Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:15:07.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

System or Society?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Alan James
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The choice of name given to or adopted by a collectivity is often immaterial. It probably does not matter much whether a new football team, for example, is called the Braves or the Valiants. All that is needed is some distinctive terminology, by whch the group in question can easily be identified. Sometimes, however, a name may be meant to reflect some substantive qualities, aspirations, or associations which are already connected with or claimed by the collectivity. The names adopted in 1947 by the two successor states to Britain's empire on the Indian sub-continent, for instance, were seen to be significant. Both India and Pakistan had their own reasons for wishing to be so called. Burma's 1989 translation into Myanmar was perhaps indicative of the same kind of consideration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , July 1993 , pp. 269 - 288
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hay, Denys, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

2 See Weldon, T. D., The Vocabulary of Politics (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1953), chs 2 and 3Google Scholar.

3 The present writer associates this phrase, indelibly, with the late Professor C. A. W. Manning. However, it does not necessarily follow, and in fact is most unlikely, that he subscribed to the idea of an objective international reality.

4 See further, James, Alan, ‘The Realism of Realism: The State and the Study of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 15 (July, 1989), especially pp. 222–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics (London, 1977), pp. 9–10Google Scholar and 13 (italics in original).

6 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 13Google Scholar.

7 Watson, Adam, ‘Hedley Bull, States Systems and International Societies’, Review of International Studies, 13 (April, 1987), p. 147CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Zhang, Yongjin, ‘China's Entry into International Society: Beyond the Standard of “Civilization”’, Review of International Studies, 17 (January, 1991), pp. 3–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This work was awarded the British International Studies Association's Prize for the best article in the Review in 1991.

9 Nardin, Terry, ‘International Ethics and International Law’, Review of International Studies, 18 (January 1992), p. 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It should be noted, however, that on the concepts of international system and society, Nardin differs radically from Bull. See work cited in n. 37.

10 It should be mentioned, however, that another reviewer did take Bull to task for being insufficiently rigorous in (among other things) his treatment of the concept of international society. See Forsyth, Muray, ‘The Classical Theory of International Relations’, Political Studies, 26 (September, 1978), pp. 415–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Other criticisms of Bull's treatment of the concept of international society are to be found i n the chapters by Stanley Hoffmann (pp. 24–6) and, particularly, J. D. B. Miller (pp. 70, 74, 77, 79, and 86) in Miller, J. D. B. and Vincent, R. J. (eds.), Order and Violence. Hedley Bull and International Relations (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar. See also Griffiths, Martin, ‘Order and International Society: The Real Realism?’, Review of International Studies, 18 (July, 1992), pp. 237–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It must be emphasized, however, that none of these authors attacks Hull's distinction between international system and international society.

11 Berridge, Geoffrey, ‘The Political Theory and Institutional History of States Systems’, British Journal of International Studies, 6 (April, 1980), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Jackson, Robert H., ‘1989 and the Theory of International Society’, paper delivered at the Annual Conference of the British International Studies Association, December 1991, p. 2Google Scholar.

13 Bull, , Anarchical Society, pp. 10 and 12Google Scholar.

14 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 42Google Scholar.

15 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 15Google Scholar. Cf. p. 249.

16 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 41Google Scholar. Cf. p. 257.

17 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 43Google Scholar.

18 It should perhaps be made clear that Bull regards rules as by their nature binding, and that the rules which go by the name of international law may indeed be regarded as having the status of law: see Bull, , Anarchical Society, pp. 128, 130 and 136Google Scholar.

19 See further, James, Alan, ‘Law and Order in International Society’, in James, (ed.), The Bases of International Order. Essays in Honour of C. A. W. Manning (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

20 Bull, Hedley, ‘Order vs. Justice in International Society’, Political Studies, 19 (September, 1971), p. 271CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Bull, Hedley, ‘Models of Future World Order’, India Quarterly, 31 (January–March, 1975), p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 67. Cf. p. 211.Google Scholar This last reference appears in a chapter on Great Powers, it also being said that the idea of a great power ‘presupposes and implies the idea of an international society as opposed to an international system’ (p. 202).

23 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 249Google Scholar.

24 Watson, , ‘Hedley Bull’, p. 147Google Scholar.

25 Watson, , ‘Hedley Bull’, p. 151Google Scholar.

26 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 13Google Scholar.

27 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 172Google Scholar.

28 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 183Google Scholar.

29 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 163Google Scholar.

30 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 170Google Scholar.

31 On the forms which that machinery might take, see, generally, James, Alan, ‘Diplomatic Relations and Contacts’, The British Year Book of International Law 1991 (Oxford, 1992)Google Scholar.

32 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 167Google Scholar.

33 Bull, Anarchical Society.

34 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 179Google Scholar.

35 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 13Google Scholar.

36 See Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 16Google Scholar.

37 Nardin, Terry, Law, Morality, and the Relations of States (Princeton, N.J., 1983), pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

38 Bull, , Anarchical Society, p. 13Google Scholar.

39 Mayall, James, ‘International Society and International Theory’, in Donelan, Michael (ed.), The Reason of Slates (London, 1978), p. 140Google Scholar.

40 Nardin, , Relations of States, p. 19Google Scholar.

41 Berridge, , ‘Political Theory’, p. 87Google Scholar.

42 The Editors' ‘Introduction’ to Bull, Medley and Watson, Adam, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984), p. 6Google Scholar.

43 Gong, Gerrit W., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford, 1984), p. 3Google Scholar.

44 Lissitzyn, Oliver J., International Law Today and Tomorrow (New York, 1965), p. 73Google Scholar.

45 Wight, Martin, Systems of States, ed. Bull, Hedley (Leicester, 1977)Google Scholar.

46 Wight, Martin, Power Politics, ed. Bull, Hedley and Holbraad, Carste (Leicester, 1978)Google Scholar. The original version of this book was published, under the same title, in 1946 by the Royal Institute of International Affairs.

47 Wight, Martin, ‘The States-System of Hellas’, in Wight, Systems, p. 46Google Scholar.

48 See Gong, , Standard, pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

49 Lissitzyn, , International Law, p. 94Google Scholar.

50 See, generally, Cohen, Raymond, Culture and Conflict in Egyptian-Israeli Relations: A Dialogue of the Deaft (Bloomington, 1990)Google Scholar; and Cohen, , Negotiating Across Cultures. Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy (Washington, D.C., 1991)Google Scholar.

51 Mayall, , ‘International Society’, p. 136Google Scholar.

52 Editors' ‘Introduction’ to Wight, , Power Politics, ed. Bull, and , Holbraad, p. 13Google Scholar.

51 One possibly significant straw in this particular wind is the growing emphasis in all quarters on human rights. And in that context it might be noted that the European Community states set out, at the end of 1991, a list of guidelines for their recognition of emerging states in Eastern Europ e and the Soviet Union, and that these included guarantees for the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities. See Berendt, Michael, ‘European Community’, in Day, Alan J. (ed.), The Annual Register 1991 (Harlow, Essex, 1992), p. 398Google Scholar. But it is still a long step from the making of such statements to their being implemented and becoming part of a living culture.

54 See, generally, Suganami, Hidemi, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (Cambridge, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Bull, Hedley, ‘Introduction’ to Wight, Power Politics, ed. Bull, and Holbrand, , p. 18Google Scholar.

56 Nardin, , Relations of States, pp. 27Google Scholar; sec also his footnote 4 to this page.

57 Northedge, F. S., The International Political System (London, 1976), p. 24Google Scholar.

58 Berridge, , ‘Political Theory’, p. 86Google Scholar.

59 It was a British academic, Barbara Allen Roberson, who in 1992 organized a workshop on the subject al a meeting of the European Consortium for Political Research.

60 Merle, M., The Sociology of International Relations (Leamington Spa, 1987; original French edition published in 1982), p. 367Google Scholar.

61 Boasson, Ch., Approaches to the Study of International Relations (Assen, second edition, 1972), p. 45Google Scholar.

62 Reynolds, P. A., ‘International Studies: Retrospect and Prospect’, British Journal of International Studies, 2 (April 1975), p. 10Google Scholar.

63 Garnelt, J. C., ‘The Analysis of Threats’, International Relations, 3 (November 1971), p. 1012Google Scholar.

64 Schwarzenberger, Georg, Power Politics (London, 1941), p. 35Google Scholar.

65 As of September 1992 the United Nations has 179 sovereign members. To them have been added the following 11 sovereign states: Andorra, Kiribati, Macedonia, Monaco, Nauru, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tonga, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Tuvulu, and Vatican City. The status of a few of them—Macedonia, Taiwan, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus—is disputed, and Andorra's is perhaps unclear. Azad Kashmir has been omitted, as have Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei, and Venda.

66 On this matter, see, generally, Wight, Martin, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966)Google Scholar.

67 Jackson, , ‘1989’, p. 2Google Scholar.

68 Fromkin, David, The Independence of Nations (New York, 1981), p. 142Google Scholar.

69 Jones, Roy E., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies, 7 (January, 1981), p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 See, Manning, C. A. W., The Nature of International Society (London, 1962), p. 177Google Scholar, where he terms the international society as a quasi-Gemeinschaft.

71 Manning, , Nature, p. 176Google Scholar.

72 Kitto, H. D. F., The Greeks (Harmondsworth, revised edition, 1957), p. 226Google Scholar.

73 See, generally, James, Alan, Sovereign Statehood. The Basis of International Society (London, 1986), part 1Google Scholar.

74 See, generally, Gong, Standard.

75 See, generally, James, Alan, ‘The Equality of States: Contemporary Manifestations of an Ancient Doctrine’, Review of International Studies, 18 (October, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 See, generally, Geldenhuys, Deon, Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

77 This approach could be extended to deal with the case of a state recognised by a number of other members of the international society, but not by all. Some such concept as discontinuous membership would be appropriate. By extension, this approach might also help to resolve the vexed theoretical problem of whether recognition has a constitutive or declaratory character.