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

Barry Buzan Reviewed work(s): Source: International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Summer, 1993), pp. 327-352 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706979 . Accessed: 28/04/2012 12:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 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 support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

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

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

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

Organization 328 International thatthe English In part,the articleis a responseto Ole Waever'scriticism school has largelystagnateddespite the fact that it occupies an "extremely a Relations landscape," representing locale in the International interesting and and able to combine distinct from realism liberalism of tradition thought elementsof both and put them into historicalcontext.'In part it is also a too that,in focusing responseto AndrewHurrell'scritiqueof regimetheory of broader it has lost some and the sight on the rational, much particular and legal elementson which the phenomenonof contemporary normative societyare part of the same and international Regime theory regimesrests.2 have become the of academic discourse, they but due to peculiarities tradition, largelydetached fromone another.Regime theoryhas made considerable to the from beingreconnected in itsown right and could now benefit progress thatbothputsit intoa broadercontext of international society older tradition political-legal and historically) and connectsit to the underlying (systemically The literature on international system. framework ofthemoderninternational societyconnectsthe studyof regimesto both its intellectualroots and the of thephenomenon. earlierhistory It The idea ofinternational society goes back at least as faras Hugo Grotius.3 law and the notionthatinternational is rooted in the classical legal tradition in theinternational ofthoseparticipating legal order.4 a community constitutes relations,the concept has been put Withinthe disciplineof international of the so-called English school, including and developed by writers forward Gong,Adam Hedley Bull,Gerrit MartinWight, E. H. Carr,C. A. W. Manning, Watson, JohnVincent,and James Mayall.5Bull has perhaps been its most
and Cooperation 1. Ole Waever,"InternationalSociety-Theoretical PromisesUnfulfilled?" 27 (1992) pp. 97-128,and in particular pp. 98-100 and 121. Conflict Law and the Studyof International Regimes: A Reflective 2. AndrewHurrell,"International and Regimes Intemational Cooperation Approach," in Volker Rittberger, ed., BeyondAnarchy: (Oxford:Oxford University Press,forthcoming). ofIntemational Relations,"Review 3. ClaireA. Cutler, "The 'GrotianTradition'in International Studies17 (January 1991),pp. 41-65. Society as a Legal Community (Alphen aan den Rijn,the 4. HermannMosler,TheIntemational and Noordhoff, 1980),p. xv. Netherlands: Sijthoff Years Crisis,2d ed. (London: Macmillan, 1946), pp. 162-69; 5. See E. H. Carr, The Twenty C. A. W. Manning,The Natureof Intemational Society(London: LSE, 1962); Martin Wight, and Martin Wight,eds., "Western Values in International Relations," in Herbert Butterfield Systems of Diplomatic Investigations (London: Allen and Unwin,1966), pp. 89-131; MartinWight, PowerPolitics(Harmonsworth, States(Leicester:LeicesterUniversity Press,1977); MartinWight, Theory: eds.,Intemational England:Penguin,1979),pp. 105-12; Gabriele Wightand Brian Porter, Press,1991); Hedley Bull, The The ThreeTraditions-Martin Wight (Leicester:LeicesterUniversity Relations, in Intemational AnarchicalSociety(London: Macmillan, 1977); Hedley Bull, Justice of Waterloo,1984; Hedley Bull and Adam Watson,eds., The 1983-84Hagey Lectures,University Press, 1984); GerritW. Gong, The Expansionof Intemational Society (Oxford:OxfordUniversity in Intemational Standard Society (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984); Adam Watson, of "Civilisation" Studies13 (April and International Studies,"Review ofIntemational "Hedley Bull, State Systems, Studies16 (April 1987), pp. 147-53; Adam Watson,"Systemsof States,"Reviewof Intemational Society(London: Routledge, 1990), pp. 99-109; Adam Watson, The Evolutionof Intemational and IntemationalOrder (Princeton,N.J.: Princeton 1992); John R. Vincent,Nonintervention and Intemational Relations(Cambridge: University Press, 1974); JohnR. Vincent,Human Rights

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

Organization 330 International it thatis not available using a way of understanding observeddata and offers concepts. alternative the The second answer is more political: there is a case for promoting about international a wayof thinking thatitconstructs concepton thegrounds on the practice effect that,ifwidelyadopted,would have a beneficial relations of how statesrelate to each other.In otherwords,the veryact of perceiving internationalrelations in societal terms will itself condition behavior by ofwhatis possibleand whatis desirable.The idea openingnewunderstandings inasmuchas consciousnessof it helps to consoliof societyis self-reinforcing The idea thatlanguageis partofpoliticalaction date and reproduceitsreality. this and is byno means absentfrom has longbeen partof the realisttradition work.'0 between an international The nextsectionsets out the centraldistinction It raisesthequestionofwhenan international society. and international system two can be said to existand beginsto approachan answerbyexamining society models of how an internationalsociety comes into being. The different that in the literature, section takes up a second core distinction following is It arguesthattheliterature and worldsociety. society betweeninternational unclearabout how these twoideas relateto each otherand thatthe natureof how, and indeed whether, their relationshipis crucial to understanding to cast basic level. NextI try 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 definition of the of a naturalshared culture.Then I construct preexistence forinternational societyin termsof mutualrecognition minimum conditions statesof theirlegal equalityas actorsand show how such a amongsovereign can be analytically deployed. Finally I summarizewhat is gained definition on the utility of byusingthe approachdeveloped here and reflect analytically realism,and regime of the English school, structural the thinking bringing intoclosercontact. theory

society and international International system

societyas "a groupof states (or, more Bull and Watson defineinternational which not merely a group of independentpolitical communities) generally,

in ofeach is a necessary factor a system, inthesensethat thebehaviour form

the calculations of the others,but also have established by dialogue and and forthe conductof theirrelations, consentcommonrules and institutions This in maintaining these arrangements."" recognisetheircommoninterest

10. Barry Buzan, Charles Jones, and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy:Neorealismto Press,1993), section3. Realism(New York: ColumbiaUniversity Structural 11. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, "Introduction,"in Bull and Watson, Expansion of p. 1. Society, pp. 1-9. The quotationis drawnfrom Intemational

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

332 International Organization partof Bull and Watson's The questionis,when can we say thatthe society definition-thatstates "have establishedby dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conductof theirrelations,and recognisetheir these arrangements"-comes into being? common interestin maintaining Writerssuch as Gong, Watson, and Yongjin Zhang have grappledwiththat when specificnon-European states (China, to determine question in trying Ethiopia, Japan, Ottoman Empire, Siam) gained entryinto the globalized This enterprisehas made some progress European international society.17 to define of thewhole idea oftrying membership despiteRoy Jones'sdismissal as hopeless.'8As well as the questionofwho is in and who is out,thereis also thelargerand less-studied matter ofwhenall or partofan international system can be said to have become an international society. Bull's analysisdoes not give much guidance on thispoint.He argues that order, international societyis closelyassociatedwiththe idea of international ofsocial lifesuchthatitpromotes certain whereordermeans "an arrangement This definition is similarto the earlier one of Wight:"a goals or values."'19 But if international of relationships forcertaincommonpurposes."20 system for order, the idea potentiallystretchesacross an society is a synonym and of possibilities, fromearly,underdeveloped, enormousspectrum ranging ofemissaries) minimal at one end (such as normsagainsttheseizureor murder to late, well-developed,and maximalon the other (a community of states of agreed regimesand institutions much of covering enmeshedin a network their interaction-an expanded version of the "complex interdependence" formulated by Robert Keohane and JosephNye).21The huge scope of this between spectrumunderlinesthe need both for a boundaryto distinguish and for some kind of model to handle the systemand system-plus-society of international different society.Bull's crude stagesor levels of development and weakening notion that international societyis subject to strengthening trends is a rather feeble analyticaltool unless some benchmarkscan be established against which to measure the extentand directionof change. caused him to Indeed, his failureto establisha clearer analyticalframework reach whollymistakenand unnecessarily pessimistic conclusionsabout the in thetwentieth ofinternational century.22 development society

17. See Gong, The Standardof "Civilisation" in Intemational Society;Watson, "Hedley Bull, and International State Systems, Studies"; and YongjinZhang, "China's Entry intoInternational Society:BeyondtheStandardofCivilization," Review ofIntemational Studies17 (January 1991),pp. 3-16. 18. Roy E. Jones,"The EnglishSchool of International Relations:A Case forClosure,"Review Studies 7 (January ofIntemational 1981),pp. 1-13. 19. See Bull, TheAnarchical Society, p. 4; and Bull and Watson,"Introduction." 20. Wight, PowerPolitics, p. 105. 21. Robert0. Keohane and JosephS. Nye,Powerand Interdependence (Boston: Little,Brown, 1977). 22. BarryBuzan, People, States,and Fear: An Agendafor Intemational Security Studiesin the Post-Cold WarEra (Hemel Hempstead,England:Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991),pp. 166-74.

The Englishschool 333 system acquires an when an international Beforeone can answerprecisely society society, it is necessaryto examinehow an international international in understandcomesintobeing.There are twopossibleviews,and it is helpful betweengemeinschaft from sociology ingthese to use the classical distinction sees understanding ofsociety.23 The gemeinschaft and gesellschaft conceptions bonds of common involving societyas somethingorganic and traditional, It is an essentially historical conception: experience,and identity. sentiment, sees understanding societies growratherthan being made. The gesellschaft societyas being contractualand constructedratherthan sentimentaland societiescan be made byacts organizational: It is moreconsciously traditional. ofwill. societycomes into being is rather The first view of how an international [i.e., an advocatedbyWight:"We mustassume thata states-system forcefully society]will not come into being withouta degree of cultural international historical analysisand fits This view resultsfrom amongits members."24 unity conception of society. Wight develops two closely with the gemeinschaft Europe. In examplesto supporthis case, classical Greece and early-modern in whose units shared bothcases, international societiesdeveloped subsystems ancient and The elements of language. culture,especiallyreligion significant themfrom so-called thatdifferentiated Greeksshareda languageand religion barbarians.25 Most Westernand Southern(thoughfewerEastern) Europeans in theCatholic residueofthe Roman Empire,mostnotably sharedthecultural Watson continuedthe analysisin this churchand the Holy Roman Empire.26 occurs an additionalnine cases.27 Since a priorsharedculture vein,identifying in most of the main historicalexamples of internationalsociety (either the forceof this or as a resultof earlier imperialhomogenizings), naturally of a it suggests thatthe preexistence At a veryminimum is strong. argument is a greatadvantagein stimulating commonculture amongtheunitsof a system occur. of an international societyearlierthanwould otherwise the formation as Wightargues,is arguable. or notitis a necessary Whether condition, historicalcases are few: eleven altogether,if Watson is Unfortunately, correct.Even worse, the period of European expansionhas so shaped and of international societythatwe are dominatedall subsequentdevelopments clear historicalevidence of how an international to get any further unlikely knowncases of of thebetter forms de novo.Although the development society international may have been associated withthe preexissocietyhistorically forsuch an association. thereis no logicalnecessity tenceof a commonculture, of the Middle East, with its many history Indeed, the messymulticultural elementsof internathatsignificant and waningsof empires, suggests waxings
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. (Leipzig: Fues's Verlag,1887). und Gesellschaft F. Tonnies,Gemeinschaft p. 33. ofStates, Systems Wight, Ibid.,pp. 83-85. Ibid.,chap. 5. Society. ofIntemational Watson,TheEvolution

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

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

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

International and worldsociety society

associatedwith A second keydistinction bymostof thewriters acknowledged whichis about the natureof is between"international society," the tradition politicalunitscompose the international relationsamongstates(or whatever

The Englishschool 337 nonstateorganizations, whichtakes individuals, and "worldsociety," system), the global populationas a whole as the focusof global societal and ultimately mayreferto the and worldsociety International and arrangements. identities discussion of themtendsto have that entireglobal system-and contemporary phenomena (Europe, Islam, focus-but theycan also referto subsystemic or possible formore than one international ancientGreece). It is therefore to have an international to coexistor forone partofthesystem "world"society while otherpartsdo not. The centralquestionis how these two ideas society has not or opposites?The literature complements relateto each other:are they yet explored this question adequately, and until the relationshipis made towarda layeredunderstanding to makemuchprogress clearerit is impossible to highly from basic/minimal of international society rangedalong a spectrum developed.The discussionin the previoussectionalreadyhas raised the issue. societiescome models of how international and functional The civilizational about how international conclusions intobeingseem to pointto quite different view,especiallyas relateto one another.In thecivilizational and worldsociety advocated by Wight,some element of world societyis a preconditionto In the functional view,it is possibleto imagineprimitive society. international at all. ofworldsociety without anyelements societiesexisting international within the realist has takenplace largely society Discussionof international and of state the role of the the centrality stressing withwriters framework, a with thinking: more idealist World societyis associated anarchicstructure. a as for the future trend, present and, possible and desirable development with ofthe state.These associations to theprimacy seen as antagonistic largely to a tendency reinforce inasmuch as they realismand idealismare unfortunate statesactingas bastionsofmutually conflicting: think oftheideas as necessarily or global the emergenceof a world citizenry exclusiveidentitiespreventing of states and legitimacy the identity undermining necessarily cosmopolitanism AndrewLinklatsociety. the foundations of international and thuscorroding to use a globallogicofhumanrights er's workis a good exampleofthe attempt to mountan assaulton thestateand to seek "a higher and humandevelopment forindividual the conditions of international form politicallife... maximising in the thisviewalso surfaces self-determination."36 Surprisingly, and collective law to subjects of international of Bull,who arguesthatthe extension writings order the international law) undermines otherthanstates(e.g., humanrights saw such as Hans Morgenthau, of states.37 Some realists, based on the society thatwould eventually fora worldgovernment worldsocietyas a precondition to a close.38 theanarchicera oftheinternational system bring

Relations,"Reviewof Intemational "Men and Citizensin International 36. AndrewLinklater, pp. 34-35. 1981),pp. 23-37 and especially Studies 7 (January pp. 151-53. Society, 37. Bull, TheAnarchical Politics AmongNations,5th ed. (New York: Knopf,1978), pp. 17-18 38. Hans J. Morgenthau, and 24.

Organization 338 International developmenas somehow to see thetwoconcepts tendency Thereis a contrary society is a kindofwaystationon tallylinked,as in the idea thatinternational road away froma raw and unmoderatedanarchyand towarda the historical in this direction.39 Manning does so more world society.Bull hintsfaintly thatthebasis ofinternational observation makestheincisive Wight explicitly.40 betweenpoliticalunitsand in of similarities lies bothin therecognition society but he does not take the pointfurther a generalsense of commonhumanity, thatbeyonda certain It is on thisviewthatI plan to build,arguing thanthat.41 without paralleldevelopsociety cannotdevelopfurther point,an international worldsociety. mentsin itscorresponding to resolvetherelationship has attempted in thetradition None oftheauthors This omissionallows,and is perhaps and worldsociety. betweeninternational Even in the conceptof societyitself. ambiguities in partcaused by,persistent society thisto be, has failedbothto define think whosejob one might sociology, as a unit of analysis and to separate social processes fromeconomic and have advocatedrejection sociologists At leasttwodistinguished politicalones.42 thatno unitcan be found concepton the grounds of "society"as an analytical it relations an international perspective, from withit.43 However, to correspond ofthestrong identity societalactorsin terms to construct is notall thatdifficult is Onlywhenthisrelationship and religion.44 groupsgeneratedbynationalism clarifiedcan one make any progresstoward a theoreticalmodel of how sucha model,theconceptis trappedin develops.Without society international nebulous despite the rising historyand doomed to remain theoretically ofthephenomenathatit describes. significance in Bull's is quite strong and worldsociety The tensionbetweeninternational goes some way toward and his failureto explore commonidentity writing, in his work relationship 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).In Bull's view thereis no global world society, muchabout it.He saysmoreaboutworldorderand theworldpoliticalsystem, orderand categoriesthaninternational as more-inclusive seeingthese simply amonga wide rangeof relationships containing politicalsystem, international to and byhisreferences actorsin additionto states.But it is clear byinference, between world and international universalvalues, that the key difference and the is based on unitsat the level of individuals societyis thatthe former societycan also be seen in latter,at the level of states (thoughinternational
p. 319. Society, 39. Bull, TheAnarchical chap. 14. Society, ofInternational 40. Manning,TheNature Relations,"pp. 95-97. "WesternValues in International 41. Wight, of the Social Sciences,vol. 14, Encyclopedia 42. Leon H. Mayhew,"Society," in International 1968,pp. 583-85. (Cambridge: Cambridge 43. See Immanuel Wallerstein,The Politicsof the World-Economy p. 2. Press,1984) p. 2; and Mann, TheSourcesofSocial Power, University and Migration, PierreLemaitre,et al., Identity, 44. Ole Wzever, BarryBuzan, MartenKelstrup, chap. 2. 1993),especially inEurope(London: Pinter, theNew SecurityAgenda

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

Organization 340 International (i.e., a regime) of human rightswould do little more than codify and existing practice. standardize is society betweenworldsocietyand international The case forantagonism that suggesting Opposed to it is a set of arguments norfirm. automatic neither societyis to progress(or in Wight'sview even to come into if international being) beyond a rather basic level, then it can, and possibly must, be The key link is in the level of accompaniedby world societydevelopments. on policy.In pluralistsocieties,mass opinion sets constraints makingforeign policies can be promotedand sustained.In an internawhat kind of foreign capacityand complexinterdecharacterized by highinteraction tionalsystem pendence,policies of openness requirepublic supportacross a wide rangeof values can such policiesbe sustained.Bull issues. Onlyifpublicsshare certain withoutseeing the full seems to lean in this direction,though apparently whenhe talksabout theneed, at least amongelites,fora common significance, To welfare values,and morals.46 including language,art,epistemology, culture, the extentthatsuch a commoncultureemergesamongthe masses as well, it forinternational society. thepossibility reinforce shouldenormously a plausible case that world societyand international There is therefore society can only develop hand-in-hand.An internationalsociety cannot being supportedby the developlevel without primitive develop past a fairly mentof elementsof "world"cultureat the mass level,and thisis trueon both a world societycannot emerge and global scales. Conversely, the subsystem and the state system unless it is supportedby a stable politicalframework, theonlycandidateforthis. remains To pursue this argumentin more detail and to resume progresstoward itis can be said to exist, society thequestionofwhenan international answering societydevelops in a to the process of how an international helpfulto return it throughmore fullyin this time thinking international system, primitive of theactual history to represent This is notan attempt structural realistterms. societydeveloped. Instead, 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. the about international societythathave come from some of the assumptions about the historical approach.It shouldalso providea clearerwayof thinking society and world society and lead us relationshipbetween international and international system a boundary betweeninternational towardidentifying society.

before society System

modelof international an abstract developmental The easiestwayto construct before any societal an anarchic international system is to imagine society
pp. 315-17. Society, 46. Bull, TheAnarchical

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

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

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

international system The boundary between mutualrecognition and international society: ofsovereign equality
a preexisting commonculture In thismodelofimmature international anarchy, But through international thebasis fora gemeinschaft society. does notprovide of war and thebalance ofpower,thetransfer theinteractive operationoftrade, travel, and the technologies(both mechanical and social), intermarriage, homogenizingeffectsof periods of hegemony,suzerainty,dominion, or
" p. 59. of "Civilisation, 52. Cited in Gong,TheStandard

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

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

Organization 346 International statesunlesseach statewhileclaiming of sovereign to have a society impossible to claim foritself, recognisedthateveryotherstate had the right sovereignty as well."56 and enjoyitsownsovereignty Historically, this transitionoccurred in Europe with the emergence of The claim of as the basic principle of interstaterelations.57 sovereignty provided a clear basis for legal equality exclusiverightto self-government to political in power among the units.It raised territory despite differences in each other's ofnonintervention and imposedon statesan obligation primacy thatwas, and stillis, veryclear in principlethoughextremely internalaffairs To get the flavorof this difficulty, try and complex in practice.58 difficult intervention? By question:Is all interaction no to the philosophical answering the sense of community equals, statesform acceptingeach otheras sovereign Note also how of anysociety. amonglike unitsthatis the essentialingredient law to international of international the centrality confirms this definition societyis a legal international society.In its most basic and essential form, that Waltz puts on the From this point of view, the emphasis construction. under to forcethe and anarchy competition of socialization tendency powerful a for it identifies the logic of on new significance, development like unitstakes the of anarchic international relations creates natural dynamics bywhichthe to develop. international society conditions fora basic gesellschaft marksseveral society and operationof such an international The formation thoughmuch remainsthe system, changes froma presocietalinternational sincebothare main overmuchas before, same. Balance ofpowerand warcarry of As can be seen in the history system. featuresof an anarchicinternational by states still need to seek security century, Europe duringthe eighteenth That is why war and in thedistribution ofpowerand status.59 to shifts adjusting of policy. But the possibilitiesfor alliance remain legitimateinstruments and international law are muchimproved and extending diplomacy formalizing becomes of sovereignequality.Diplomatic representation by the institution law can more secure and more continuous,and as Bull notes, international Withthe move awayfrom naturallaw into the widerrealmsof positivelaw.60 oflaw as a foundation oflegal equality, muchscope opens forthedevelopment relationsamongsovereign states,thoughit can onlydevelop way of ordering whereconsensusallows.As previously, greatpowersremainthe mostinfluenof maintaining the tial actors but now have the additional responsibility society.61 byinternational framework oforderrepresented

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.

ofStates, p. 135. Wight, Systems Society, pp. 33-38. Bull, TheAnarchical Society, pp. 18-21. and International Mayall,Nationalism chap. 5. Holsti,Peace and War, Society, pp. 33-38. Bull, TheAnarchical pp. 200-205. Society, chap. 9, especially Bull, TheAnarchical

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

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

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

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

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

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