Global International Society Research Articles

A Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (GEACPS) 2.0?

Contesting International Society in East Asia. Edited by Buzan Barry, Zhang Yongjin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 272 pp., $95.00 hardcover (ISBN-13: 978-1-107-07747-8). In a collection of fine essays, this book asks a timely question: Is there an (emerging) international regional society in East Asia? Two scenarios/interpretations of the “Western–global international society” are first introduced: the “globalization” view in which the Western systems and values triumph in some form, and the “postcolonial” view in which the “regional” international society will assert itself (pp. 5–6). In theory, however, a third interpretation should also be possible: the emergence of a non-Western “global” society. The book also seeks to conceptualize the international relations of East Asia from the perspective of the English School. Indeed, there is quite a strong link between the book under review and The Expansion of International Society edited by Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (⇓) but not just because the latter is generally regarded as a foundational text of the English School. The seemingly unlikely link is an essay by Ali Mazrui (⇓:289–308) entitled: “Africa Entrapped: Between the Protestant Ethic and the Legacy of Westphalia,” which basically articulates what the editors of Contesting International Society in East Asia , Barry Buzan and Yongjin Zhang, would call “a core-periphery view of Western–global international society” (pp. 5–6). Mazrui argues that Africa was a miracle of diversity, that it interpreted and practiced “primary institutions” differently, that it had no dominant core, …

Interactions between African and Global International Societies: the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)

Through an analysis of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), one of the most visible and ambitious governance exercises undertaken by African states, this paper considers the ways in which an African international society and global international society have interacted. The presence of regional international societies implies the presence of difference in global international society, and therefore the possibility of a breakdown in global consensus and the fragmentation of global international society, a perennial concern of the English School. However, while divergences between African and global international societies on democracy and political governance result in tensions, the APRM can be seen as a way to negotiate between these divergent positions. The APRM is an uneasy and unstable compromise, indicating a highly ambivalent relationship between African and global international societies. This relationship has to be understood in the context of an unequal global international society, dominated by a number of core states with an increasingly solidarist governance agenda, as well as the attempts of a largely pluralist African international society to manage its demands.

Imagining the Middle East: the state, nationalism and regional international society

The Middle East is commonly perceived as a zone of cultural and political differences within the global international society. Imagining the Middle East as a ‘unique’ region is not a new idea, but relocating this conception within the English School (ES) of International Relations (IR) is. This article challenges the perceived ‘exceptionalism’ of the Middle East, which claims that the European concepts of state, sovereignty and nationalism are alien to Islam, therefore preventing the emergence of a regional international society. The first part highlights the correlation between Eurocentrism in IR and the lack of interest in regional – area – studies through the critique of Orientalism and the ES. The second part moves to demonstrate why the ES is more explanatory than other IR theories in the context of the Ottoman–European relations. The third part explores the ‘institutional distinctiveness’ of the Middle East, disproving the notion of regional ‘exceptionalism’ and IR's foundational Eurocentric assumptions. This article concludes by arguing that there is a strong case for calling the Middle East a ‘regional interstate society’, which remains to be a litmus test of whether or not a truly global international society is possible.

Polysemy, sovereignty, and global discourse: a response to Filippo Costa-Buranelli

This is a reply to:Costa-Buranelli, Filippo. 2015. “‘Do you know what I mean?’ ‘Not exactly’: English School, Global International Society and the Polysemy of Institutions.” Global Discourse 5 (3): 499–514. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/23269995.2015.1053195

‘Do you know what I mean?’ ‘Not exactly’: English School, global international society and the polysemy of institutions

The English School has recently focussed on sub-global political developments, inaugurating a new research agenda on how regional international societies are formed and evolve. However, while regional international societies can adopt more or less institutions than those at the global level, they may take some institutions present at the global level to mean something different. In this paper, it is tentatively argued that the development of regional international societies is favouring the polysemy of institutions, a situation in which different international societies adopt the same institutions with different meanings and specific normative contents. If institutions exist at the global level, but then are framed, interpreted and adopted differently in several regional international societies, then what are the prospects for the existence of a global international society? Does it still make sense to speak of a global international society?

Liberal democracy, market economy, and international conduct as standards of ‘civilization’ in contemporary international society: The case of Russia's entry into the ‘community of civilized states’

In his report to the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation in the beginning of 1992, President Boris Yeltsin stated that one of the fundamental principles of his foreign policy was the integration of Russia into the ‘community of civilized states’. However, joining a society or community of some kind requires the fulfilment of certain standards. The first global application of international norms and expected standards of behaviour took place during the nineteenth century through the process of the expansion of the European society of states and its gradual transformation to the contemporary global international society. In this process, the standard of ‘civilization’ played an essential role in determining which states would join the expanding European society and which ones would not. Despite its official repudiation, the standard of ‘civilization’ has remained an international practice as well as a benchmark against which the attitudes and policies of states are assessed. This paper examines the changes that the Russian Government under President Yeltsin had to introduce in order to achieve the country's admission into post-Cold War international society. It argues that these changes included the democratization of the Russian political system, the transformation of the Russian economic system into a free market economy, and the de-ideologisation of the Russian foreign policy.

Solidarisation and its limits: the EU and the transformation of international society

The literature on international societies has widely recognised that the EU has formed a regional international society that has transcended the rules of Westphalian statecentred pluralism. However, the analysis of the consequences of this transcendence for global international society has so far been limited. For the most part, such studies have focused on the EU as a normative power, and even within that literature, there is much more attention given to the question of whether the EU acts as a normative power rather than to the consequences of its actions. This is intriguing given that Ian Manners, who originally coined the term, thought of the EU's ability to fundamentally transform the pluralist international society as the ultimate litmus test of normative power. In this paper, we want to explore this question further. Our argument is that the EU contributes to a solidarisation of international society, and we will show this in relation to two cases, human rights and regionalisation. However, we will also argue that this contribution is not unambiguous. Instead, it is characterised by internal contradictions and tensions.

Understanding regional and global diffusion in international law: the case for a non-monolithic approach to institutions

This article attempts to map the reach of key universal norms and rules of human rights law in international society while also mapping, at the same time, specific regional interpretations and practices of such norms. By mapping the normative architecture of the primary institution of international law through its key human rights’ universal norms and rules, it is possible to undertake a geographic analysis of its diffusion and density throughout international society. Hence, it is also possible to visually assess the reach of norms we take for granted as being universal. On the other hand, the mapping of regional interpretations and practices of ‘global’ norms allows identifying if these regionalisms do construct coexistent regional clusters of different ‘international’ normative systems within the system-level institution governing international society. This mapping exercise hopes to contribute to the English School research agenda and its discussions of regions by trying to trace a clearer picture of the normative and institutional borders within international society and thus provide an additional tool to understand how regional norms and practice constitute, interact and redefine the global international society.

The Standard of ‘Civilisation’ Redux: Towards the Expansion of International Society 3.0?

This article interrogates the recent return of the discourse of the standard of ‘civilisation’ in international relations. Looking at the expansion of international society as an ongoing civilising project, it examines three important macro societal transformations of the international from a grand historical perspective. The classical civilising project, it argues, gives a particularistic interpretation and a truncated meaning to civilisation in international relations, while creating a pluralistic and functional order populated by Westphalian states. The globalisation of the modern sovereign order in the mid-20th century is equally a civilising project, as it redefines legitimate statehood and rightful membership in the making of a post-colonial international society. The current attempts at embedding democracy and human rights in the normative fabric of global international society, contentious and contested as they are, are an integral story of the expansion of international society 3.0, which is marked by a significantly expanded normative scope for making collective judgements of legitimate statehood and rightful state action. In bringing the expansion story up to date and giving it a hermeneutically different reading, the article suggests that as global international society resides in a multi-civilisational world, the civilising project as a form of inter-civilisational communicative actions will always have its place in the evolution of international society.

Culture, knowledge and diplomacy in contemporary EU–China relations—reflections on the legacies of Matteo Ricci

The worlds that Matteo Ricci lived in—early modern Europe, Ming China and the pre-Westphalian international order—are vastly different from the world of the 21st century, when accelerated globalization binds China and Europe together as never before and when global international society is moving decisively beyond Westphalia. How much are the legacies of Matteo Ricci still relevant, 400 years on, to enriching the relationship between China and Europe in the 21st century? This paper starts with a brief overview of the civilizational encounters between China and Europe and the unfolding of their turbulent and often troubled relationship over the last four centuries of wars, collapse of empires, internal convulsions, nation-state building, scientific and industrial revolutions and great economic transformations. Against this historical narrative is the discussion of Matteo Ricci as a cultural agent, a knowledge broker and a practitioner of public diplomacy in fostering Sino–European relations in its nascent years. The paper argues that even in an increasingly globalized world, Matteo Ricci’s conception of culture, his wisdom about the power of knowledge and his practice of people-to-people diplomacy remain valuable in informing both China and the EU, two aspiring global players, in their search for a viable China–EU strategic partnership.

International Society and Regional Integration in Central Asia

This paper examines the degree of integration in Central Asia by utilizing the international society approach of the English School of International Relations (ES). After addressing the debate surrounding the concept of ‘international society’ and discussing its contents and application the paper suggests that within the contemporary heterogeneous global international society there exist some more homogeneous regional/sub-global international societies with Central Asia constituting one of them. It argues that during the Cold War the global international society was divided into two sub-global international societies with the Soviet Union and its allies forming one of them. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia sought to re-establish its regional primacy through the establishment of a set of international organizations ranging from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The paper claims that this range of organizations reflects the existence of a regional international society in Central Asia.

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

The Changing Nature of International Institutions in Europe: the Challenge of the European Union

The European Union is often compared to other political systems in order to better understand its basic features and how they structure politics. This article argues that this focus on comparative politics instils a domestic bias into the study of the EU, which also ignores the impact of enlargement. To remedy this, a comparison is suggested between the order of the EU as a regional international society and the order of the traditional, global international society as analysed by the English School of International Relations, and in particular by Hedley Bull. It is argued that the primary goal of the international order of the society of states, the preservation of states as its fundamental units, has been replaced by the goal of the preservation of peace in Europe. Consequently, the five core institutions of international order identified by Bull (balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and great powers) have been modified or replaced. The new institutions of the European order are identified as the pooling of sovereignty, the acquis communautaire, multi‐managerialism, pacific democracy, member state coalitions and multiperspectivity. These sustain and enlarge a regional international society that not only combines international and domestic elements, but transforms politics to such an extent that it should better be called a multiperspectival society, confounding Bull’s expectation that the European integration will either lead to a European state or falter. This has potential ramifications for the organisation of international society at large, although whether the transformative potential of the EU can be realised remains to be seen, and will be decided above all in the EU’s treatment of its own borders.

Culture and international society

This article investigates a hypothesis drawn from Martin Wight, that a society of states lacking a shared culture, as a result of expansion beyond its original base, will be unstable. This instability hypothesis has been influential in how the English School has presented the history of the expansion of European international society to a global scale. The article starts by offering two models of how a global international society could have come about since the late classical era: a multicultural encounter among several expanding civilizations (polycentric), or the takeover of the system by one centre (monocentric). Using these models as a backdrop, two accounts of the expansion story are developed. The Vanguardist account emphasizes the exceptionalism of European culture, posits a 500-year period of western domination, sees multiculturalism and the decline of western power as problematic, and tends to pessimism about the future of international society. The Syncretist account emphasizes the permanence of cross-cultural exchange, posits only a 200-year period of western dominance, sees culture and international society as evolving together, and is not pessimistic about the stability of international society. These two models and two accounts are then used to assess the possible future of international society. The article argues that culture is less of a problem for international society than Wight, and much of the English School, suppose. The evidence for the substantial success of syncretism is strong and provides considerable stability to most of the likely outcomes. The key problem is not culture, but socio-political structure. How can what North et al. call natural states and open access orders find shared practices and institutions that do not destabilize international society?

Civilization and international society: the case of European Union expansion

Joining a society of some kind requires the fulfillment of certain standards. In international society, states acknowledge the need for certain collective standards of international conduct if international order is to be maintained. The first truly global application of international norms took place during the nineteenth century through the process of the expansion of the European society of states and its gradual transformation to the contemporary global international society. In this process, the standard of ‘civilization’ played an essential role in determining which states would join the expanding European society and which ones would not. Despite the major changes that have occurred, the standard of ‘civilization’ has remained an international practice as well as a benchmark against which the attitudes and policies of states are assessed. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the EU policy of ‘membership conditionality’. Although many explanations for EU expansion have been put forward rather absent from debate has been the civilization dimension which is embedded in membership conditionality and which should be given more emphasis.