From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School Author

(s): Barry Buzan Source: International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 327-352 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: . Accessed: 11/02/2011 11:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Organization.

to system Frominternational structural society: international meetthe theory realismand regime Englishschool
Buzan Barry

society"to The purposeof thisarticleis to relatetheconceptof "international threebodies together bring One aim is to theory. realismand regime structural British-and to show how American,the otherlargely of theory-twolargely the one another.Anotheraim is to clarify and strengthen theycomplement precision.To do this,I so thatit can be used withgreateranalytical concept for develop the argumentalong three lines. First, I establish definitions society"thatenable a clear boundand "international system" "international ary to be drawn between them. Withoutsuch a boundary,the concept of analysisof to societyis too fuzzy be used eitherforcomparative international of development or international systems foranalysisof the historical different society. Second, I open up the question of how any given international societyrelates to world societyand tryto resolve the rather international as literature to whetherthese two ideas are nebulouspositionin the existing realismto Third,I use the logic of structural or complementary antagonistic. can emergeas a naturalproductof the logicof society showhow international to based accountto contrast functionally This providesan alternative, anarchy. is work of the English school. The argument that this the largelyhistorical global, account is better suited to analysisof the contemporary functional international societybecause it answers questions about the multicultural, to societythat are difficult deal withif expansionof European international It conceived of in termsof historicalcommunity. also societyis primarily ordered society a providesthe tools forconceptualizing complexinternational as lesserdegreesofcommitment one circlesrepresenting in terms concentric of international societyalreadyhas the movesoutwardfrom center.The current and the logic of uneven developmentsuggeststhat future this structure, thispattern. of developments itwillalso follow

NickWheeler, I would like to thankRichardLittle,JamesMayall,Nick Rengger,Ole Waever, referees for commentson earlier drafts of this article. and the IntemationalOrganization 47, Intemational Organization 3, Summer1993 ? 1993byThe 10 Foundationand the Massachusetts of Institute Technology

2d ed.forthcoming). Ole Waever."Reviewof Intemational Society(London: Routledge."Systemsof States.. pp.Human Rights . H. Hedley Bull. Adam Watson. H. 97-128. pp. Cutler. Adam Watson.the articleis a responseto Ole Waever'scriticism school has largelystagnateddespite the fact that it occupies an "extremely a Relations landscape..the 4. ClaireA." representing locale in the International interesting and able to combine distinct from realismand liberalism of thought tradition elementsof both and put them into historicalcontext. 147-53. HermannMosler. Theory: eds.and James Mayall."Review Intemational of "Hedley Bull. framework themoderninternational of societyconnectsthe studyof regimesto both its intellectualroots and the of earlierhistory thephenomenon. A. Conflict (1992) pp. W.Nonintervention IntemationalOrder (Princeton. pp.the concept has been put Withinthe disciplineof international of and developed by writers the so-called English school.N.eds. of Studies13 (April and International Studies. "Western Values in International Relations. JohnVincent. 41-65. Gong.pp.Organization 328 International thatthe English In part. See E. AndrewHurrell. States(Leicester:LeicesterUniversity Press.TheIntemational and 1980).pp.J. 1990). JohnR. Manning. Manning." in Herbert Butterfield Systems of Diplomatic Investigations (London: Allen and Unwin. of Relations. 89-131. xv. Carr. The Press.Intemational England:Penguin. MartinWight. W. Gabriele Wightand Brian Porter. Netherlands: Sijthoff Noordhoff. GerritW. 1974). Hedley Bull and Adam Watson.. 1946). focusing responseto AndrewHurrell'scritiqueof regimetheory on the particularand the rational.University Waterloo. (London: Macmillan. tradition.and in particular 98-100 and 121. The Twenty C. largelydetached fromone another. 105-12. 1962).3 law and the notionthatinternational is rooted in the classical legal tradition in of legal order.eds. The The ThreeTraditions-Martin Wight (Leicester:LeicesterUniversity Relations.p. Years Crisis. including forward Gong. in AnarchicalSociety(London: Macmillan.2 Regime theory regimes have become of they but due to thepeculiarities academicdiscourse. pp. The Evolutionof Intemational and 1992). E. John R. The Expansionof Intemational Society (Oxford:OxfordUniversity in Standard "Civilisation" Intemational Society (Oxford:ClarendonPress. "The 'GrotianTradition'in International Studies17 (January 1991).C. Society a Legal Community as (Alphen aan den Rijn.1977).The Natureof Intemational Society(London: LSE. BeyondAnarchy: (Oxford:Oxford University Press. Press.. MartinWight."Review Intemational 3.Gerrit MartinWight. Martin Wight.: Princeton and Intemational Relations(Cambridge: University Press. Studies16 (April 1987). 5.5Bull has perhaps been its most and Cooperation 1. A. PowerPolitics(Harmonsworth.'In part it is also a too that." in Volker has lost sightof some broader much and legal elementson which the phenomenonof contemporary normative societyare part of the same and international rests.1984). and Martin Wight.1984. Watson.1979).Regime theoryhas made considerable to from beingreconnected the in and could now benefit progress itsown right thatbothputsit intoa broadercontext of society older tradition international political-legal and and (systemically historically) connectsit to the underlying The literature international on system. Carr."International and Regimes Intemational Cooperation Approach. Law and the Studyof International Regimes: A Reflective 2.4 a constitutes community thoseparticipating theinternational relations. 1984). ed.1991). 99-109. Justice Intemational of 1983-84Hagey Lectures. It The idea ofinternational society goes back at least as faras Hugo Grotius. Vincent. State Systems. 162-69. 1977).1966).Adam Hedley Bull. Hedley Bull. Adam Watson."InternationalSociety-Theoretical PromisesUnfulfilled?" 27 pp.

ism(London: Verso. GovemanceWithout in JamesN. Wight'sbrilliantcombinationof instincts a social of historicaldepth and range. set track. Manning's foundationalwork. . "The Polyarchyin Nineteenth-century Orderand Governance. whose status rests on the strength This positionis not to willingness believe in. See Carr. Society. states (and therefore also the idea of a societyof states) are in an important and breadth of people's sense fictions. theirreality.The Natureof Intemational 8. playinga leading role in getting seminalearlierworkof Wightand spreading conceptmorewidelyintothe the international relations literature. pp. political reality." for Temple:Implications International DecayingPillarsoftheWestphalian Order and Government: Czempiel. BenedictAnderson. J.eds. Holsti.TheEvolution Intemational Society.7 to has study international of society attempt yetbeen made to linkthehistorical the more abstractAmerican modes of theorizingabout the international system.Holsti. and language in constructing international in a (thoughit might convolutedand eccentric expression attract following to yet finda revivalamong postmodernists). with the pattern-seeking for The analytical tradition by set scientist. J. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Press. at muchgreater length. or merelyaccept.Wight'sconcernwithexploring concept across the history the and little international system onlyrecently has been followedup byWatson. 162-69." and Mark Zacher.8 the unrelatedto BenedictAnderson'sdiscussionof "imaginedcommunities": whose scale to processbywhichpeople bond theirown identities a community means thatit is farbeyondtheirability experienceit directly. 7. of Years Crisis. 30-57 and 58-101. and K. Here the case is thatthe conceptof society withthe Society Press. the style mostof his successors.Peace and War: Cambridge UniversityPress. See K.pp. 1986). international society a historicalthan as a theoreticalconcept.1990). and SpreadofNationalon Reflections theOrigin ImaginedCommunities: 9. The Twenty especially chap. as a conceptand provides twoanswersto thequestionofwhyone shouldadopt relations. Manningmake muchof thefactthat Both Carr and.9 to Carr makes forceand politicalvalue of such ideas to those great much of the rhetorical of legitimacy their powersthancan mobilizethemto supportthe international This viewopens up a morenormative aspect of international society positions.. 1983).The primeobjective Bull and otherslargely followedWight'shistorical was empirical analysis of the modern European-generatedinternational the of society.6 remainsbetterdevelopedas Despite itslonggestation. Nationalismand Intemational Cambridge University University Press. "Governance Without Government: European InternationalPolitics. (Cambridge:Cambridge Order 1648-89 (Cambridge: and ArmedConflict Intemational 6. and Manning.The Englishschool 329 publishedthe influential recentproponent. and James Mayall. 3. 1991). Watson. 1992).The first the idea as an approach to understanding international what thatit workswell as an empiricaltool (whichis mostly answeris simply fits thisarticleis about). Politics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Changein World respectively. was too belief. despite its undeniablymodern insightsinto the importanceof perception.

The different that in section takes up a second core distinction the literature.Organization 330 International it a observeddata and offers way of understanding thatis not available using concepts.In otherwords. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson.would have a beneficial relations of how statesrelate to each other.Then I construct definition the for societyin termsof mutualrecognition minimum conditions international statesof theirlegal equalityas actorsand show how such a amongsovereign can be analytically deployed. thesensethat behaviour each is a necessary the calculations of the others. Realism(New York: ColumbiaUniversity Structural 11."in Bull and Watson. section3. and Richard Little. raisesthequestionofwhenan international and system international two can society be said to existand beginsto approachan answerbyexamining models of how an internationalsociety comes into being.and regime of the thinking the English school. pp. more Bull and Watson defineinternational which not merely a generally. group of independentpolitical communities) in of factor a in the form system. their relationshipis crucial to understanding to basic level. theory society and international International system societyas "a groupof states (or. NextI try cast can develop beyonda fairly international society realist logic to see how lighton all of these questions by using structural withoutthe system societycould evolve froman international international a of of preexistence a naturalshared culture.but also have established by dialogue and and for consentcommonrules and institutions the conductof theirrelations. The Logic of Anarchy:Neorealismto Press. Expansion of p. "Introduction. Society.the veryact of perceiving internationalrelations in societal terms will itself condition behavior by of openingnewunderstandings whatis possibleand whatis desirable.ifwidelyadopted. This in these arrangements. structural bringing intoclosercontact. alternative the The second answer is more political: there is a case for promoting about international a thatitconstructs wayof thinking concepton thegrounds on effect the practice that. Intemational . Finally I summarizewhat is gained definition on of by analytically usingthe approachdeveloped here and reflect the utility realism."" recognisetheircommoninterest maintaining 10. and indeed whether. 1-9. Barry Buzan. The quotationis drawnfrom 1.1993). arguesthattheliterature society betweeninternational unclearabout how these twoideas relateto each otherand thatthe natureof how. this and is byno means absentfrom has longbeen partof the realisttradition work. Charles Jones. following is It and worldsociety.'0 between an international The nextsectionsets out the centraldistinction It society.The idea inasmuchas consciousnessof it helps to consoliof societyis self-reinforcing The idea thatlanguageis partofpoliticalaction date and reproduceitsreality.

as in the late twentieth quite different developed to allow capacityis sufficiently Whetheror not interaction century. and prior. as in modern remoteunitsto trade and fight to Europe. in buttheconverseis nottrue. of Expansion Intemational Society. in of 15.pp.theexpansionof Europe starting long beforean internasystem created an international the fifteenth century a global Indeed. 14. can idea: an international morebasic. Intemational (Oxford:Blackwell. in of factor thecalculations theothers."In the international necessary The interactions politicalcommunities). and Little. Richard Little.System logically betweensystem The distinction a system existwithout society. thatsystem clearlyestablishesthe principle definition it between classical and individuals technologies.though does wheretheboundary It also beginsto suggest usefulto the it.'2 It thus avoids the confusionthat exists and (as parts)and society self-conscious in part (as betweensystem interacting the for and self-regulating) opens the possibility synthesizing Englishschool confusion realism. the unitsare states (or independent of and trade." in Steven Smith. 16. 4-9.ed. arisesfrom society. the movement amongthemincludewar. Jones. Hedley Bull.TheStandard "Civilisation" Intemational chaps.TheLogic ofAnarchy. ideas. for any notspecify detailedcriteria establishing It is particularly is of because itsconception system close to themechanistic presententerprise of understanding Americanusage.14 European one) did not operating (as international society opposed to a globally The system century.As Bull notes. witheach otheron a largescale.'6 international relations Relations: 12. The Bull and Watson formulation interactionas being action such that "the behaviour of each [actor] is a system. between remotecultures. by Gong's argument. among which significant to according some takes place and thatare arrangedor structured interaction defines significant orderingprinciple.1985).15 international beginto emergeuntillate in thenineteenth isolated previously of existedbecause the projection European powerbrought intoregularcontactwitheach other. Society. according vary the KennethWaltznotwithstanding. pp. truly tional societycame into during ancientperiodof humancivilization. capacityis relatively fromone in whichit is relatively high.The Englishschool 331 are and society distinct. On the English side. "The Emergenceof a UniversalInternational Society. or whetherit is onlysufficient allow the carriageof a few ideas."in Bull and Watson.migration. diplomacy.For a peoples and politicalcommunities systemto exist requires the existence of units. to Rome and Han China. "The SystemsApproach. 70-91. . the terminological with structural of who used the term"systems states"to meanwhatis now Wight. makes an enormousdifference both the natureof and theimpactof anarchicstructure. Systems States. system whichinteraction is the low.. consequencesofanarchy A in in to theleveland typeof interaction thesystem. Wight. 117-26. Gong. Buzan.13 meantbyinternational the is is and society central. Approaches British andAmerican of 13.

Roy E. and International State Systems."'19 But if international of for system relationships certaincommonpurposes. 18.Brown.thereis also thelargerand less-studied matter whenall or partofan international of system can be said to have become an international society. Siam) gained entryinto the globalized This enterprisehas made some progress European international society. Bull's analysisdoes not give much guidance on thispoint." p. See Bull. and YongjinZhang.when can we say thatthe society definition-thatstates "have establishedby dialogue and consent common rules and institutions the conductof theirrelations.'8As well as the questionofwho is in and who is out. international societyis closelyassociatedwiththe idea of international of certain whereordermeans "an arrangement social lifesuchthatitpromotes This definition similarto the earlier one of Wight:"a is goals or values. his failureto establisha clearer analyticalframework reach whollymistakenand unnecessarily pessimistic conclusionsabout the in of century."Review Studies (January 7 ofIntemational 1981). well-developed. 3-16.pp. enormousspectrum possibilities." Review Intemational of Studies17 (January 1991). People."The EnglishSchool of International Relations:A Case forClosure. BarryBuzan.Watson.pp. caused him to Indeed. 22. 20.21The huge scope of this by between spectrumunderlinesthe need both for a boundaryto distinguish and systemand system-plus-society for some kind of model to handle the of different society. 19. 1977). Ottoman Empire. to question in trying determine Ethiopia. Keohane and JosephS. "China's Entry intoInternational Society:BeyondtheStandardofCivilization."Introduction.17 to of membership despiteRoy Jones'sdismissal thewhole idea oftrying define as hopeless. Jones. Japan. Watson. 166-74.and recognisetheir for these arrangements"-comes into being? common interestin maintaining Writerssuch as Gong. States. 21.Powerand Interdependence (Boston: Little. PowerPolitics.and maximalon the other (a community states of of much of covering enmeshedin a network agreed regimesand institutions their interaction-an expanded version of the "complex interdependence" formulated Robert Keohane and JosephNye). Wight. TheAnarchical Society. the idea potentiallystretchesacross an society is a synonym and of fromearly. 105. Studies". The Standardof "Civilisation" Intemational in Society. 4.England:Harvester Wheatsheaf.He argues that order.and Fear: An Agendafor Intemational Security Studiesin the Post-Cold WarEra (Hemel Hempstead. 1-13. .Bull's crude stagesor levels of development international and notion that international societyis subject to strengthening weakening trends is a rather feeble analyticaltool unless some benchmarkscan be established against which to measure the extentand directionof change.22 development international society thetwentieth 17.underdeveloped.pp.332 International Organization partof Bull and Watson's The questionis. Robert0. p. and Bull and Watson. "Hedley Bull. See Gong. ranging of minimal one end (such as normsagainsttheseizureor murder emissaries) at to late. and Yongjin Zhang have grappledwiththat when specificnon-European states (China."20 for order. Nye. 1991).

correct. 25.27 in most of the main historicalexamples of internationalsociety (either the or naturally as a resultof earlier imperialhomogenizings). societycomes into being is rather The first view of how an international [i. of Watson. advocatedbyWight:"We mustassume thata states-system an forcefully society]will not come into being withouta degree of cultural international historical analysisand fits This view resultsfrom amongits members. 26. a veryminimum suggests is commonculture amongtheunitsof a system a greatadvantagein stimulating occur. (Leipzig: Fues's Verlag.especiallyreligionand language. Ibid. It historical conception: experience."24 unity conception of society. 24. the messymulticultural elementsof internathatsignificant and waningsof empires.e. 83-85. Wightargues. historicalcases are few: eleven altogether.identifying additionalnine cases. classical Greece and early-modern in subsystems whose unitsshared bothcases.26 occurs an Since a priorsharedculture vein. Wight. of history the Middle arguable. is an essentially sentiment. tenceof a commonculture.. is moreconsciously ofwill. 27.1887). the period of European expansionhas so shaped and of societythatwe are dominatedall subsequentdevelopments international clear historicalevidence of how an international to unlikely get any further knowncases of of forms novo.Although development thebetter de the society international may have been associated withthe preexissocietyhistorically for thereis no logicalnecessity such an association.pp.23 gemeinschaft bonds of common involving societyas somethingorganic and traditional.chap. Tonnies.. Ibid. forceof this of it thatthe preexistence a At is argument strong. suggests waxings 23.and identity. The ancient significant themfrom so-called thatdifferentiated Greeksshareda languageand religion barbarians.There are twopossibleviews. 33.mostnotably theCatholic sharedthecultural Watson continuedthe analysisin this churchand the Holy Roman Empire. of Systems States. is necessaryto examinehow an international it international in comesintobeing. with its many Indeed.and it is helpful understandbetweengemeinschaft from sociology ingthese to use the classical distinction sees understanding of The and gesellschaft conceptions society. In examplesto supporthis case. of societyearlierthanwould otherwise the formation an international as or Whether notitis a necessary condition. international societiesdeveloped elementsof culture. The gesellschaft societyas being contractualand constructedratherthan sentimentaland societiescan be made byacts organizational: It traditional.Even worse.The Englishschool 333 system acquires an when an international Beforeone can answerprecisely society society. und F. sees understanding societies growratherthan being made. Wight develops two closely with the gemeinschaft Europe.Gemeinschaft Gesellschaft p.if Watson is Unfortunately. 5.25 Most Westernand Southern(thoughfewerEastern) Europeans in residueofthe Roman Empire.TheEvolution Intemational .. Society.

chaps.its logic is clear: international solves bonds. Wight. theywill begin to work out rules for desiredexchanges. moreseriously. and 12.The toAD 1760 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity chaps. of Systems States. 3-6 and 8.Given the inevitability necessary a withotherunits.30 of for and ofcontracts. pp. See Michael Mann. whichthedevelopment international response to the existenceof an increasingly be seen as a rationallong-term system. a global international a by accommodation statesrepresenting also containsa good deal offunctional of diversity cultures.This perspective cultural preexisting without thelogicof anarchy perspectivewhen some of the problems that arise for the gemeinschaft societies develop close relations with states shared-cultureinternational in outside their civilizationalsphere. 2-4. commondesirefororderis theminimum relations societyalong gesellschaft conditionto begin the evolutionof international states capacity.A History Power 28.Organization 334 International that in can tionalsociety form a subsystem does not sharea commonculture. for on society:(1) some limits the use of force. As ruling elites recognize the permanence and importanceof the economic and strategic interdependenceamong their states. do so would mean enormousinconvenience advantageforthosewho failedto takethisstepwhenothershad ofcompetitive done so. Examples here are Wight's difficulty whetherPersia and Carthagewere part of the Greek international deciding in and lackofcommonculture29 Bull's problem seeinghow despitetheir society a European internationalsociety became a trulyglobal one. 3.A minimal dystopias warfare relations leaders realize the disadvantagesof permanentchaos if interstate goals as basic to any Bull positsthreeelementary remainwholly unregulated.Except in international policy. 29. While not challenging of to line in trying establishhis basic view of society.Note the location of cannot choose whetheror not to have a foreign of and system thecharacterization many mostutopiasoutsidetheinternational desirefororderbeginsto emergewhen as states.Failure to and forfacilitating avoidingunwantedconflicts potentialloss and. Although for culture elements a common of did European imperialism provideimportant of development thatsociety the contemporary society. 6. 30. 1986). Bull leans towardthatfunctional Wight'shypothesis. TheAnarchical . Althoughwe have no fullydocumentedhistoricalmodel for this from societycould evolvefunctionally process.(2) some provision the sanctity rights.28 This points to a functionalview. Society. TheSourcesofSocial Power. some pointthe regularity force the developmentof a will virtually of and intensity theirinteractions degree of recognitionand accommodationamong them. Society. withvery low interaction systems lines. more in accordance with gesellschaft can society of in of understanding society. and Watson. international dense and interactive at Whetheror not unitsshare a commonculture. Evolution Intemational of chap. Press. 1. 4-5. (3) some arrangement the assignment property will push leaderships into pursuing The idea is that mutual self-interest the from Beginning of vol. Bull.

TheEvolution Intemational 1979). thesystem in some important are disparateactors exchangesof thisacceptanceenable a collectionof otherwise of Historicaldiscussions how of members a community. unitsestablish or competitive evenantagonistic otherwise why workforprobing for "by dialogue and consentcommonrules and institutions the conductof these their relations. Watson. as strictly state-based.33 interaction Waltzianlogic thatanarchy of it more similar.Jones. of Politics(Reading. of complicatedsituation unlikeunitsin anarchy. Bull and Watson. 151. with its strongorientationtoward society." chap. becomes easier foreach to accept thatthe othermembers Mutual as sense thesame typeofentity itself.however.TheLogicofAnarchy. Society. sense of "we-ness. a societieshave to containan elementofcommonidentity." line thatcomprises more thanmere sharedgoals. Studies. as possibility incompatible neomedieval thereis no logicalreasonwhy Nevertheless.and perhaps inexorably.34 the intoa Westernstateduring late nineteenth reshaping itself of concerns the more The second possibilityfor gesellschaftcommunity Waltz denies thispossibility. KennethN. ofIntemational in and 35. .As Watsonnotes."The regulating international develop to the point where the a systemusually. thatit omitsthe notionof One weaknessof thisfunctional To that commonidentity is centralto theconceptof society."Continuity Transformation the WorldPolity:Towards a Neo-Realist and Little. 14.: Addison-Wesley. JohnRuggie. Mass. International p.and recognise their common interestin maintaining capturesthislogicnicely. and Buzan.he saw withinternational which. State Systems.The Englishschool 335 an common objectives in these three areas and thus into constructing of rulesand institutions order.In sucha could notdevelopinternational of versions anarchic systems not as sharedidentity a similartypeof unitis by definition a basis for system. 93.TheStandard "Civilisation" Intemational Society."Hedley Bull. But how does shared identity therefore societyin whichthe unitsstartout withdifferent come about in a gesellschaft cultures?There are two possibilities.The firstand simplerbuilds on the makes units As generateslike units. Buzan and RichardLittlearguethatWaltz is butJohnRuggieas well as Barry is Bull's term"neomedievalism" thiselementof structure.32 raisonde systeme Watson'sterm arrangements. 3."p. becomes an membersbecome conscious of commonvalues and the system This approach. in of 34. moststriking towarda sharedidentity century. Watson. Wight'sgemeinschaft takes societyand for precondition international to such an identity be a historical does not have to considerthe issue. 261-85. deservethelabel. See Gong. society. Expansion Society.35 wrongto close off of as gainingcurrency a label for a system unlikeunits. 35 World Synthesis. Politics (1983). pp. Waltz. 33. to considerthemselves withwhatGong has termedthe European non-Europeanstatescame to terms of "standardof civilization"are suggestive how this process of convergence case beingJapan'sconscious the works.Theory Intemational p. of 32." is line. societies."31 international frameprovidesa usefuland effective realistconcernswithnationalsecurity. and 31.thoughhe saw that likeWaltz.

a global international regionof the planet.Unless thereis some sense of commonidentity.In the an society thelike-units evolvefrom alreadystableinternational I concentrate on form mainly the simpler thatfollows willtherefore discussion the international because itis thepriortype. coming imaginesuchan arrangement medievalEurope had the enormouslegacyof the Roman Empire.In a neomedievalinternational identity not in acceptanceof likenessas unitsbut in acceptance of a set of is of the of the rulesthatlegitimize differentiationunitsand establish distribution actors. it can be argued that shared goals and identity of rules. international societyto come into waysforan international There are thus two distinct and the existence:what mightbe called the "civilizational"(gemeinschaft) model is the models.this is a of with the primitive possibility shared identity to society. will inevitably confined some can society world. society oflike-units for worthkeepingin mindas an evolutionary possibility neomedievalformis international in the more powerful.societycannot exist. at some point.Nevertheless.a commonidentity. as downthisline. developed highly In the gesellschaft model.Historically.In a postcolonial elements. civilizational international historical record. formed a commonculture.There appear to be no pure cases of functional what vitalto understanding but processis nonetheless societies. routewould be a narrower. thatthedevelopment commonnorms. It is difficult complex and sophisticatedformof international The historical case of aboutfrom scratch.336 International Organization for the system. by Bull does not followhis own logic however. thefunctional societyexpands beyond its originalcultural happens when an international international societycan eithertranscendits domain. civilizational the "functional" (gesellschaft) froman originalshared culture. converge as a generate." the tradition between"international politicalunitscompose the international relationsamongstates(or whatever .especially a model.thatis. Whetherresulting an as case of theclassicalGreeks.Curiously. he does not discusscommonidentity an elementof at society all.or from imperial legacyof sharedculture. in international societieshave dominatedthe the case of Europe. Unless a civilizational to it be it originalcultureor transmit outward.It and enable itand is therefore gemeinschaft to theChurch.Compared differentiated amongfunctionally rights and responsibilities among like units. underpin would have to society neomedievalinternational seems likelythatanyfuture of type. community and morefragile one thanthat moreconditional. eventually and institutions-of sense ofraisonde systeme-must A arrivedat by this well as be generatedby. onlypossibility shared society. Indeed. and have strong gesellschaft onlybe multicultural musttherefore International and worldsociety society associatedwith A second keydistinction by acknowledged mostof thewriters whichis about the natureof is society.

"36 Surprisingly. Morgenthau. Society. as a presenttrend.In thecivilizational and worldsociety advocated by Wight. the and ultimately global populationas a whole as the focusof global societal mayreferto the and International worldsociety and arrangements. identities discussion themtendsto have that of entireglobal system-and contemporary phenomena (Europe. pp. The centralquestionis how these two ideas society has or complements opposites?The literature not relateto each other:are they yet explored this question adequately.g. whichtakes individuals. (New York: Knopf.5th ed. viewalso surfaces the and collective law of of writings Bull.37 that for worldsocietyas a precondition a worldgovernment would eventually to the system a close. Islam. Hans J.some element of world societyis a preconditionto In view. maximising conditions individual in this is possibleto imagineprimitive society. 151-53. and 24.1978). It is therefore to to "world"society coexistor forone partofthesystem have an international while otherpartsdo not. any societiesexisting international within realist the has takenplace largely society Discussionof international of the stressing centrality the state and the role of withwriters framework.38 bring anarchicera oftheinternational Relations."Reviewof Intemational "Men and Citizensin International 36. TheAnarchical Politics AmongNations. Bull. Studies (January 7 pp. the of and thuscorroding foundations international to er's workis a good exampleofthe attempt use a globallogicofhumanrights to and humandevelopment mountan assaulton thestateand to seek "a higher for the of form international politicallife. and until the relationshipis made towarda layeredunderstanding to clearerit is impossible makemuchprogress to from basic/minimal highly of international society rangedalong a spectrum developed.These associations largely to a reinforce tendency inasmuch they as realismand idealismare unfortunate statesactingas bastionsofmutually conflicting: think theideas as necessarily of or the exclusiveidentitiespreventing emergenceof a world citizenry global of and the undermining identity legitimacy states necessarily cosmopolitanism AndrewLinklatsociety." system).The discussionin the previoussectionalreadyhas raised the issue. humanrights saw such as Hans Morgenthau. 1981).pp. possible and desirable development with of to seen as antagonistic theprimacy the state. 17-18 38. a World societyis associated more withidealistthinking: anarchicstructure. of Some realists. focus-but theycan also referto subsystemic or possible formore than one international ancientGreece). pp. and "worldsociety. 37. for the futureand. 23-37 and especially 34-35.especiallyas relateto one another... based on the society states. societiescome models of how international and functional The civilizational about how international conclusions intobeingseem to pointto quite different view.The Englishschool 337 nonstateorganizations. AndrewLinklater. . the functional international at of without elements worldsociety all.who arguesthatthe extension international to subjects order the law) undermines international otherthanstates(e..

as a unit of analysis and to separate social processes fromeconomic and have advocatedrejection sociologists At politicalones. Mayhew.But it is clear byinference. in relationship his work the poorlydeveloped and unsatisfactory explaining between internationalsociety (and internationalorder and international political system) and world society (and world order and world political and he does not say system). PierreLemaitre.Bull hintsfaintly this direction. MartenKelstrup. of Encyclopedia the Social Sciences. and Mann. Even in ambiguities the conceptof societyitself. has failedbothto define whosejob one might sociology. to correspond of identity societalactorsin terms thestrong to is notall thatdifficult construct is Onlywhenthisrelationship and religion. muchabout it.39 thatthebasis ofinternational observation makestheincisive Wight explicitly. . Leon H. University and Migration. from international withit.TheNature International Relations.persistent society this think to be. BarryBuzan. the level of states (thoughinternational p. Bull.In Bull's view thereis no global world society." international worldsociety. "WesternValues in International 41.pp.arguing without paralleldevelopsociety cannotdevelopfurther point.He saysmoreaboutworldorderand theworldpoliticalsystem.. orderand categoriesthaninternational as seeingthese simply more-inclusive amonga wide rangeof relationships containing politicalsystem.The Politicsof the World-Economy p. 2. (Cambridge: Cambridge 43. 42. 2.41 is on thisviewthatI plan to build. in partcaused by. Society. 39.42 leasttwodistinguished thatno unitcan be found concepton the grounds of "society"as an analytical it relations an perspective.especially in theNew SecurityAgenda Europe(London: Pinter. 14. that the key difference and the is societyis thatthe former based on unitsat the level of individuals societycan also be seen in latter.and is perhaps and betweeninternational worldsociety. 44. of 40.43 However. Society. Wight. Ole Wzever. mentsin itscorresponding to has in None oftheauthors thetradition attempted resolvetherelationship This omissionallows.Without society international nebulous despite the rising historyand doomed to remain theoretically of significance thephenomenathatit describes.vol. 583-85." in International 1968."Society. TheSourcesofSocial Power. international to and actorsin additionto states. Manning. 319. chap. 95-97.Organization 338 International developmenas to tendency see thetwoconcepts somehow Thereis a contrary society a kindofwaystationon is tallylinked. Press.theconceptis trappedin al.44 groupsgeneratedbynationalism clarifiedcan one make any progresstoward a theoreticalmodel of how sucha model. 14.1984) p. TheAnarchical in the idea thatinternational road away froma raw and unmoderatedanarchyand towarda the historical in Manning does so more world society. in is and The tensionbetweeninternational worldsociety quite strong Bull's goes some way toward and his failureto explore commonidentity writing.40 betweenpoliticalunitsand in of lies society bothin therecognition similarities but a generalsense of commonhumanity. See Immanuel Wallerstein. 1993). Identity. byhisreferences between world and international universalvalues. he does not take the pointfurther thatbeyonda certain It thanthat.

and the terms.It could be a hierarchy of or anarchy.what is the pointof organizing depends plausibleantagonism separatestates?But note how thissuperficially exclusive. religious of it thisperspective becomes possible to imaginethe development a world society alongside national or civilizationalones without there being any erosionofone bytheother.professional.One can. could continueto be international be primal anarchyat the individuallevel-the stateless societyof classical it eliminates politicalsector. worry embedded in each member's are firmly liberal states in whichhuman rights All states are also committedto relativelyopen domestic constitution. law economic and culturalinteraction. in international Relations. gender. 11-18. thatwould arise ifone triedto be. rules. necessary law. in some waysthese twolevelsof societyappear fundamenand nationalidentities theexplicit The of tallyantagonistic. European. structural held byindividuals identities of the is featuring sovereignty of society anarchic.45 worriesabout the extensionof legal rights nonstate He sovereign entities and individuals(human rights). and identitiesamong international states. could be justified.Alongsidethislayeredset or of as one could also hold otherlarge-scaleidentities a memberor supporter From movements. Bull makes muchof A similaranalysiscan be applied to international of law society conflict betweeninternational and theinternational thepotential to states.Although has not the anarchism-thateffectively been much discussed in relationto world society.that is. For Bull. See Bull.Conversely. societyrests on common norms.British.This is a rather A viewsuggests nationalisms. postmodern view nineteenth-century ofexclusive in thatpeople are quite capable of holdingseveralidentities parallel. the global citizenry into politically wide rangeof commonvalues. and common Marshall McLuhan's global village-could a shared identity levelacrossthesystem.the veryidea of a global societybased on individualspresupposes rather high levels of interaction and planet-some versionof Onlyon a denselynetworked interactive capacity. pp. developat theindividual norms As noted above. it could it (worldgovernment). cultural. modern In acrossthesystem. politicalsystem international states as the foundationof societal relations among them.rules. Justice International English. The AnarchicalSociety. that on the assumptionthat identitiesmust be mutually at people can hold onlyone identity the expense of another.The Englishschool 339 individualterms as existingamong the ruling elites of states).bothEnglish the without same conflict and Scottish Englishand Frenchat thesame time. say. His and therefore the bases of international underminesovereignty so. 6. The political structure a potentialworld societyis ambiguous. . cultivation distinct unitsappear at first glance to intosovereign of fragmentation the global polity if share a of be the antithesis world society. whereas world society would rest on common norms. Among such states. but it is not necessarily Imagine a set of open. and Westernall at the same time forexample. and Bull.fearingthat such extensionswill order. or variouspolitical.

then it can.In an internawhat kind of foreign capacityand complexinterdecharacterized highinteraction by tionalsystem pendence.An internationalsociety cannot being supportedby the developlevel without primitive develop past a fairly mentof elementsof "world"cultureat the mass be The key link is in the level of accompaniedby world societydevelopments.. at least amongelites.mass opinion sets constraints makingforeign policies can be promotedand sustained.and thisis trueon both a and global scales. the state system the remains onlycandidateforthis.and morals. societydeveloped. 46.epistemology. before society System modelof international an developmental The easiestwayto construct abstract systembefore any societal is to imagine an anarchic international society pp.It shouldalso providea clearerwayof thinking society and world society and lead us relationshipbetween international and international system a betweeninternational towardidentifyingboundary society. on policy.policies of openness requirepublic supportacross a wide rangeof values can such policiesbe sustained.fora common significance. it for society. and possibly must.though apparently whenhe talksabout theneed. TheAnarchical . primitive of the to This is notan attempt represent actual history structural realistterms.Bull issues.e. standardize is society betweenworldsocietyand international The case forantagonism that suggesting Opposed to it is a set of arguments nor automatic firm. Society. Bull. the extentthatsuch a commoncultureemergesamongthe masses as well. neither societyis to progress(or in Wight'sview even to come into if international being) beyond a rather basic level. Onlyifpublicsshare certain withoutseeing the full seems to lean in this direction. is the answering questionofwhenan international societydevelops in a to helpfulto return the process of how an international it this time thinking throughmore fullyin international system. world societycannot emerge the subsystem and unless it is supportedby a stable politicalframework. the about international societythathave come from some of the assumptions about the historical approach. the reinforce possibility international shouldenormously a There is therefore plausible case that world societyand international society can only develop hand-in-hand. it triesto develop in how any giveninternational societies can evolve naturally line that international abstractthe functional One of its uses is to providea basis forrethinking fromthe logic of anarchy.46 including language. Instead.In pluralistsocieties.Organization 340 International (i. culture. 315-17. To welfare values. a regime) of human rightswould do little more than codify and existing practice. To pursue this argumentin more detail and to resume progresstoward it can society be said to exist. Conversely.

Waltz. Politics. has a low interaction While levels of contactremainlow (i. development among the units:theyhave become interaction thereis significant definition cross paths. Without facilitate or restricted. the process of exchangeand protectthose engaged in it. each otherand willfallintodisputeoverterritory. exotic trade may well keep interactionquite peaceful. have sometimesfound that the tools and skillsof their agriculturalists.48 some units would be obliterated(note the fates of Assyria.The international inner-driven withoutany societyare thus analogous to those of a relationsof a system onlyweaklymediatedbycommunicamadhouse:idiosyncratic.will inevitably and these. will occur (trade. for example.In a naturalor free-for-all of boundariesand membership of gain control it balance of powerof thistype. contact becomes more intense and the probability up societieswill findtheirboundariesrubbing against rises. society.theIncan Empire. regularly thattheiractivities numerousand powerful sufficiently intermarriage).People. excess of over relationalbehavioris definedas autism.Theory International .all the unitswithin power. easilymovedto violence.In individuals. takesplace: pure system.or simply theirsuperior expansionism theirreligion.findinginternal legitimationfor in in economy. visits.States.Since the unitsshare no culture. along withconflictual forcodes of conductthat creates pressure Trade automatically technologies.The overallconfiguration Hittite Empire. excesstaxation. Buzan. and tionand a sense ofraisonde systeme.individual Some peaceful interaction ideas and transmit contact. not formally it communication.Carthage.the others). the system.and many would be unstable. such an underdeveloped fewbasic elementsof international the of anarchy47) struggle individual (or.The Englishschool 341 to by no For sucha system exist. of 48. is easy for and have no establishedconventions diplomatic and self-righteous self-centered forthe behaviorof each to take on a highly an of characterin relationto the interests others."immature" leads to balance of powerand the reproduction unitsto survive automatically be of Casualtyrates might ratherhigh: of the anarchicstructure the system.e.Different conflict and status. transforming temporarily and 47. the system of and towardstrangers theutility of conventions society theinternal capacity).culture. bypiracy. as I have earliercalled it. advantageover more sedentary life-style thema military give Others will acquire imperial ambitions. is possible thatone unitmight anarchyinto a hierarchicalstructure. or theft. But as interaction of capacity increases. evenextinguished. men. in existing thismode international system It is possibleto imaginea primitive at developing least a to fora longtimebut difficult imagineit doingso without In system society.Once thislevel of strategic dilemmaand thebalance of of come underthepressure thesecurity thesystem do recognizeeach other. is interaction reached. Fear. societieswill respondto the factthatthereis a good livingto be made from herdsHorse-mounted piracyand aggressionand will specialize accordingly. power.. unpredictable. would be severely tradingactivity some assurancesof security.Some resources.

342 International Organization and disintegration untilinternal allow the reemergence internaof weakening tional anarchic relations (China. See Waltz.wherethe system controlled a is by centralimperialauthority (e. and these elementscan play an important role in facilitating development international the of society whenthesystem returns to anarchicstructure. China and Rome). the Hellenic the as and Roman empiresdid. chaps. and overthe suzerainty. to empireon the other. Ifwe assume as a starting in pointa rawunsocializedanarchicsystem which interaction and shaping" strategic amongthe unitsis in play. Where long-term to in results standoff. Rome). 4 and 5. "The Rise and FutureDemise of theWorldCapitalistSystem. Waltz.5 and 6.pp. of Even if all of the units remainfundamentally war. 16. Theory International of Politics. Wight's between a of ImmanuelWallerstein's betweena system statesand a suzerainstatesystem. .seekingto expandtheirinfluence at and territorial control whenever opportunity allows.insecurity.. 51.therewillstillbe periodsof truce. The Sourcesof vol. 50. 114-16. 390. Wight. indicating increasing degreesofdomination The two ends of this scheme parallel Waltz's systemby a major power. chaps. and Mann. withthe middlerange of beingthemorenaturalcondition international systems. no. "world economy" and a "world empire.there willstillbe incentives trade. rivalry as betweenRome and Parthiaor classicalGreece and Persia. classical Greece). in turncreatespressureforsome form recognition.chap. of ImmanuelWallerstein.51 and This kindof intenseand regularinteraction necessitatesthe development of some conventions communication negotiation for and which amongthe units.g.."50 Watson's innovation to presenta spectrum is thana dyadicchoice and to suggest rather thatthe ends represent extreme and unstablepositions. pp." and Michael Mann's between "multipoweractor civilizations"and "empires of domination. Watsonpostulatesa spectrum possibilities systemic of for politicalstructure.emphasizing independenceofunits(e. 13-18." Comparative Studiesin Society and History.pressuring unitsto of adapt to thepractices themostsuccessful (and powerful) punishing those by that did not withweakness. 4. Such imperial episodes transmit elementsof commonculturethroughout system. Persia.g.especiallyp.49 distinction between anarchic and hierarchicalsystems. Unless one unitis able to dominatethe system.Theory International of Politics. 1.Waltz's "shoving forcesof socializationand competition would be at work.TheEvolution International of Society. The elementof commonhumanity would also sometimes create pointsof contactover issues such as obligations the dead. Watson. Social Power.and therewillat timesbe the need or desireto to formalliances againstotherrivalsor to negotiatecease-fires. dominion. In betweenlie hegemony. pressuresof lifein the the anarchyvirtually force the eventual developmentof at least a few basic 49. possible loss of independence. from on ranging the anarchy one end.Systems States.thedurability the of factson the groundcreatesincentives the partiesto recognizeat least the for of reality each other'sexistence. 1974.

for sustained force developed levels of interaction the or projection tradeoverdistancesof a fewhundredkilometers). through does notprovide basis fora gemeinschaft of war and thebalance ofpower. of order that was sketched drivenlogic Here we findBull's functionally witheach otheron a regular. 59..and thatbeginto accept each otheras essentially long-term of sociopolitical organization.alliance.withorganisedforceat theback of be able to create some level of order in theirrelationsin termsof To and property rights.thoughit is easier ifpriorimperialor hegemonicepisodes have spread some elementsof commonculture. exchange emissaries or ambassadors.the international "withan old and stableorderof itsown.suzerainty. and making for as unitsand to developsome arrangements diplomacy All of this will be true even if peace in the systemis merelyan interlude for with even moderately between renewed rounds of fighting.will be hard put to avoid creating some Theywillneed to be able to for mechanisms dealingwitheach otherpeacefully. Bull's threecore values of security. homogenizingeffectsof periods of hegemony."52 withothercivilisation though as recognised beingcivilised. above. to and complex enough for the leading minds of that country be able to from theirs .dominion. In once others thoseunitsthatfailedto adopt such mechanisms Waltzianterms. costsand inconveniencesof not having such mechanismswould be intolerable. Units thathave no choice but to interact similar types basis.p. intermarriage. when duringEurope's encounterwith Asia duringthe nineteenth to whether in Europeans used theidea of a "standardof civilization" deciding on Reflecting thisproblem treatAsian statesas legal equals or as subordinates.. in a system say. from the to sufficiently riskelimination had done so wouldweaken themselves system.The Englishschool 343 This would be trueeven ifeach of the units society. must be appreciate the necessities of an order different thanours. lawyerJohnWestlake argued thatany country at the time. preexisting But international the society. travel.thetransfer theinteractive operationoftrade. to have to giveat least de factorecognition each other willperforce they things treaties. Cited in Gong. elementsof international culture or group. withlittle no common containeditsownlanguageand culture amongthem. or " of 52.A versionof this situationarose century. .or division property. and the technologies(both mechanical and social). capacity (sufficient. words. international system The boundary between mutualrecognition and international society: ofsovereign equality a commonculture In thismodelofimmature international anarchy. in other for agreements truce. do these contract. They will need to be able to make of Theywillneed.TheStandard "Civilisation.

"pp. it can quite early reach sufficient communicationand some level of diplomatic exchange and recognition. as an alternative a distinct society. Waltz.Theory Intemational Studies."Systems States. logic.This is "like units. 151-52. This region-first Politics. existeven in a primitive society At some point. but of orderwillresultin the formation an international international without betweena system whatis thatpoint?By Watson'slogic. and 54.Organization 344 International imperialrule. or gray pointsto the intermediate historical evolutionof gemeinschaft international system to boundaryseparating area. shorter distances thanlongerones (especially within will systems."pp. mayproducecommoninterests.elementsof international constitute international international system. notenoughto justify but institutions level of regulated an Watson evades the issue by suggesting intermediate In and betweenmere interaction sharedculture. The gap between the functional development gesellschaft zone.54 otherwords.But thisgrayzone in whichWatson seeks refuge frominternational insteadof It problems createstwoboundary does notsolvetheproblem. Watson.Given his Wightianpredispositions toward a prior shared culture. but and institutions. by and society underscored is boundary betweensystem The need fora firm evolution to thekindsof questionsthatarisein anyattempt tracethehistorical over worksmorepowerfully of international Since the logicof anarchy society. Mann. merely to one (system gray zone and grayzone to society)and lends supportto critics such as international and only later develop at the level of the international regionalsubsystems and logic is true forboth gemeinschaft systemas a whole. the logic of contact and the desire for a degree of society.""3 The process neverreaches generating Waltz's logic of anarchy levels to facilitate but total homogeneity.55 takingthisroutehe system and the the discussedabove ofreconciling gemeinschaft demonstrates difficulty of gesellschaftunderstandings society.Bull's definition not precise rules and institutions absence of to avoid creatinga large grayzone in whichsome norms.Watsonconcedes that"no in Findinghimself the gripof thisfunctional some regulatory system definedby Bull has operatedwithout as international developed to even thoughthese are not sufficiently rules and institutions.the boundary cannotbe definedbythe mere presenceor and one withinternational society is amongstates." In an society. and Wallersteinwho dismiss societyas analytically useless because ofitsoperationalimprecision. rules.State Systems. these do not add up to a societyin Wight'sgemeinschaft and the of sense. 100-102.and evenvalues It ingof society. callingit an international exist. of 53. unitswill tend to become more similarto each other. Watson."Hedley Bull. of .and enough society. is wheninteraction capacity low).rules. emergeinitially international societies. International 55.he is clearly reluctantto accept that the of functional logicwillproduce a societyand a sense of unfolding gesellschaft withthe gemeinschaft understandsufficient stand comparison to community norms.

withsome regions(perhaps onlyone) havingit and the international a boundariesnot onlybetween othersnot. In need fora gray zone disappears. of is a yes.thissharedidentity rather thanin thecultural in of criteria gesellschaft leastinitially thebehavioral ones of gemeinschaft. unevenly means thatinternational system. and does pose a real Given thatthe gap betweengesellschaft gemeinschaft of a problemin generating consensusunderstanding "society"in its internaand betweeninternational tionalapplication. Within is and bothlevelsof development degreesofparticipation possible.and thepathto a distinct needs to be rootedat orderto workin thefunctional for gesellschaft societies. The consequence once internathe tional societybegins to operate throughout system(or perhaps. The existence of rules and beginwith.and what happens when one international means of society challengesanother?Third.uneven development the rule..thispattern unevendevelopment over the societytakes effect that even when some measure of international will some partof the system have moredeveloped whole international system.Second..There is therefore need to establish society exists) or per se (i.a spectrum international society not simply yes or no issue. for conditions relations(thoughnot hegemonicones) and sets the minimum diverseunits. one societalsubsystem) thatlayersof concentric sets of States in the core circlewill have more sharedvalues. As in is economics.The Englishschool 345 issue. dominion. whether not anyinternational system and society internaexisting within largernonsocietal butalso betweensocietalsubsystems societiesexistcontempotionalsystems ( start whichthereis at least system existswithin earlier.e. for of society.once a global international is societalcircleswilldevelop. Mutual recognition legal equality of but a turning pointin thedevelopment rulesand institutions also acceptance in of a sharedidentity whichstatesaccept each otheras beingthe same typeof of This act denies the possibility suzerain. which ingredient theconcept can thenthe If criteria sharedidentity be it did in the cases of regionsalien to theirfounding classical Greece and modern Europe. raneously). (or at least more elaborate) internationalsocieties than others.If thishappens. First. these criteria the definingboundary between By is and international system society whenunitsnotonlyrecognizeeach otheras but beingthe same typeof entity also are preparedto accord each otherequal not and signify only legal statuson thatbasis. and muchfuller than those in the outer circles.e."It wouldbe amongculturally . it opens the possibility international societieswill face the challengeof expandinginto gemeinschaft culture. clear-cut is boundary clear. howis a distinct system boundary international to society be demarcated?A solutioncan be foundin theidea of in was notedabove as a necessary sharedidentity. it brings the functionallogic of societyinto direct contactwith the historicalone. developinginternational members societiesincorporate gemeinschaft international How do expanding that do not share theirculture.and imperial entity. wheretwoor moreinternational thatsome of Wight'scivilizational.It has threeimplications the boundary in distributed be society will.As Wight societalrelations putsit.

this transitionoccurred in Europe with the emergence of The claim of as sovereignty the basic principle of interstaterelations. especially 200-205.57 provided a clear basis for legal equality exclusiverightto self-government to in despite differences power among the units. underanarchy forcethe to of tendency socializationand competition powerful for the of like unitstakeson a new significance. 33-38.58 get the flavorof this difficulty.60 of foundation legal equality. that Waltz puts on the From this point of view. Bull.As previously. Bull. difficult intervention? By question:Is all interaction no answering to the philosophical the equals. Society.thoughit can onlydevelop way of ordering whereconsensusallows. greatpowersremainthe mostinfluenof the tial actors but now have the additional responsibility maintaining society. 58. 60. TheAnarchical pp. 33-38.Nationalism International chap. can be seen in the history featuresof an anarchicinternational by states still need to seek security century. Wight."56 Historically. and stillis. law to international of the centrality international confirms this definition societyis a legal international society. of p. Europe duringthe eighteenth That is why war and in of to adjusting shifts thedistribution powerand status. 9. international can Withthe move awayfrom naturallaw into the widerrealmsof positivelaw. Holsti. pp. 135. Systems States.61 by framework orderrepresented international of 56. 5. 18-21. TheAnarchical . Society. it identifies logic development of relationscreatesthe naturaldynamics anarchicinternational bywhichthe to international society develop. Bull. 59.59 of alliance remain legitimateinstruments policy. But the possibilitiesfor and law and diplomacy international are muchimproved formalizing extending becomes of by the institution sovereignequality. 61. TheAnarchical Society. and Mayall. as and enjoyitsownsovereignty well. the emphasis construction. statesform sense of community acceptingeach otheras sovereign Note also how of amonglike unitsthatis the essentialingredient anysociety. Society. same. Balance ofpowerand warcarry of As system. conditions a basic gesellschaft for marksseveral society and The formation operationof such an international thoughmuch remainsthe system.Peace and War. veryclear in principlethoughextremely internalaffairs To try and complex in practice.Diplomatic representation law more secure and more continuous. of muchscope opens forthedevelopment law as a relationsamongsovereign states. pp.In its most basic and essential form.Organization 346 International statesunlesseach statewhileclaiming of to impossible have a society sovereign to for recognisedthateveryotherstate had the right claim sovereignty itself. 57. chap. changes froma presocietalinternational sincebothare main overmuchas before. pp.It raised territory political in of and primacy imposedon statesan obligation nonintervention each other's thatwas.and as Bull notes.

their right existas an independent to and order the boundaries of legitimacy of unitsby defining to the security internationalsociety. Alan James. an international of others.62 extremis. J. seals the internal units. and establishit by sustainedand successful validatedbytherecognition claims unitscan havetheir society.Chad. can of society proceed At themostbasic level.Amongotherthings. Holsti. With defenseagainstchallengers. to The right existadds importantly entity. in demonstrated recenttimesbycases such as Cambodia. the because they of some alleviationof externalpressurefreesresourcesforthe consolidation and favors statesfirst. In as of the natural behavior of states in an anarchic system. legal they function.and coercionthatwere earlierseen as part annexation. and community reinforces. This validation gives them standingas sovereignmembersof a thoughas the Poles knowbyno means guarantees. K.In contemporary withinwhich of equality has been the basis for the delegitimization many threats of secession. but elitesis required. 63. without statesthiscan be constructed or authoritarian society simply of Ruling elites may favor the arrangements international of facilitate maintenance theelites'rule. 2 and 6. formal protection the equalityserveto institutionalize externalstatusof sovereignty.In his analysis foreign explicit of early-modern Europe. culture amongruling common to reference themasses.Holsti.63 Most of the major powers were activelyconcerned to take from measures that would prevent any one state. Lebanon.some minimal autocratic. in monarchical.pp."Review International chaps. of system independentsovereign Manifestationsof an Ancient 62.forexample.Peace and War. thereis nothing society domesticcontrol. .putsmuchemphasison the that forcein the negotiations goals as a driving of development antihegemonic at agreements Westphalia(1648) and Vienna producedmajorwar-termination (1814-15). Externalrecognition secessions. or any one dynasty. intervention. and stateswhose internal can sovereignty even keep in existence in the sovereignty extremely demise of larger cases of Yugoslavia and the SovietUnion. a Europe.thedevelopment international At elementsof of withno parallelevolution worldsociety.International societyas faras emergenceof international benignabout the first necessarily themassof thepopulationis concerned. of Doctrine. One major change that comes with the advent of even a rather basic societyis thatpoliticalorder and the balance of powerbecome international all) policygoals formany(not necessarily states. sovereign an unitscan onlyasserttheirclaimto autonomy Without international society. 377-92. "The Equality of States: Contemporary Studies18 (October 1992).The Englishschool 347 The status of sovereign equality gives even less powerfulunits some requiredunder mutualrecognitions The againstelimination. external of is weak. most. This goal reflected passionate concernto protectthe dominating Internastates:Watson's raisonde systeme.

"Deconstructing Balance of Power:Two Traditions Thought.itis possible a clear image of exactly what is meantby international to construct relatively international system. longas As anarchy becomes in systems the society.TheLogic ofAnarchy.simplyan automaticconsequence or than being. 87-100. and Little. Conscious pursuitof the balance of power as an ordering It the of of has principle greatpowerrelations the same effect. reinforces right an viewofinternational greatpowersto existand institutionalizes oligopolistic order. as Mutual recognition sovereign as equals bystatesis anarchicstructure such. to of law theworking international and diplomacy consolidateand institutionalize that idea. . like the security then the is well-established. unitsstruggle As to powerworksautomatically reproducethesystem the of to preserve their workto preserve anarchicstructure independence.pp. if theyagree.But thesystem. RichardLittle. partit stemsfrom gemeinschaft that developed in modernEurope and imposed itselfon most of the planet of Review the 64. givessystemwide of and overtime.65 to It legitimacy the idea an affirmation anarchicstructure. Once thebalance ofpoweris recognizedas a possiblebasis fororder.Organization 348 International of tional orderwas based on the legitimation anarchyas definedby internationalsociety. thosewithout.It also gives great powers some security A fromthe system. developmentalong these guarantee) againstelimination increase threatsto minorpowers or units lines may. this century was done by agreements on During the cold war it was achieved by superpoweragreements levels of In of nucleararmament. by to But the shift consciousnessabout order and the balance of power does difference between internationalsystemswith create another significant In the societiesand thosewithout.rather dilemma. mechanismof the anarchicsystem. chap. Buzan.Present day international societyin the contemporary In the international is society society a hybrid. processof reproduction withan international awarenessofor desirefor even ifthereis no specific consciousand intentional.54In the nineteenth and over allocationof territory colonies. they at least twoofthemare successful. operationof the balance of structure. allows it international thatpoliticalfragmentation defines order. Conclusions On thebasis ofthedefinitions clarifications and workedout above. consciously manage theirrelationsto preservea balance. endures. 65. Jones." ofInternational Studies15 (April 1989). thiswaytheprinciple balance can become a meansof reducingconflictamong the great powers and of moderatingthe security (again not a dilemmaamong them. 9. outside the society that can find themselvesbeing used as resources for adjustments thegreatpowers.

And as of bindingits membersin a network regimes.and institutions it multicultural origins.In the core one norms.In the centercircle stood the United States. of so has European Community progressed fardownthisroad thatthe density into bringing to qualities. what seek to preservehighlevels of independenceand select quite carefully they rules. The overallcohesion of thissocietyhas increasedby the demise of the Soviet Union. fewstatessuch as NorthKorea and Myanmar societyby (Burma) place themselveson the outer fringesof international In and recognition exchange. As one would expect fromits partlygemeinschaft developed than the European (now Western)core thatis much more highly of and intensity rules. . society beginning assumestatelike is itsinternational of amongits existence an anarchicinternational system questionthecontinued members. thatcriterion By statesof each otheras legallyequal sovereign society. societal openness.and institutions accept and whattheyreject. norms. in of bind themselves pursuit increasedsecurity.The mentalmanagement. culturesand peoples were excluded by theircolonial or unequal status. smallnumberof constructed termsof concentric excluded by the refusalof manyothersto accord pariah states are partially A themdiplomatic recognition.The by is society the mutualrecognition nearlyall bottomline of thisinternational onlya entities.and a range of otherobjectives. One of for of the finds maingenerator and support theglobalnetwork regimes. in partitreflects gesellschaft during imperial its have withhighlevels of interaction different culturesembedded in a system come a longway witheach other.We have certainly learnedto come to terms from the period in which internationalsociety was largely a globalized fromwhich most non-European expressionof the European gemeinschaft.whichwas only if givenwide supportand willingto lead only if followedand to fight some including assistance. and and statesovereignty nuclearweapons. exceptthoseconcerning institutions of distraction superpower the The endingofthecold warremoved obscuring society leavinga clearerpictureof a postcolonialglobal international rivalry.rules.The Englishschool 349 a processbywhich and heyday. restof it in termsof havinga highernumber. whichuntil been substantially 1990 led a challenge to the West in almost all areas of norms. intowhichstatesvoluntarily of regimes a also finds dense network overlapping environeconomicefficiency. and India that the middle circlesone findsstates such as Argentina. A in circlesof commitment.In the second circlewere otherspreparedto fight. variety. clearly how the The Persian Gulf War in 1991 illustratesparticularly in themselves operatedand identified society concentric circlesofinternational of challengeto the existence one ifits relationto one violentand fundamental accepted members. morethanthebasicsofdiplomatic accepting little China. is globally its gesellschaft one would expectfrom partly in differentiated termsof the degreeof commitin characterand significantly mentwithwhichstates adhere to it. number statesare nowoutsideinternational of tiny phenoma is society bydefinition postcolonial globalinternational This truly has a enon.

. the core primarily members paybutnotto fight.The fifth residentin core and middling satisfiedto be neutral. should it be disqualifiedas a model for the is thatitsowndevelopment too as international system a wholeon thegrounds more much influencedby the pressure to become a larger (and therefore levelsof international Can one identify unitin a surrounding system? powerful) Regimes.It does not show.There whichthewhole idea of regimes on legal and politicalfoundation can before even a normof reciprocity be some sense of community has to and it is to this that the internationalsociety traditiondraws emerge. Jordan. In the sixthcirclewere those prepared to oppose. This Yemen. preparedto accept United NationsSecurity commuof Withinthesefivecirclesstood the greatmajority the international nityand all of the major powers.e. normalconfiguraof society.purely As thatis expressedin the internaregimeleave out the elementof community constitutesthe systemof sovereignstates. This case is only one (rather the extreme)instance.66 Hurrellargues. This backdropof international a of on mutualrecognition sovereignty whichit rests. is clearly a regimeof regimes.It might seen as But it is also the atomizedworldof regimetheory. and the community of independent it. not fight pay. Ibid.e." Law and theStudyof International 66. society fascinating researchagenda about how a global international society a Is theEuropean Community model forwhereadvancedinternational or leads (i. This group was large and contained those prepared to vote and speak in favorof the forces(such as Denmark).It military action. still within the rules). circle stood those prepared to resist: Iraq. of conceptions rationalist (and positivist) attention.. and they cannot thereforebe of law.67 society opens up a The combiningof regime theoryand international develops. and a fewotherArab states.What it does tion and membership the circles of international structure of of is illustrate the factand the significance the concentric-circles itself. society international it morethana in If international is society understood theseterms.adding a usefulelementof be regime. neither supportingnor opposing the venturebut as Council resolutions legitimate. In thethird (principally In suchas Japanand Germany. to integration). tional law that fundamentally Internationallaw defines what states are.Organization 350 International Britain and France) and others membersof the Westerncore (principally in interests theregion centerbutwithimmediate from ring's the further usually circlewerethosepreparedto Egyptand Saudi Arabia). holismto the excessively rests. mainlyverbally and by voting (i. or but fourth circlewere thosepreparedto support."International 67.In the seventh containedCuba. Hurrell..thoughit suggests.some ofwhomalso sentsymbolic of included the Soviet Union and China as well as a mixture states usually circle containedthose states not merely regimebut thatis necessary before muchmorebasic: the politicalfoundation something can regimes come intoplay.

stoppingshortof full regimesin the economic. International far ideas. violent almostcertainto be a painful societydevelopsrequiresa clear viewof The questionof how international and relateto each other. becomes apparentthatsuch regimesmake the states of and societieswithin themprogressively moreopen to each othereconomically.Here lies the problematicagenda of intervention.The Englishschool 351 themin terms a spectrum of and specify of of society development international sectors. 4. at higherlevels of development.. whenone thinks society. participation adherenceto rulesand norms.especiallychap. regimesduringthe interwar trade and financial and probably business. gesellschaft global international dense of involving society. rulescan be difficult fathom and Agendain Europe. This interrelationship us muchabout how and whythe fairly circles. Wwever al. societally.substantial a and of necessary the stability furtherance thatdevelopment.political. intervention. theNew Security 68. in suchstatesopennesscan and attracted highlevelsofinternational to to have converged a significant degree. remains stuckat a foundation without whichinternational society gemeinschaft tells basic level. Migration. societyis organizedintoconcentric contemporary global international it culturally. higher levelsof possibledevelopment international it networks regimes.It was arguedabove how international worldsociety if are for society the thatelements worldsociety a precondition international of to of in gemeinschaft terms are not necessary the initial but latteris conceived stages of a gesellschaftinternationalsociety. These setsthe rulesforwhatis and whatis not legitimate society as to evenclose to thecore ofinternational society. democratic statesare thosemost and Pluralist. society. become symbiotic.68 international societyand world Indeed. et . and as the collapse of the world unraveling is years suggests. of the development international what conditions regimes?Can one identify and whatmight cause it to go intodecline? There is no guaranteethat society international societyis a one-wayprocess. Identity.In return. This does not lead to the or conclusionthatworldsocietyis eitherirrelevant opposed to the idea of a the through Indeed. createa uniform globalinternational on societyare questions fromthis line of thought international Extending circlesdo (and should) relateto about howthe different of rings itsconcentric International each other. also tells us how Because humankind so deeplydifferentiated is it difficult will be-perhaps impossiblefor the foreseeable future-ever to society. to increasingly in of truth discoveredby the governments the European Community recently theircrisisoverMaastricht. militarily.and military of the Can one specify details and the membership the politicalintegration? different circles of internationalsociety by examiningstates' patternsof in in and membership institutions. frombeing contradictory withoutwhichworld societywould societyprovidesthe politicalframework world societyprovidesthe face all the dangersof primalanarchy. politically. society. onlybe sustainedifsocietiesthemselves of elements worldsociety become As international society develops.

This synthesis strengthens shapingforcesof anarchy. core members in statesoverissueson whichthosestatesdo not right intervene outer-circle to accept the norms or adhere to the regimes? In concrete terms. Iraq or possiblyNorth Korea)? One cannot answer these questions A within perspective thespecific the of regime. wide-ranging policy-relevant .g. Yugoslavia demonstrates."Like units" realist ideas abouttheshaping the boundarybetween international become a criticalinput into defining with and withoutinternational societies societies. The link rescues the English school fromthe stagnationof its historical the a claimto cul-de-sacbygiving conceptofinternational society muchfirmer theoretical realismitopens usefulconnective channelsto status.and international systems become. Much of thisresearchagenda becomes available because of the joiningof That linkmakespossiblea to realisttheory.. the case of the former Do have the is they operate acrossthe rings evenmoredifficult. Pakistan) from acquiring nuclear weapons? or to discovered cheating Does ithave theright responsibility attacka member (e. clearerviewof adequatelyfrom can what is and what is not legitimate and/ornecessaryintervention onlybe of societyas a understanding international developed on the basis of a fuller whole. a natural product of the shovingand both bodies of thought.This fitting would appear to containno substantial drawbacksand to and regimetheory a foundation a for offer manyadvantagesin constructing coherenttheoretical and researchagenda. together the Englishschool. Englishschool thinking structural societythatfitsneatlyinto structural gesellschaft conceptionof international on effect systemic of pressure units.does the a have the right prevent state outsidethe nuclear to international community nonproliferation regime (e.352 International Organization The question of how.or if.For structural structural both history and liberal theorythat are compatiblewith existing of realism. like the balance of power.g..structural realistanalysis.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful