Members Of International Society Research Articles

Middle power legitimation strategies: the case of Indonesia and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific

ABSTRACT This article examines how middle powers develop their strategies for influencing other members of international society. This research is important as the literature on middle powers assumes that they possess significant persuasive power, yet does not explain how such persuasive capabilities are developed. This research applies the legitimation strategies framework to the case of Indonesia’s promotion of the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). It argues that Indonesia sought to convince ASEAN countries, China, and the United States of the value of its preferred vision of the Indo-Pacific by articulating multiple rhetorics that appealed to the pre-existing interests and beliefs of the target audience. Before the ASEAN audience, Indonesia claimed that its vision was compatible with the principles of non-interference and regional economic development. To influence the United States, Indonesia held that its regional vision would support a rule-based order. To convince China, Indonesia maintained that its vision would create an inclusive regional order. This article, therefore, shows that middle powers seek to develop their persuasive capabilities through enunciations that appeal to the beliefs and interests of multiple audiences simultaneously.

Costs of International Recognition: Palestine’s and Kosovo’s Struggle with Negotiated Statehood

ABSTRACT There is a wide consensus in literature that universal recognition comes with many benefits for the recognised state entities. The article aims to revisit the benefits of recognition by focusing on its costs. It does so by adopting an analytical lens that views state contenders’ international environment as one of ‘negotiated statehood’. The article shows how emerging state contenders must navigate this onerous environment to achieve universal recognition of their self-determination claims. The basic argument the article attempts to advance is that while acknowledging many of its benefits, recognition by members of international society does, or can, come with a price tag for emerging state contenders’ empirical statehood. The argument is built by identifying and analysing the recognition-seeking practices of Palestine and Kosovo in their quest for recognition of their self-determination claims. The discussion in the article draws some implications for future considerations of the notions of self-determination and state recognition.

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.

Indonesia Climate Diplomacy: An Eclectic Approach in Understanding the Logic of Action of Indonesia Foreign Policy on Climate Change Mitigation

This study examines the logic of action of the current Indonesia foreign policy in climate change mitigation. Since the climate change conference in Bali in 2007, Conference of Parties (COP 13), Indonesia has advocated itself as an active global leader in climate diplomacy. At COP 15, in Copenhagen, Indonesia committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emission up to 41 percent below business as usual (BAU) by 2020. Many consider this as a very ambitious target. It is questionable whether this foreign policy is purely derived from Indonesia’s national interest or merely pressure from international community or Great Powers. This study will eclectically use the three approaches of foreign policy from neorealist (Baumann, Rittberger and Wagner 2001), utilitarian liberal (Freund and Rittberger 2001), and constructivist (Boekle, Rittberger and Wagner 2001) to understand the logic of action of Indonesia foreign policy on climate change mitigation. I argue that there are clear evidences of the existence of both logic of consequentiality: seeking autonomy and influence (neorealist) and maximizing gains (utilitarian liberal) and the logic of appropriateness: maintaining reputation as a member of international society (constructivist) in the formulation of the policy. I conclude that the climate change has enabled Indonesia as a state to increase its international influence, regain its domestic control, and strengthen its international legitimacy and acceptance.

Bridging the legitimacy gap: a proposal for the international legal recognition of INGOs

In this paper, we argue that there is a gap between the de facto and de jure legitimacy of international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) that requires more consideration from scholars studying their role in the international system. The gradual acceptance of INGOs as de facto legitimate actors can be seen in the long-term expansion of their role in international norm deliberation. Despite this development, most INGOs still lack international legal recognition, and thus de jure legitimacy. We argue that this gap between de facto and de jure legitimacy creates problems for both INGOs and members of international society. In seeking to address this disjunction, we highlight the limits of the current literature in understanding legitimacy as primarily sociological phenomena through an examination of the accountability agenda. We then propose a template for INGO legal recognition based on the principles that underpin the regulation of charities in English law as a first step in a gradualist argument for the institution of their international de jure legitimacy.

«Страны-изгои» как стигматизированные члены международного сообщества

«Страны-изгои» как стигматизированные члены международного сообщества

Seguridad humana y catástrofes: la labor de las naciones unidas en materia de gestión y regulación de las catástrofes

Members of International society are hit by consequences of disasters causing great disruption in their normal functioning. This is one of the reasons why it is necessary to set up mechanisms of disaster management in coordination within the local, regional, national and international level. In addition, there is a lack of a clear international set of rules governing disasters in a general way. In this context, it is essential the role played by United Nations in regards to the management and regulation of disasters. The main object of this paper is to analyse the current functions of United Nations on disasters. We will focus on the institutional and normative development on this duty in the four phases of disaster (prevention, preparedness, response and reconstruction). We shall try to answer how UN manages disaster related issues and if it is done effectively, according to its global role on the international sphere.

Russia and the United States: On irritants, friction, and international order or what can we learn from Hedley Bull?

In this article, I argue that the present low-point in US–Russian relations does not negate the existence of order between the two great powers. US–Russian relations remain remarkably orderly irrespective of the continued presence of irritants and points of friction in the relationship. That is the Russian Federation and the USA continue to conceive of each other as indispensable members of international society in, at the very least, the ‘pluralist’ sense of this concept. I empirically buttress this argument by way of a tour d’horizon of US–Russian relations during the administration of President Barack Obama, spanning, thereby, the administrations of presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin.

The Rights of Minorities in International Law

Today human right is of great importance. The existence of different minorities such as lingual, ethnic, racial, and religious minorities with different tendencies derived from different civilizations and cultures has brought about social and cultural varieties and differences in each country and also the emergence of this variety has resulted in the development of variety in a specific culture and ceremony in different countries. On the other hand, each country as a member of international society has to observe norms and principles accepted by international society. In other words, although preparation of constitution of each country depends on exclusive qualification of the country’s people and government, it does not mean they are free in each law because international legitimacy of each country’s government and constitution depends on observation of the accepted principles and the governing rules in international law. The subject of minorities was first introduced in Vienna Congress and today different minorities live in different countries. In international documents and treaties, a precise definition of minority has not been provided. The present article seeks to interpret minority rights according to international law and investigate minority rights in international law by using international documents.

Sovereignty, Identity, and Indigenous-State Relations at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: A Case of Exclusion by Inclusion

The concept of civilization has played a central role in the work of the English School. Yet, most English School scholars concern themselves with the role of civilization in defining the relations between the members of international society. The Standard of Civilization stands as a case in point, for most English School scholars have examined this legal principle with reference to its role in defining membership in the society of states. This paper sets out to help us understand the role of the Standard of Civilization in defining relations between state and nonstate societies at the beginning of the twentieth century. It analyzes the Standard of Civilization and its role in defining Indigenous-state relations and presents a case study analysis of Chief Levi General's diplomatic mission to the League of Nations on behalf of the Six Nations. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of its analysis for the theory and practice of IR, as well as the English School and its analytics.

Contesting the International Illegitimacy of Torture: The Bush Administration's Failure to Legitimate its Preferences within International Society

Research Highlights and AbstractThis article,is a contribution to the theoretical debate over whether the Bush administration's defection from international torture norms led to a norm cascade favouring the Bush administration's preference for a more lenient definition of torture; is a contribution to the theoretical debate over the relationship between material power and the ability to legitimate preferences in international society; is a clarification of the utility of material capabilities with respect to legitimacy; is a detailed historical presentation of the discursive interactions between the United States and other states within international society over the defection of the United States from the torture norm which is currently not present in the literature.This article examines the effect of Bush administration's human rights preferences during the war on terror with respect to torture by analysing a large-n sample of public legitimation strategies of both the United States and other members of international society. The article asks two questions: first, has the defection of the United States from these human rights norms led to a ‘norm cascade’ that delegitimized the norms? Second, did the material preponderance of the United States help it to legitimate its preferences in international society? The article argues that despite initial ambiguity in the response to the Bush administration's preferences from key liberal states, there is little evidence by the end of the Bush administration's term that a core group of states supported their preferences, nor did its material preponderance help the Bush administration to legitimate its position.

World Legislation as Deliberation about the Common Good of International society

AbstractThis contribution describes how the phenomenon of world legislation by the Security Council highlights the interrelationship between the entrustment of the common good of international society and a concentration of legislative and executive powers in an organ of an international institution. The notion of the trias politica seems unsuitable to address this dichotomy, in so far as the practice of the Security Council may be analyzed in policy, legislative and executive terms. Seeking to contain these powers through other international organs evokes the specter of the super-State, consistently rejected in ICJ jurisprudence. The contribution ends by suggesting how deliberative and representative aspects may direct us to seeing the action of both organs of international institutions and the members of international society as informing the common good of international society.

Norms, interests and humanitarian intervention1

A number of constructivist and English school scholars have investigated the extent to which humanitarian intervention is allowed and legitimized by international society. In other words, they have examined the nature and strength of a norm permitting humanitarian intervention. It is the contention of this article that another norm of humanitarian intervention—parallel but discrete—has been neglected. It is argued that ideas and beliefs shared by some members of international society not only permit intervention but prescribe it in certain circumstances and this has been largely ignored in the literature. By focusing on questions of when, where and why humanitarian action is permitted, scholars have neglected to develop theoretical explanations for the significant inconsistencies in humanitarian action that can be observed in the world. States do not intervene to prevent human rights violations simply because they are allowed to. By considering when and where humanitarian action is prescribed, and the interplay of this prescription with the self-interests of states, we can begin to understand why states respond to some grave violations of human rights and not others. The article concludes with an analysis of the power of the prescriptive norm to explain the increased instances of humanitarian intervention since the end of the Cold War and an assessment of the present state of the norm.

Právní subjektivita Evropské unie. Význam, vývoj a právní úprava

The legal personality (or capacity) is an attribute that can belong to the participators in international relations. It divides all the members of international society into two groups. First of them consists of entities, that enjoy the legal personality - we describe them as subjects of international law. In this group belong states, intergovernmental organisations (so called IGOs) and a group of various other units, e.g. The Holy See or the Sovereign Order of Malta. The second group is composed from the entities without legal personality under international law. Here we could find wide group of non-governmental organisations and strong supranational corporations. They may possess significant political power and heavily influence deciding of the states and intergovernmental organisations, they may have legal personality under municipal law but they do not enjoy the legal personality under the international public law. The legal personality is defined as possessing rights and duties enforceable at law. It means, that the subject under international law can conclude agreements, can enter into diplomatic relations (enjoys so called right of legation), can submit claims and act before international court or judge, has right to enjoy immunities for itself and for its representatives, can become a member of international organisation or become a party of international convention and also has to hold the responsibility for own unlawful actions. International organisations, as a subject of international law, enjoy the legal personality different from the personality of member states. There is no doubt about the legal personality of European Communities. Every of the three charters founding the European Coal and Steal Community, European Community and Euroatom includes explicit provision, that the founded organisation enjoys legal personality. Looking at the Maastricht and as well at the Amsterdam treaty, we cannot find any smilar provision concerning the legal personality of European Union. The issue of whether the Union has legal personality is disputed. The prevailing view is been that it was not the will of the member states to give the Union legal personality. Expert opinion generally maintains that an international organisation such as the European Union doesn't have the legal personality unless its founders confer such personality on it expressly. In contradistinction to the original treaties about Communities the member states in Maastricht treaty did not acknowledged the personality of Union. Article 24 and 38 of the Treaty of the European Union (added by the Treaty of Amsterdam) give the Council of the European Union the capacity to conclude international agreements. But this competence is strictly limited only on areas covered by the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters and only when it is necessary to implement those titles. The legal effects of such agreement apply only on member states individually and according to the terms and conditions laid down by national law. Regarding this provision the European Union must be seen as a Union of States without legal personality of its own under international public or domestic law, which, when it takes action at international level, does so on the behalf of the member states on not on his own account. The question of legal personality was comprehensively researched by the European Convention. There was created a working group on legal personality. The group examined the matter closely and for the purpose heard the views of a number of experts. In the final report that was brought into open in October 2002 the working group recommended conferring explicit legal personality on the Union. The single legal personality, according to the opinion of working group, should replace the existing legal personalities. The question of legal personality was one of the simple issues discussed by Convention. The working group on legal personality has finished its search quite early (comparing with other working groups) and the final report was established on broad consensus.

Solidarism and After: Global Governance, International Society and the Normative 'Turn' in International Relations

Shifts in the practices of global governance require rethinking of the constitutive norms of international society. In particular, challenges to the normative foundations of international society have arisen with the expansion of practices of international governance and a ‘solidarist’ turn in international society. These developments suggest the necessity of a pursuing a consensus on their legitimacy, which requires reflection on how to develop such a consensus among the members of international society and, beyond that, on whether this consensus should reflect not just interests of states but the values of their citizens as well. This paper also discusses the means whereby consensus and consent for the practices of global governance and a solidarist international society may be achieved, identifying recent thinking on the nature of good conversation and dialogical ethics as providing fruitful grounds from which this issue can be explored.

Norms Are What States Make of Them: The Political Psychology of Norm Violation

I examine why states violate norms they embrace as members of international society. The rationalist answer, that norms are violated whenever they conflict with interests, is underspecified and empirically challenged. Constructivists cannot address violations well from their structural, sociological perspective. I argue from political psychology that violations stem from the motivated biases of actors who face a moral dilemma between personal desires and social constraints. These biases compel leaders to interpret norms and situations in a manner that justifies violation as socially acceptable. The ability to do so depends on the norm and the situation. The more parameters a norm possesses, and the more ambiguous those parameters are, the easier it is for actors to interpret them favorably to justify violation. Oftentimes norms are what states make of them. If the situation is plausible for states to claim exemption, they violate; otherwise they are constrained. The U.S. invasion of Panama illustrates these dynamics.