centuries within the English School, hinder our understanding of International Relations.

The present work is structured by the following sequence: First, it will discuss the historical origins, definition, principal postulates, and institutions of the concept of International Society. Second, this essay is going to portrait the idea of the standard of civilization as the leading reason why the concept of International Society (between the 10th and early 20th centuries) limits our understanding of International Relations. Finally, it will effort to summarize the two vast approaches to International Society: pluralist and solidarist.

The Concept of International Society

Rooted in the ‘Grotian’ tradition (Wight cited in Bull, 1976, p. 105), the International Society could be traced back to the origins of the modern states -between the 15th and 16th centuries (Potter, 1946, p. 79)- and it is possible to divide its evolution in Christian International Society, European international Society, and World International Society (Bull, 2012, pp. 26-38). However, given the principal aim of this essay, the first epoch will not be described below.

Developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, the European International Society focused its attention in “European values” and positive international law. The membership of the Society clearly referred to states, and, in terms of “international legitimacy”(recognition), it shifted from dynastic to popular after the United States Independence and the French Revolution (Wight, 1972, cited in Bull, 2012, p. 33). Furthermore, relations between European powers differ from those that involved (non-European) “lesser societies” and the principle of hierarchy within the Society was based upon the relative power of nations (Bull, 2012, pp. 31-36).

Concerning the World International Society (20th century), it was characterized by the expansion of the International Society -from its European boundaries to a “global” membership-, by the inclusion of non-state actors as part of the Society, and by the (apparent) rejection of the western cultural foundation. However, as acknowledged by Bull himself: “if contemporary International Society does have any cultural basis…it is the culture of the dominant Western powers” (2012, p. 37). Apparently, at least to Hedley Bull, the ultimate expansion of the International Society and the 20th century transition from a European International Society to a World Society, is to be explained, with little or no regard to colonialism, by “socialization”, in other words, the entry of a new state to the International Society by achieving the standard of civilization (Suzuki, 2005, p. 141).

Having made a brief historical description of the development of the International Society, it is moment to address the matter of a definition, core ideas and institutions of International Society in general.

In terms of defining International Society, it is difficult to establish a stable and completely valid definition when the very concept in question depends on a broad set for variables like the historical context we are living, or even the personal and academic background of the human being that constructs that definition. Nevertheless, the list of “commons” (interests, values, set of rules, and institutions) shared by “a group of states”, put forward by Bull (2012, p. 13) to define the International Society, shall be of proper use for this essay. Moreover, it is a widely accepted definition within English School scholars.

Furthermore, deeply entwined with its definition, the principal postulates and institutions of the International Society, as an element of the International System, is that states, following ideals of co-existence and co-operation, recognise and respect each other’s sovereignty, abide with shared interest between them, observe common rules, and take their place in the institutions created by themselves. These institutions, regarded also as means of maintaining order within the anarchical society of states, are balance of power, diplomacy, international law, great power management and war (Bull, 2012, p. 40, p. 71).

The Standard of Civilization

The concept of standard of civilization refers to the requirement of uncivilised states (mainly non-European) to accept the institutions of the International Society, and to adapt their internal political structures to European-like structures (Gong, 1984, cited in Suzuki, 2005, p. 141). However, as stated by Kaczmarska (2017, p. 11), its actual significance is the preconceived idea of Western nations to be a “better” civilization in comparison to non-Western states (non-European mainly). Therefore, that the expansion of their common values beyond their boundaries was justified, even unavoidable.

In other words, this concept parts from two very controversial assumptions: first, that there are civilised and uncivilised nations. Second, that the latter must achieve several tests designed and assessed at the compliance of the (so-called) civilised, in order to become members of the International Society. Nevertheless, it would also be worth to mention that modern scholars as Edward Keene are less interested in the question of membership, rather than to analyse the causes of inequality or “stratification” within the 19th century European “family of nations”, regarding them as a “privileged group” that is part of a larger “global international social system” (Keene, 2014, p. 652)[i].

The most important point to be noted, and the main argument of this essay as to why the concept of International Society -in the period mentioned- hinders our understanding of International Relations, is the explicit and, at the very least, questionable differentiation in treatment between sovereign states. Whether the distinction happens within members, or between members and non-members of the International Society, or if it is related to the religion they profess, their geography, the power they are capable to demonstrate, or their cultural values is beyond the point. The mere thought of some societies being less than others represent a dangerous and potentially discriminatory assumption to consider in general, not just within the framework of International Relations, for which indeed this idea has no use to enrich its understanding.

Pluralist and Solidarist

Having gone through the concept of International Society: history, definition, core postulates and institutions, and the controversial principle of the standard of civilization, it is appropriate, before concluding this essay, to mention the two different approaches to International Society: the pluralist and the solidarist.

According to Bull[ii] (2019, p. 73), there are three main topics on which the above mentioned approaches disagree: the assessment between just and unjust wars made by international law, “the sources of the (international) law”, and the status of individuals within the International Society. The following paragraphs will succinctly summarize the views of each approach on the three points.

The pluralist -associated with order- address the first issue by considering war a “political act” and that a just war is one fought in a “lawful way”. On the other hand, the solidarist -associated with justice- concentrate in the causes of war, therefore, a just war is one that has a just cause, that is, a war to “enforce rights” (Bull, 2019, p. 73-77).

Regarding the source of international law, for the pluralist it derives from “custom and treaty”, that is to say, it is conceived by the “will of nations”. Diversely, the solidarist approach consider it to be natural law, to which the solidarist concede prelacy over every other piece of legislation, even that of “divine law” (Bull, 2019, p. 87).

Finally, the solidarist recognize people as the ultimate members of the International Society, as they construct the “universal community of mankind”, compared to which the International Society occupy a secondary role. Contrarily, the pluralist regard individuals as, if anything, “objects of international law”, in other words, subject to rights and duties contained in international accords, but never members of the International Society, of which only states are part (Bull, 2019, p. 88).

Conclusion

To achieve the purpose of this essay, it was important to constrain the concept of International Society within the period between the 18th and early 20th. Antiquated principles such as the “standard of civilization” does nothing but hinder our understanding of International Relations in the 21st world. Apparently, latter work -especially the one after the end of the Cold War (1989-1991)- of English School scholars, like Buzan or Wheeler, is bringing a renewed framework to theorize International Relations; one that tends to focus in a modern, solidarist approach and the concept of World Society, which could, and I stress could, be better positioned to advance the path of inclusiveness in IR, rather than their first thinkers, as I hope it was well depicted by this work.

Footnotes

[i]The G7 summits and the North-South dialogue (both originated in the 1970’s) could be interesting real-life examples of the practical application of ‘civilised–civilised, and civilised–uncivilised treatment differentiation, respectively.

[ii] Presenting the views of Grotius to describe the solidarist approach and of Oppenheim to describe the pluralist. Reference List

Bull, H. (1976) ‘Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture’, British Journal of International Studies, 2(2), pp. 101-116. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20096764 (Accessed: 22 October 2020) Bull, H. (2012) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 4th edn. New York: Columbia University Press. Bull, H. (2019) ‘The Grotian Conception of International Society’, in Butterfield, H., Wight, M. (ed.) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays on the Theory of International Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press USA - OSO, pp. 71-94. Kaczmarska, K. (2017) ‘International Society’, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, (November), pp. 1-24. Available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-98?print=pdf (Accessed: 23 October 2020) Keene, E. (2014) ‘The Standard of ‘Civilisation’, the Expansion Thesis and the 19th-century International Social Space’, Millennium, 42(3), pp. 651-673. doi: 10.1177/0305829814541319 Potter, G.R. (1946) ‘HISTORICAL REVISION No. CIX. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MODERN STATE’, History (London), 31(113), pp. 73-84. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24402585 (Accessed: 22 October 2020) Suzuki, S. (2005) ‘Japan´s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 11(1), pp. 137-164. doi: 10.1177/1354066105050139