International System Versus International Society

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

What are the main differences between an ‘international system’ and an ‘international society’? Answer with reference to English School IR Theory.

When considering the differences between an ‘international system’ and an ‘international society’ it

is important to note that for the most part English School theorists agree that “elements of 1

international society exist even in a primitive international system”  and therefore the two terms are not mutually exclusive. In fact, “the foundation of English school theory is the idea that international 2

system, international society and world society all exist simultaneously” . However, there are

certainly some distinctions that can be drawn between the two. In order to do so I will first explore the individual definitions of these key terms as set out by key English School thinkers, as well as drawing on earlier realist and rationalist thought. Using the terms ‘international system’ and ‘system of states’, as well as ‘international society’ and ‘society of states’ interchangeably, I will discuss the

origin of each concept with reference to the differing strands of English School Theory; pluralism and solidarism. I will then go on to highlight the differences needed in order to make the transition from a ‘system of states’ to a ‘society of states’ and how this can impact on their competing definitions,

finally rounding off my account by discussing the development of international law.

Andrew Linklater describes the international system as a place in which states seldom find “relief 3

from competition and conflict.”  He suggests that in such a system, states place importance on “containing, outmanoeuvring or incapacitating actual or potential adversaries. Most are concerned with maximizing the ‘power to hurt’ and with protecting themselves from the harm opponents can 4

cause.”  There is much agreement among English School theorists that the international system was

born out of “an arena where there was interaction between communities but no shared rules or 1

B. Buzan, ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993), p.344 2  B. Buzan, From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.10 3  A. Linklater, English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment  (Cambridge:  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.117 4  Ibid., p.117

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

5

institutions”  and that in order to undertake the development towards an international society, it is important to make “the behaviour of each (state) a necessary elemen t in the calculations of the t he 6

other” . A significant feature of the international system is the way in which states use one another

to create a balance of power within international anarchy, performing functions based on their awareness of other states but not in association with them. Though states show awareness of one another, they act and react in ways which best serve their national interest, rather t han finding common values to unite them. This is the key change that can be found in the development from an international system to an international society; recognition not only of each other’s existence, but 7

also a development of their ability to “recognize one another’s right to the same prerogatives”  of

sovereignty and national self-interest.

One of the earliest considerations of international society stems from realist thought; in so much that realists do not believe an international society exists. “Hobbes defines the law of nations as 8

natural law applied to states” , it is agreed in realist thought that there is only anarchy, and that Hobbes’ suggestion of a war of all against all is applicable within the realm of international relations.

From this perspective, it can be argued that there is no difference between international system and international society, seeing as international society does not exist. However, rationalists counter this argument saying that “international society is a true society, but institutionally deficient; lacking 9

a common superior or judiciary.”  Locke, a key thinker that rationalists are keen to draw upon, 10

would argue “international society as a customary society” , in which custom dominates

interactions between states and not force, as realists would have you believe. This lends itself to an international society in which states “recognize not just the empirical reality but the legitimacy of

5

 T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 138 6  H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics  (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), p.10 7  T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 134 8  M. Wight, International Theory The Three Traditions (London: Continuum, 2002), p.30 9  Ibid., p.39 10  Ibid., p.39

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

11

each other’s separate existence” . This suggests that the the difference between between an international system and an international society lies in the actions of states making “a conscious soci al contract

by instituting rules and machinery to make their relations more orderly and predictable and to further certain shared principles and values.”

12

Drawing on this early rationalist definition, a society of states can therefore be described as existing “when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society

in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations 13

with one another.”  It is important to note that the “balance of power and war carry over much as 14

before, since both are the main features of an anarchic international system”  and that although a

society of states has developed, the international system remains very much anarchical. It should also be considered that this movement from an international system to an international society is not irreversible; “systematic interacti ons remain a possible future arrangement if the dominant actors in international society cease to comply with the rules and act in ways which undermine the 15

international security.”  The fluidity with which the character of international relations can change

only further reinforces its precarious nature, showing that although there are clear distinctions between the two, the conditions needed in order to create an international society are heavily dependent on the interaction of states within the international system.

As previously noted, the balance of power between states is a prominent feature in an international system and it is fair to say that even within the development of an international society “war and

11

 A. Linklater, English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment  (Cambridge:  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.125 12 A. Watson, ‘ Hedley Bull, State Systems, and International Relations ’, Review of International Studies  13:2 (1987), p.147 13  H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics  (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997), p.13 14 B. Buzan, ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993), p.346 15  T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 139

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

16

alliance remain legitimate instruments of policy” . However, the difference between the two lies within the altering attitudes of sovereign states in so much that “political order and the balance of 17

power become explicit foreign policy goals for many (not necessarily all) states.”  Where an

international system contained the awareness of other states, an international society develops that awareness into a consciousness in which states are forced to cooperate and react to the activities of other states within the international sphere. Therefore, it can be said that the great powers remain to be “the most influential actors but now have the additional responsibility of maintaining the framework of order represented by international society. The status of sovereign equality gives even 18

less powerful units some protection against elimination.”  Within an international system there is greater scope for imperialism, since states act purely in their own best interests, whereas a society 19

of states “places constraints on the state’s power to hurt and facilitates international cooperation” . In order to go about creating this cooperation “sovereign states learn to control violent tendencies

by agreeing on some universal moral and legal principles which bind them loosely together in an 20

international society” , such a tie could not be found within an international system and serves only

to once again highlight the differences between the two.

It is evident that the dissimilarities between an international system and an international society rely heavily on the definition of each key term. However, even within the two strands of English School theory; pluralism and solidarism, there is debate about the classification and role of an international society. “Pluralism stresses the instrumental side of international society  as a functional 21

counterweight to the threat of excessive disorder” , suggesting that the movement of states from an international system to an international society “is limited to the creation of a framework that

16

B. Buzan, ‘From International System to International Society: S tructural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993), p.346 17  Ibid., p.347 18  Ibid., p.346-347 19  A. Linklater, English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment  (Cambridge:  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.117 20  Ibid., p.121 21  B. Buzan, From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.47

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

22

will allow them to coexist in relative harmony” . Pluralists do not believe in encroaching on state sovereignty for any reason, viewing “intervention as a violation of the cardinal rules of sovereignty, 23

non-intervention, and non-use of force.”  The pluralist view creates an international society i n which there is recognition for state sovereignty but not for the sovereignty of the individuals living within those states. This leaves the distinction between international system and international society as merely a movement towards “the liberty of st ates and the maintenance of order among 24

them.”

Solidarists, on the other hand, tak e an extended view of an international society. “Solidarism focuses on the possibility of shared moral mora l norms underpinning a more expansive, and almost i nevitably more 25

interventionist, understanding of international order.”  Unlike pluralists, they do not believe that 26

“the general function of international society is to separate and cushion, not to act” , instead they

are of the assertion that the international society has a responsibility to protect individual sovereignty and basic human rights. They are of the belief that there is a “duty on the members of 27

international society to intervene forcibly to protect those rights.”  This creates a very different

image of international society than the pluralist view; here, not only does the society of o f states recognize state sovereignty, but they are also an active part in the “collective enforcement of 28

international rules and the and the guardianship of human rights.”  Taking this outlook expands the gap between an international system and international society from a mere creation of order among states, to finding a justification for which states can forcibly intervene within the national affairs of other states.

22

 J. Mayall, World Politics: Progress and Its Limits (Cambridge: Polity, 2000), p.14  N. Wheeler, Saving Strangers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p.11 24  T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 137 25  B. Buzan, From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p.47 26  R. Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.145 27  T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 137 28  Ibid., p. 137 23

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

The way in which an international society is born out of an international system can also help in explaining the differences between the two. There are two key models, the civilisation model (gemeinschaft) and the functional model (gesellschaft), (gesellschaft), under which it is suggested that this development, from system to society, would take place. “The gemeinschaft understanding sees society as something organic and traditional, involving bonds of common sentiment, experience, and 29

identity. It is an essentially historical conception: societies grow rather than being made.”  Under this model it is suggested that “the pre-existence of a common culture among the units of system is a great advantage in stimulating the formation of a n international society earlier than would 30

otherwise occur.”  This can be interpreted as providing an alternative view in the nature of the

international system in so much that st ates are said to share and acknowledge a cknowledge common values even before the invention of an international society. Therefore the creation of such a society is only an informal bringing together of these common interests, rather than a cultivation of them.

The view in opposition to the civilisation model is the functional model; “the gesellschaft

understanding sees society as being contractual and constructed rather than sentimental and 31

traditional. It is more consciously organizational: societies can be made by acts of will.”  The key difference lies in the fact that in this functional model, “the development of international society can

be seen as a rational long-term response to the existence of an increasingly dense and interactive 32

international system”  rather than as a natural culmination of deep seated mutual interests and

shared cultures. This presents the international system in different light o nce more, drawing upon the idea of states as self-interested actors. In this model “international society could evolve 33

functionally from the logic of anarchy without pre-existing cultural bonds”  and therefore suggests that the difference between an international system and an international society is much more to do

29

B. Buzan, ‘From International System to International Society: St ructural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993), p.333 30  Ibid., p.333 31  Ibid., p.333 32  Ibid., p.334 33  Ibid., p.334

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

with the structure and mechanism of building a society, highlighting rigid differences, rather than the organic development from one to another.

The advancement of an international society also gives rise to the creation of codified international law, both “inside and outside of o f the United Nations, forms of international governance have

developed in the fields of energy, the environment, finance, and trade policy, of labour relations, 34

organized crime”  and various other areas. Such consensus could not have been achieved within an international system alone, as states would be unable to recognize one another’s right to the same national interests; again this highlights another imperative difference between system and society. Furthermore, it is curious that within the development of an international society, “sovereign rights 35

are often constrained for economic or security reasons” . This means that while they collaborate in

order to guarantee their security, sovereign “states have in fact lost a considerable portion of their 36

controlling and steering abilities” . Where in an international system states are bound only by their

own national laws, the movement into an international society means that they can be held at least somewhat accountable by international law.

By exploring the definitions of an ‘international system’ versus that of an ‘international society’, with

reference to key English School theorists, I have been able to provide an in depth account of the important differences between the two. I think it is fair to say t hat the action of providing a clear “distinction between a system and a society is thus a most useful one, not because it causes the

complex reality of international relations to be simplified into this category or that, but because it allows that reality to be illuminated by considering it from a particularly productive point of view.”

34

37

J. Habermas, ‘ The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory  15:4 for World Society ’, Constellations:  15:4 (2008), p.444 35  T. Dunne, M, Kurki and S. Smith, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 136 36 J. Habermas, ‘ The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory  15:4 for World Society ’, Constellations:  15:4 (2008), p.444 37 A. Watson, ‘ Hedley Bull, State Systems, and International Relations ’, Review of International Studies  13:2 (1987), p.152-153

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

By exploring the differences between the two, it becomes apparent that the development from system to society is imperative for any sense of international security to exist within sovereign states. It then follows that such a society cannot exist without the creation of an initial “system of 38

relationships for certain common purposes” . Returning once more to Andrew Linklater, he says that, “perhaps one should not search for the precise point when a system of states has turned 39

unambiguously into a society of states” . Therefore perhaps it is better to “imagine an anarchic 40

international system before any societal development takes place: pure system, no society.”  This is what I have aimed to set out in my account of the dissimilarities between the two, illustrating how these differences can vary dependant on your definition of the two key terms.

38

 M. Wight, Power Politics (London: Continnuum, 2002), p.105  A. Linklater, English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment  (Cambridge:  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p.125 40 B. Buzan, ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993), p.340-341 39

Word Count: 2801 || Module Number: PL2015 || Student Number: 119032597

Bibliography Bull, H, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order In World Politics  (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997)

Buzan, B, ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organisation 47:3 (1993)

Buzan, B, From International to World Society?: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)

Dunne, T, Kurki, M and Smith, S, International Theories Discipline And Diversity  (Oxford:  (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)

Habermas, J, ‘ The Constitutionalization of International Law and the Legitimation Problems of a Constitution Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory  15:4 for World Society ’, Constellations:  15:4 (2008)

Linklater, A, English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment  (Cambridge:  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)

Mayall, J, World Politics: Progress and Its Limits (Cambridge: Polity, 2000)

Vincent, R, Human Rights and International Relations  (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986)

Watson, A, ‘Hedley Bull, State Systems, and International Relations ’, Review of International Studies  13:2

(1987)

Wheeler, N, Saving Strangers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)

Wight, M, International Theory The Three Traditions (London: Continuum, 2002) Wight, M, Power Politics (London: Continnuum, 2002)