- Chapter 5: International Society
1) at the heart of the subject are the people and values such as independence, security,
order and justice (2) IR scholars should interpret the thoughts and actions of people
involved in IR (3) international anarchy is important but not a premise, international society
scholars argue that world politics is an anarchical society with rules, norms, and institutions
(4) states are not autonomous to themselves, they are human organizations- states people
wield the power of states and are responsible for their actions (2) incorporates a pluralist
society of multiple sovereign states, and a solidarist world society
A) BASIC INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY APPROACH
Recognized in the 1980s and 1990s. according to this, Wight (1991) says that international
politics ‘is a realm of human experience’ with its own distinctive characteristics. To study IR
means joining this tradition, entering into the conversation
IR can only be understood as a ‘society’ rather than a ‘system’ of conflicting powers
It is distinctive from other societies by having sovereign states as its primary, although not
exclusive, membership
Classical international society approach: Interpretive, normative, historical-concrete
Hedley Bull (1969) described traditional IS as follows: it derives from philosophy, history and
low, and is characterized by the exercise of judgement, meaning that IR scholars should
understand that in foreign policy, morally difficult choices are involved, choices that may
cause wars and induce human suffering
Scholars avoid choices between (1) state egoism and conflict (2) human goodwill and
cooperation presented in the debate between realism and liberalism
International scholars reject the realists’ pessimistic views of states as self-sufficient, dealing
with other states only on the account of self-interest-IR as system prone to discord. Against
the realist notion of the raison d’état they put what Adam Watson (1992: 14) terms the
raison de système, that is, the ‘belief that it pays to make the system work’
They also reject liberalism’s optimistic view on IR as parallel to human progress and a
peaceful community. Compared to liberalism, international society approach is state-centric,
more observant of history (normative analysis) and emphasized diplomacy, international
law, great power management, and the balance of power and war
International society is thus a middle way between liberalism and realism. It regards IR as a
society of states with states people as the experts. It is thus an anarchy but also an orderly
social environment (anarchical society)
IS scholars agree with classical realists that there is no world government, but not that the
absence of world government means that there is no world order (there are still common
interests, rules, institutions, and organizations that are created and shared by states and
which help to shape the relations of states)
Hedley Bull (1995) distinguished between international system and international society.
International society is based on ‘social interactions’ between states, the recognition that
there exists common set of rules in their relations. International system is the cooperation
between states formally, to resolve issues, share resources…
To International Society theorists, these are three different ways of looking at the relations
of states. The first concept views states as power agencies that pursue their own interests. It
, thus conceives of international relations solely as instrumental relations devoid of morality
or law. That is the realist view of Machiavelli and Hobbes. The second concept views states
as legal organizations that operate in accordance with international law and diplomatic
practice. It thus conceives of international relations as rule-governed activities based on the
mutually recognized authority of sovereign states. That is the rationalist view of Grotius.
The third concept downplays the importance of states and places the emphasis on human
beings. Humans are seen to compose a primordial ‘world community’ or ‘community of
humankind’ that is more fundamental than the society of states. This is the revolutionist
view of Kant
Two basic values of international society tradition: international order and international
justice. By ‘international order’, Bull means ‘a pattern or disposition of international
activity that sustains’ the basic goals of the society of states. By ‘international justice’ he
means the moral rules which ‘confer rights and duties upon states and nations’, such as the
right of self-determination, the right of non-intervention, and the right of all sovereign
states to be treated on a basis of equality
State sovereignty and human rights are often challenged by international relations. On one
hand, states should respect each other’s independence and not intervene in their affairs (as
imposed by international law). On the other hand, human beings are also a factor in IR and
thus have the right to chose what happens to the state and the citizens. There can be and
sometimes is a conflict between the right of non-intervention and human rights (cold war)
Traditional international society presents answers to the dilemma of intervention or human
rights: the first is pluralism, which stresses the importance of state sovereignty and
coexistence. Individuals have rights given to them by the state, thus sovereignty and non-
intervention always come first. The second is solidarism, which stresses the notion of
solidarity. Human rights may take precedence over the rights of sovereign states, so it is the
duty of states to intervene in case human rights are being violated
Traditional International Society views world politics as a human world, normatively
analyzed and based on value dilemmas. World politics is open to all the potential that
human beings have for improving their lives, including the progress and peace that classical
liberals emphasize. But world politics is exposed, as well, to all the shortcomings and
limitations that human beings exhibit, with all the possibilities of risk, uncertainty, danger,
conflict, and so on that that implies; including the insecurity and disorder emphasized by
classical realists
Core concepts: human beings, solidarism, state sovereignty, pluralism, international
structure, system of states, society of states
Basic values: order, justice
STRENGHTS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY:
- Its comprehensiveness and subtlety/delicacy
- It is receptive to the strong points of liberalism and realism
- It is not restricted to a specific form of analysis, though its essence is ‘pluralism’
- It is open to receive input from different theoretical traditions
Contemporary English school theorists moved away from the traditional viewpoint that
emphasized ideas, norms, and values (Butterfield and Wight), and closer to Waltz’
1) at the heart of the subject are the people and values such as independence, security,
order and justice (2) IR scholars should interpret the thoughts and actions of people
involved in IR (3) international anarchy is important but not a premise, international society
scholars argue that world politics is an anarchical society with rules, norms, and institutions
(4) states are not autonomous to themselves, they are human organizations- states people
wield the power of states and are responsible for their actions (2) incorporates a pluralist
society of multiple sovereign states, and a solidarist world society
A) BASIC INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY APPROACH
Recognized in the 1980s and 1990s. according to this, Wight (1991) says that international
politics ‘is a realm of human experience’ with its own distinctive characteristics. To study IR
means joining this tradition, entering into the conversation
IR can only be understood as a ‘society’ rather than a ‘system’ of conflicting powers
It is distinctive from other societies by having sovereign states as its primary, although not
exclusive, membership
Classical international society approach: Interpretive, normative, historical-concrete
Hedley Bull (1969) described traditional IS as follows: it derives from philosophy, history and
low, and is characterized by the exercise of judgement, meaning that IR scholars should
understand that in foreign policy, morally difficult choices are involved, choices that may
cause wars and induce human suffering
Scholars avoid choices between (1) state egoism and conflict (2) human goodwill and
cooperation presented in the debate between realism and liberalism
International scholars reject the realists’ pessimistic views of states as self-sufficient, dealing
with other states only on the account of self-interest-IR as system prone to discord. Against
the realist notion of the raison d’état they put what Adam Watson (1992: 14) terms the
raison de système, that is, the ‘belief that it pays to make the system work’
They also reject liberalism’s optimistic view on IR as parallel to human progress and a
peaceful community. Compared to liberalism, international society approach is state-centric,
more observant of history (normative analysis) and emphasized diplomacy, international
law, great power management, and the balance of power and war
International society is thus a middle way between liberalism and realism. It regards IR as a
society of states with states people as the experts. It is thus an anarchy but also an orderly
social environment (anarchical society)
IS scholars agree with classical realists that there is no world government, but not that the
absence of world government means that there is no world order (there are still common
interests, rules, institutions, and organizations that are created and shared by states and
which help to shape the relations of states)
Hedley Bull (1995) distinguished between international system and international society.
International society is based on ‘social interactions’ between states, the recognition that
there exists common set of rules in their relations. International system is the cooperation
between states formally, to resolve issues, share resources…
To International Society theorists, these are three different ways of looking at the relations
of states. The first concept views states as power agencies that pursue their own interests. It
, thus conceives of international relations solely as instrumental relations devoid of morality
or law. That is the realist view of Machiavelli and Hobbes. The second concept views states
as legal organizations that operate in accordance with international law and diplomatic
practice. It thus conceives of international relations as rule-governed activities based on the
mutually recognized authority of sovereign states. That is the rationalist view of Grotius.
The third concept downplays the importance of states and places the emphasis on human
beings. Humans are seen to compose a primordial ‘world community’ or ‘community of
humankind’ that is more fundamental than the society of states. This is the revolutionist
view of Kant
Two basic values of international society tradition: international order and international
justice. By ‘international order’, Bull means ‘a pattern or disposition of international
activity that sustains’ the basic goals of the society of states. By ‘international justice’ he
means the moral rules which ‘confer rights and duties upon states and nations’, such as the
right of self-determination, the right of non-intervention, and the right of all sovereign
states to be treated on a basis of equality
State sovereignty and human rights are often challenged by international relations. On one
hand, states should respect each other’s independence and not intervene in their affairs (as
imposed by international law). On the other hand, human beings are also a factor in IR and
thus have the right to chose what happens to the state and the citizens. There can be and
sometimes is a conflict between the right of non-intervention and human rights (cold war)
Traditional international society presents answers to the dilemma of intervention or human
rights: the first is pluralism, which stresses the importance of state sovereignty and
coexistence. Individuals have rights given to them by the state, thus sovereignty and non-
intervention always come first. The second is solidarism, which stresses the notion of
solidarity. Human rights may take precedence over the rights of sovereign states, so it is the
duty of states to intervene in case human rights are being violated
Traditional International Society views world politics as a human world, normatively
analyzed and based on value dilemmas. World politics is open to all the potential that
human beings have for improving their lives, including the progress and peace that classical
liberals emphasize. But world politics is exposed, as well, to all the shortcomings and
limitations that human beings exhibit, with all the possibilities of risk, uncertainty, danger,
conflict, and so on that that implies; including the insecurity and disorder emphasized by
classical realists
Core concepts: human beings, solidarism, state sovereignty, pluralism, international
structure, system of states, society of states
Basic values: order, justice
STRENGHTS OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY:
- Its comprehensiveness and subtlety/delicacy
- It is receptive to the strong points of liberalism and realism
- It is not restricted to a specific form of analysis, though its essence is ‘pluralism’
- It is open to receive input from different theoretical traditions
Contemporary English school theorists moved away from the traditional viewpoint that
emphasized ideas, norms, and values (Butterfield and Wight), and closer to Waltz’
