Institutions Of International Society Research Articles

Change in international order? An institutional analysis

AbstractMany are now discussing the possible demise of the so called ‘liberal international order’, but how can we know whether any international order is changing? This article argues for understanding order as maintained by institutions of international society and further theorises the role those institutions play in the stability or transformation of international order. To usefully put institutional analysis to work, this article, first, models the stylised evolution of a primary institution. Second, it illustrates this evolution with a discussion of the historical institution of trusteeship in order to historicise adaptation and transformation in international order. Finally, this leads to a generalised idea of how institutional analysis can be employed to study stability and transformation in international order. Beyond making a contribution to the wider debates about the possible demise of the current international order, this piece also fills a gap in English School theory, which is quite silent on the question of when international society furthers transformation, and when it furthers stability. Accepting the view of history that the future is contingent on today’s events, this study suggests possible points where push comes to shove for change and continuity in international order more generally.

Intelligence in international society: An English school perspective on the ‘five eyes’

AbstractDespite the recent prominence of intelligence in post‐Ukraine global policy, it is a Cinderella in international relations studies. Using English School (ES) theorisation, we locate intelligence within the constellation of primary and secondary institutions in international society. Through looking at the Five Eyes, we explore where intelligence sits within widespread claims of a crisis of the post‐1945 liberal international order (LIO) and what role intelligence plays in diplomacy, war and great power management in the context of shifting global power dynamics. Following major twenty‐first century Western intelligence controversies, we argue against raison d'état approaches and for raison de système thinking. In the face of claims of a new Cold War between Russia, China and the West, we see an urgency for policymakers in open societies to re‐think intelligence from an international society perspective that is realistic and normative, and that pays attention to Global South dynamics. Insulating intelligence from politicisation is more important than ever but does not mean that intelligence is a value‐neutral government function.

Philosophical issues in the English School of international relations

This article responds to Charlotta Friedner Parrat’s critique of our argument that the English School of international relations should embrace a more thoroughgoing interpretivism. We address four of Friedner Parrat’s objections to our argument: that our distinction between structuralism and interpretivism is too stark; that our understanding of the relationship between agency and structure is problematic; that our approach would confine the English School to the study of intellectual history; and that the English School should eschew explanation. We argue that if the School is to use structuralism, it must be clearer about how it understands structures and their relationships to agents. We argue too that interpretivism not only offers a better account of situated agency, but also that it provides the English School with one way to move beyond the description and classification of institutions in international society towards better explanations of international relations.

Nationalism as a Primary Institution in Northeast Asia

This paper contrasts and complements earlier work of Buzan and Zhang by offering an English School analysis of East Asia that is limited to the smaller regional scope of Northeast Asia. The paper argues that the inter-state society of Northeast Asia can be categorized as power political in English School theory and analyzes this inter-state society hrough the lens of primary institutions. In relations that are power political, classical primary institutions embedded in the region’s inter-state relations are limited, and in the case of Northeast Asia, no universal, secondary institutions exist to regulate behavior. Therefore the contention put forth is that intersubjective understandings of primary institutions provide a better vehicle for analysis of the region. The claim made in this analysis is that the master primary institution most apparent in Northeast Asia is nationalism, and the derivative primary institution of victimhood nationalism appears most prominent in interstate relations. This analysis thereby expands the theoretical range of primary institutions in international society, while offering an English School perspective on regional relations in Asia.

Football's contribution to international order: the ludic and festive reproduction of international society by world societal actors

AbstractIn the English School, the relationship between international and world society has recently received increasing attention – conceptually and empirically. Adding to this developing literature, we study how world societal actors not only serve as normative counterpoints to international society or function as norm-entrepreneurs, but decisively contribute to its reproduction. Going beyond the common preoccupation with actor types, we focus on practices that are performed on the international stage. We examine the role which world sport events, especially FIFA's World Cup and the infrastructure of football, play for international society. Building on Wight, we conceptualize world sport events as a (world societal actor driven) derivative primary institution of international society, which is embedded within the particularly hybrid master primary institution of sites and festivals. We find that world sport events allow for the ludic and festive reproduction of key primary institutions (like sovereignty, territoriality, and nationalism), while they highlight how members of international society compete on the basis of shared norms and values. Naturalizing world order as international order, they make international society emotionally experienceable as feasible and desirable at a global level. In performing world sport events, world societal actors uphold rather than challenge international society.

COVID-19 Pandemi Sürecinde Uluslararası Toplum ve Kurumlarının Mülteci Koruma Politikaları: İngiliz Okulu Çerçevesinde Çoğulcu/ Dayanışmacı Tartışması

This study aims at discussing the vulnerability of the Global Refugee Protection Regime (GRPR) during crises by applying the ‘international society’ concept within the English School of International Relations theory to the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyze the efficiency of the international society institutions on GRPR through the policies and practices of states as well as organizations such as the United Nations, European Union and Council of Europe. The GRPR has been selected because the ‘vulnerability’ of this regime has become a matter of academic and political debate as much as the vulnerability of those persons in need of international protection, specifically during times of crisis. Our analysis reveals that GRPR-centric practices and policies by the institutions of international society during the first four months after the breakout of COVID-19 suggest a greater vulnerability of the regime.

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.

Ruling through the International Criminal Court’s rules

This article investigates sovereign (in)equality as a phenomenon that is manifested in thedifferent levels of international institutions. The analysis is developed from the process againstOmar Al Bashir, Sudan’s President-in-Office, at the International Criminal Court. Consideringthat norms and rules have a social role in the multiple relations existing between agents andstructures, that is, they transform relations in the international system, the article investigates the dispositions and principles present within the scope of the International Criminal Courtthat authorize a discrimination between States. This distinction implies the imposition ofinternational rules for some actors and the maintenance of certain sovereign prerogativesfor others. More specifically, international criminal justice is characterized by selectivityin judgments, as some countries are given certain authority over the regime. In this sense,it is argued that the sovereign (in)equality that is present in international criminal law issimultaneously a manifestation and condition of possibility for the hierarchy in the social,and therefore institutional normative, and political architecture of the international system.It is argued that the presence of this sovereign (in)equality can be identified at the differentlevels of the institutions of international society, insofar as they influence one another.

The variety of institutionalised inequalities: Stratificatory interlinkages in interwar international society

AbstractThis article argues that the research on institutionalised inequalities pays too little attention to competing understandings of stratification and the variety of interlinkages between the patterns of stratification and the institutions of international society. Building on the English School and theories of stratification, it develops an analytical framework that conceptualises these ‘stratificatory interlinkages’ as a twofold decision: firstly for a coupling – instead of a decoupling – of institutional characteristics to patterns of stratification and secondly for a specific classification scheme and type of interlinkage. The article draws on empirical examples from the League of Nations and other interwar international institutions to demonstrate that different understandings of stratification and classification schemes were used for different institutional purposes, for example, voting rights and the apportionment of budget expenses. In addition, it proposes four analytical dimensions that allow mapping the variety of classification schemes and types of interlinkages that were chosen for institutionalised inequalities. The dimensions relate to the composition of the reference group, the decision-making about the classification scheme, the institutional purposes, and the institutional form of the interlinkage. The variety of stratificatory interlinkages entails a more variable and diverse relation between stratification and institutions than usually assumed.

Securitization reversed. Does Europeanization improve minority/majority relations?

Abstract Through a conceptual framework that combines the English School’s focus on primary institutions in international society with the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization and desecuritization, this article studies the Europeanization of national minorities. It thus signals a categorical departure from the dominant norms transfer approach to problems of national minorities in the European Union (EU), an approach that has failed to convincingly account for many minority outcomes of European integration. This is particularly true of the continual attachment of national minorities to the state’s security agenda. The article takes Galbreath and McEvoy’s (2012) hypothesis that the EU has a unique potential to desecuritize national minorities, and applies it to one candidate (Macedonia) and one new member state (Bulgaria). It assesses flashpoints of minority/majority tensions across several sectors (the judiciary, the police, public administration, political representation, education, and health care). The investigation ascertains negative outcomes—desecuritization—but points to the crisis of confidence in the primary institution of European integration (supranationality) and the ensuing consolidation of nationalism as the dominant institution of pre-EU European society. The article concludes that improved minority/majority relations are a possible consequence of Europeanization rather than a precondition for it.

The political international society: Change in primary and secondary institutions

AbstractThis article intends to contribute to the theorising of institutional change. Specifically, it asks how dynamics in the ‘deep structure’ of international society correspond to changes in more specific institutions as embodied by regimes and international organisations. It does so by taking up the distinction of primary and secondary institutions in international society advocated by scholars of the English School. It argues that, while the differentiation offers analytical potential, the School has largely failed to study secondary institutions such as international organisations and regimes as autonomous objects of analysis, seeing them as mere materialisations of primary institutions. Engaging with the concepts of structuration and path dependence will allow scholars working in an English School framework to explore more deeply the relation between the two kinds of institutions, and as a consequence devise more elaborate theories of institutional change. Based on this argument, the article develops a theoretical model that sees primary and secondary institutions entangled in distinctive processes of constitution and institutionalisation. This model helps to establish international organisations and regimes as a crucial part of the English School agenda, and to enlighten the political mechanisms that lead to continuity and change in international institutions more broadly.

Debating the International Legitimacy of the G20: Global Policymaking and Contemporary International Society

AbstractThere have been growing debates about the legitimacy and the future of the G20 (the Group of Twenty) leaders forum despite this forum playing a prominent role in response to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. While states within the G20 assert the legitimacy of the G20, states outside the G20 actively question this forum’s legitimacy. This article contends that while the G20 is important to contemporary global governance and efforts to create a common framework of rules for global capitalism, this ongoing debate demonstrates that the legitimacy of the G20 is fundamentally uncertain and problematic because the G20’s membership and connection to existing forms of multilateralism remain contentious. This article contends that G20 leaders need to consider these issues in light of the prevailing expectations of states in contemporary international society.Policy Implications Given the scale and complexity of global problems and the large number of states and International Organisations (IOs), the G20 is going to be an important forum for timely global agenda setting and decision making at an executive level. However, the G20 faces a range of challenges in attempting to develop and sustain its legitimacy. Importantly, legitimacy is not an abstract concept, as it derives from the prevailing norms and institutions in international society. Since the emergence of the G20 there have been ongoing debates about the legitimacy of the G20 in international society, where it is clear that considering the views of nonmember states and the relationship of the G20 to existing forms of multilateralism are important. Consequently, consideration ought to be given to measures to strengthen the legitimacy of the G20, including stronger connections between the G20 and core multilateral bodies like the UN, as well as developing avenues of interaction between the G20 and the public in its member states, as well as transnational NGOs and business interests.

America after Iraq

America won an asymmetric war in Iraq and lost an asymmetric peace. Translating material power advantage into favourable political outcomes has been a challenge for great powers down the ages-what makes this bridge even more difficult to cross today is the raised expectations on the part of liberal publics about the moral purpose of US-led interventions. In this sense, Iraq is part of the explanation for why influential liberals believe there is a 'crisis' in America's world leadership. 'America after Iraq' subjects this claim to analytical scrutiny-in particular it addresses whether Iraq was simply a chapter in a longer book detailing American power and purpose in the post-9/11 world? In answering this question the article is drawn to consider conceptual debates about a shift in the international system from anarchy to hierarchy with the US as the hegemonic power. While it rejects strong versions of the hierarchy thesis that imply the Washington is the new Rome, it is nevertheless drawn to an understanding of a hierarchical form of ordering where the US oscillates between a hegemonic role and an imperial outlaw. Seen through this lens, the Iraq War was an intervention that happened because it could, and not because it was just or necessary. Public opinion and the weakness of domestic institutions are also critical factors in explaining how it was possible for a previously status-quo oriented hegemonic power to act recklessly and put the rules and institutions of international society under strain. © 2010 The Author(s). International Affairs

The unipolar society: the value of an international society approach to preponderance

AbstractThis article aims to reassert the relevance of the international society approach by highlighting the value it could bring to the project of understanding the effects of unipolarity. Bull's approach to war and international law as ‘institutions of international society’ could help to frame our understanding of the way in which preponderance has impacted on war and law. Examining the phenomenon of bilateralism suggests that there is also value in a more general attempt to trace the effects of unipolarity on international society.

Review: The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society

THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY Edited by Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Xii, 287 pp, US$80.00 cloth (ISBN 978-0-230-00165-7)This book focuses on a rare and quaint subject. diplomatic corps has been perceived as a dignified remnant of the old that has little, if any, instrumental value nowadays. As an area of study, it has not been considered worth investigating by students of diplomacy and hardly figures in the diplomatic studies' literature, let alone in the wider field of international relations. Research unprofessional diplomatic bodies tends to concentrate on national diplomatic services, their histories, organizational capacities and limitations. There is virtually no comprehensive study examining the international community of diplomats accredited in national capitals and at the headquarters of international organizations worldwide. From this perspective alone, this book is unique. It deserves the attention of everyone studying diplomacy, but also those interested in the diversity of international social practice.Another interesting aspect of the book is the conceptualization of the diplomatic corps as an institution of the international society, that is to say, within the terminology and analytical framework of the of international relations. One need not buy the theoretical package that goes with the English school (and it is to the credit of the editors that they use but do not oversell the theory to the reader) to accept that it provides an appropriate scheme to engage normatively and do justice to such a topic. As the late Adam Watson puts it in his foreword to the book, it is especially when things go wrong, such as in the case of a local crisis, a noncooperative regime, or a break in diplomatic relations between some (but never all) states, that one comes to appreciate the role of the diplomatic corps to act international society as a whole and to provide the lubricating oil when diplomatic actors get into a stalemate (xi). What is not discussed in the book are the limitations of the international society approach, especially its Eurocentrism. Thus there is no historical examination of how, for example, the western consular and diplomatic corps in the east Asian treaty ports and legation quarters were not a mere technical innovation of the international society but often the product of treaties of capitulation and a means of politically infiltrating foreign countries. Progressively, the western consular and diplomatic corps ensured the inclusion and cooptation of local regimes into western international society but on highly unequal terms.The book is well structured and looks at conceptual and practical questions from a variety of angles as well as from a variety of capitals (e.g., Seoul, Beijing, Pyongyang, Washington, London, Kigali, Oslo, Kathmandu, Skopje, Hanoi, Stockholm, New York, and Brussels). It fittingly starts with the historical and conceptual background to the diplomatic corps. Chapter one on The origins of the diplomatic corps: From Rome to Constantinople is disappointing, however. Serious reflection on the suggested origins of the concept is lacking, since the author appears uninterested in engaging with the Roman period (which gets a mere page-and-a-half, and not all of it is on Rome). …

Diplomats, Institutions, and International Society

The Diplomatic Corps as an Institution of International Society. Edited by Paul Sharp, Geoffrey Wiseman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 287 pp., cloth: (ISBN 13: 978-0-230-00165-7). Editors Paul Sharp and Geoffrey Wiseman have done an exceptionally well-focused job of bringing together and relating three subjects—Diplomatic Corps, institutions, and international society—which are not usually well defined. James Mayall's introduction discusses how diplomats represent state institutions in a complex relationship of factors engaged in bringing order to international society (p. 4). This framework is generally considered part of the “English School,” and may therefore seem limited, but the information brought out by the material in this book is relevant to a great many more theories than mere diplomatic behavior, and the concept of “international society” has been understudied generally in the United States of late. The behavior of diplomats so well outlined by the authors in Parts 3 and 4 is critical for assessing almost any theoretical scheme—rational choice theory, comparative foreign policy, foreign policy analysis, international organization, etc. Moreover, as Mayall notes, an understanding of diplomats' methods and belief systems is particularly important to understanding how they work in managing ideological conflict both within and between …

Political leadership and regime formation: on the development of institutions in international society

Leadership plays a critical but poorly understood role in determining the success or failure of the processes of institutional bargaining that dominate efforts to form international regimes or, more generally, institutional arrangements in international society. An examination of the nature of institutional bargaining serves as a springboard both for pinpointing the role of leadership in regime formation and for differentiating three forms of leadership that regularly come into play in efforts to establish international institutions: structural leadership, entrepreneurial leadership, and intellectual leadership. Because much of the real work of regime formation occurs in the interplay of different types of leadership, the study of interactions among individual leaders is a high priority for those seeking to illuminate the processes involved in the creation of international institutions. Not only does such a study help to explain the conditions under which regimes form or fail to form, but it also provides an opportunity to bring the individual back in to an important area of international affairs.