Expansion Of International Society Research Articles

"Восстание против Запада" и постколониальный дискурс в Английской школе международных отношений

The article is devoted to the problem of understanding the role of colonial policy in the English School of International Relations. The evolution of the concept of international society in the 1980s makes it possible to identify the line between colonial and postcolonial discourse in the texts of representatives of this scientific community. The paper analyzes both the positions of individual scientists on colonial subjects and the collective practice of the English school, presented in the monograph “The Expansion of International Society” (1984). In the course of the study can be distinguished two different positions of scientists in relation to colonialism. The original participants of the English School formulated the first. It proceeded from the need to take colonial history beyond the concept of international society. The origins of the formation of such an attitude can be explained both by the peculiarities of the personal destinies of scientists (C. Manning) and by the specifics of their scientific views (M. Wight, M. Howard, A. Watson). The second position presented by a new generation of supporters of the English school. It assumed a rethinking of the role of colonialism in history in the context of the formation of the modern global world. R.J. Vincent in his work of on Japan's entry into the international system had beginning of such a rethinking. Using this example, the scientist showed the need to study the reverse impact of colonies on the norms and institutions of European international society. H. Bull supported his student, despite the fact that R.J. Vincent's position contradicted the general theory of the development of international society. As a result, the school started talking about the works of the late H. Bull. Thus, he softened the criticism of the new participants. The further development of the concept led to the position that modern supporters of the English School consider colonialism to be an institution in the history of the formation of international society. Moreover, the participation of former colonies is recognize as a fundamental moment of the modern structure of international society. H. Bull, one of his late publications, tried to combine these approaches and identified new prospects for the development of the concept of the English School of International Relations.

‘Savages in the midst’: revolutionary Haiti in international society (1791–1838)

In 1804, the former French colony of Saint-Domingue, now Haiti, became independent. The first modern state born of a successful slave revolt was then isolated diplomatically until well into the 19th century. Although the country occupied the minds of contemporary diplomats, colonial authorities, and intellectuals, and had a complicated relationship with the society of states, historical accounts of the expansion of international society into the Atlantic have largely ignored Haiti’s early independence. This can be attributed to the literature’s sparse consideration of colonialism, the institution of slavery, race, commerce, and abolitionism in the expansion process. The Haitian case reveals the advantages of incorporating all of these insights and offers a more nuanced and complicated picture of the encounter between Haiti and international society.

The English School in retrospect and prospect: Barry Buzan’s An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach

Over the last few decades the English School (ES) has not only emerged, but has been acknowledged as a distinctive approach to the study of International Relations (IR). It is routinely listed in textbooks and disciplinary surveys as one of IR’s primary modes of inquiry, attracting interest and adherents in many parts of the world. This state of affairs is attributable to the work of a number of people, but especially to that of Barry Buzan. More than ‘reconvening’ the school, a metaphor misleading in some ways, Buzan has led, pushed and challenged his colleagues to better clarify and define their ideas, concepts and theories, as well as to put the ES on a much sounder organizational footing. Buzan’s (2014) latest book builds on his previous volume (Buzan, 2004a) to provide an introduction for readers new to the school. However, it does much more than this, providing a ‘state of the debate’ on such demanding matters as the expansion of international society, and the pluralist–solidarist divide. It also links present research efforts to the classics, putting into perspective and defining the school’s current research agenda for the next phase of its development. It has the potential to become a landmark work on a par with the classic work of the early ES, Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society. But how does Buzan’s research agenda respond to the requirements of an increasingly diverse and fragmenting discipline? Are his preferred analytical concepts and categories sound? Of what pitfalls should newcomers to the school be aware? In this symposium five established scholars, closely associated with the ES, seek to answer these questions, and in dialogue with Buzan, further advance our understanding of the school’s ‘societal’ approach and its potential for deepening our understanding of what at times appears a highly unsocial world. The approach of the section is ‘internal’ as opposed to ‘external’ critique. External critiques of the ES are well known (see, e.g., Finnemore, 2001). The section proceeds on the assumption that at this stage of its development the school’s approach can be most effectively advanced by vigorous debate between those who share the same broad research agenda with little purpose being served by reiterating the already well-known ‘external’ objections. The section is based on a roundtable discussion held at the EISA conference, Warsaw, September 2013, in which Zhang, Wilson, Navari and Buzan took part. I am grateful to these contributors as well as to Knudsen and Sharp for their timely and thought-provoking contributions.

Africa and the Expansion of International Society: Surrendering the Savannah, by John Anthony Pella Jr. London: Routledge, 2014, Pp. 204. £85 (hbk)

Africa and the Expansion of International Society: Surrendering the Savannah, by John Anthony Pella Jr. London: Routledge, 2014, Pp. 204. £85 (hbk)

The expansion of international society after 30 years: Views from the European periphery

Since its publication three decades ago, Hedley Bull and Adam Watson’s The Expansion of International Society has served as the main point of departure for historically informed discussion of how today’s states system emerged and then went on to envelop the world. In a recent article, Iver Neumann criticized Bull and Watson’s conceptualization for being Euro-centric, in the sense that these scholars only ascribed agency to the European side of the relationship between an entrant and international society. For International Relations, it is particularly apposite that the new entrants to international society themselves came from suzerain systems, such as Habsburg-dominated or the Ottoman-dominated one. Neumann’s example was Russia, whose experiences with Mongol suzerainty and, before that, with being a part of a suzerain system centred on Byzantium, infused Muscovy with experiences and memories that formed the reference point for what to expect when getting in contact with international society. This forum broadens this debate by looking not only at one state, but at a set of Central and South-Eastern European states with experiences and memories from various suzerain systems. The articles discuss when and how Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Turkey began to aspire for membership in international society; experiences, memories and ideas such as translatio imperii that informed what they made of the entry; and how and in what degree the ensuing tensions remain today.

Two-level language games: International relations as inter-lingual relations

To the extent that polities interact across linguistic boundaries, international relations are also inter-lingual relations. Since relations and practices are given meaning in language, it has to be possible to give at least a minimum of shared meaning to mutual relations in order for inter-lingual relations to function smoothly. Otherwise, the divergence of meaning and consequently also of social expectations will limit the possible extent and quality of those relations. Nevertheless, International Relations has not theorised inter-lingual relations. This article addresses this deficiency by proposing a theory of ‘conceptual entanglement’ as an approach to studying how compatibility of meaning comes about and is maintained between linguistic communities and hence also between polities. With the ‘expansion of international society’ from the 19th century onwards, linguistic divides have gradually narrowed, especially in terms of political vocabularies. Yet, residues remain, making inter-lingual relations qualitatively different for different pairs of languages, and thus also for polities. The article elaborates on how conceptual entanglement is an aspect of ‘entry’ into international society by using the theory on the case of how the French concept of ‘civilisation’ was translated into Ottoman and became part of the political vocabulary of the Ottoman Empire and later Turkey.

The Standard of ‘Civilisation’, the Expansion Thesis and the 19th-century International Social Space

This article identifies a series of gaps in the English school’s thesis of the ‘expansion of international society’ from European to global extension, and presents two propositions that can correct these problems, and so give us a better understanding of the social space in which 19th-century international relations were carried on. First, we should replace the concept of ‘expansion’ with ‘stratification’, changing the terms of the enquiry from an examination of ‘entry into’ the society of states to an exploration of who was where in the 19th-century international social system. Secondly, we should add a more relational analysis of patterns of association to the English school’s predominantly institutionalist approach to the analysis of the structure of international society. To flesh out these two proposals, the article presents a neo-Weberian framework for thinking about international social stratification and an empirical analysis of patterns of treaty-making.

The Scandinavian International Society by Laust Schouenborg

The English School approach to International Relations (IR) has long been associated with their unique blend of normative and empirical enquiry. Their ‘showcase’ concept was of course that of ‘International Society’, which (in the context of the Cold War) provided an alternative account of international politics, which was purportedly characterised by (timeless) anarchy and a struggle for survival. Since then, one of the core themes of research by English School scholars has included the analysis of the historical evolution of International Society. Key scholars such as Martin Wight and Hedley Bull engaged in the research of the origins of the Westphalian international order and its gradual expansion that resulted in the emergence of global International Society. The culmination of this endeavour was the landmark study, The Expansion of International Society (Bull and Watson, 1984). One of the key criticisms to emerge from these works was the now familiar charge of Eurocentricity, which pointed out to the English School’s complacency with regard to the role that imperialism played in the expansion of International Society (Keene, 2002; Suzuki, 2009). One could also add to this the criticism of ‘tempocentrism’, which reconstructs ‘all historical systems so as to conform to a reified and naturalised present’ (Hobson, 2002, p.9). It could be argued that this has resulted in European International

Between West and non-West: Latin American Contributions to International Thought

This article seeks to highlight the significant contribution of Latin American scholarship to the further promotion and understanding of more ‘global’ approaches to International Relations. It focuses on the immediate post-independence period and explores the internationalist perspective of Andres Bello, an enormously influential continental scholar, publicist, and political figure, whose work is little known outside South America. It argues that his contribution to International Relations broadly conceived, part of a wider regional contribution, cannot be neatly accommodated within either accounts of the expansion of international society or revisionist post-colonial thought. As such it is neither fully ‘Western’ nor ‘non-Western’. Analysing his contribution under three interrelated headings - international law, the problem of order and international co-operation - it argues that Bello's work needs to be examined on its own terms. Above all it provides an illustration of why we need to take more seriously Latin American thought as part of a wider movement to internationalise International Relations.

Why is there no gender in the English School?

AbstractWhy has English School theory, even as it has been re-imagined as critical international society theory, ignored the workings of gender in international politics? This article stages an encounter between the English School and feminists in International Relations (IR), first demonstrating the broad compatibility of the two approaches. I argue that to conduct a conversation between English School and IR feminist approaches, it is necessary to reconstruct the English School's three traditions – Realist, Rationalist, and Revolutionist – so as to allow a greater role for gender as a category of analysis. I then review the work of two key English School scholars, Hedley Bull and Barry Buzan with this reconstruction in mind. Finally, I argue that IR theorists who have participated in the recent English School revival should consider integrating gender into its theoretical and research agenda, and show several examples of how a hybrid approach can be brought to bear on the expansion of international society, diplomacy, and human rights.

The Liberal Order and the Modern Project

A persistent struggle within liberal thought is how to recognise cultural particularity within an ethical system in which toleration does not become indifference. The liberal internationalism espoused by leading US-based authors assumes a single logic of modernity, in which adherence to liberal rules and institutions is both necessary and inevitable. The article finds an echo of this view in earlier English School work on the expansion of international society, and subsequently teases out some lessons from recent revisionist accounts of how international society and its institutions were shaped by the multiplicity of their interactions. Historical and cultural encounters in international society show that liberal internationalists are mistaken in their belief that there is only one pathway to modernity and that re-rising powers, such as India, Russia and China will sustain the liberal order after American hegemonic decline.

Introduction

Introduction

How the Inner Circle Deals with the Dispossessed

European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: The Moral Backwardness of International Society. By Paul Keal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 274 pp., $70.00 (ISBN: 0-521-82471-0), $25.00 (ISBN: 0-521-53179-9). With the imminent publication of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the international community will soon produce standards on the rights of many small groups of people who were the objects of European colonization. This document addresses a highly sensitive arena of conflict because it affects many of what Paul Keal—in European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples —refers to as the “inner circle” of powerful states that “articulate rules of legitimacy and norms of behavior” (p. 188). Keal does not ponder the full ramifications for the powerful Anglo-Saxon settler states—such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and even Great Britain itself, which first established colonies on others' territories. Nonetheless, what the United Nations (UN) pronounces could have a major impact on the future of these countries in terms of their claims to absolute sovereignty over indigenous peoples and their lands. The impact will be especially significant if the document confers collective rights on indigenous peoples, which is currently the intent of Article 6 of the Draft Declaration. Keal's book is an important and timely account of how the international community got to this point. European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples traces the political history by which formerly autonomous peoples have been required to make rights claims on both states and, more recently, on the international community of states. Keal begins by examining the expansion of international society. Although this coincided with European colonialism, Keal's emphasis is on the theoretical and legal justifications used by Europeans, rather than with the actual historical events and the specific patterns of dominance that unfolded around the globe. Hence, the process by which Europe created a society of states is understood by reference to the various philosophers who provided rationales for it and the legal …

The expansion of international society

The expansion of international society