The Evolution of International Society
ORIGIN AND DEFINITION
To understand the contemporary world and the significance of globalization we need to consider the evolution of international society. The historical origin of international relations can only be a matter of speculation, but it was a time when people began to settle down on the land and form themselves into separate territory-based political communities.
International society stands for relations between politically organized human groupings which occupy distinctive territories and enjoy and exercise a measure of independence from each other. International society can thus be conceived as society of political communities which are not under any higher political authority. The starting point of international relations is the existence of states, or independent political communities, each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a particular portion of the earth’s surface and a particular segment of the human population. The earliest records f international society are formal agreements among ancient city-states which date as far back as 2400 BC, alliances dating to 1390 BC, and envoys as early as 653 BC (Barber 1979: 8-9).
Hedley Bull (1977: 13) offers the following definition of international society: “A society of states (or international society) exists 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 with one another, and share in the working of common institution”.
International society is an association of member states who not only interact across international borders but also share common purpose, organization, and standards of conduct.
One of the most noteworthy and characteristic arrangements between sovereign state is diplomacy which obviously is intended primarily to facilitate and smooth their relation. Of course diplomatic arrangements have been expressed differently for one time or place to the next: diplomacy in ancient Greece was not the same as diplomacy in Renaissance Italy which was different again from the classical diplomacy of the eighteenth century or the global diplomacy of the twentieth century (Nicolson 1954).
Empire was the prevalent mode of large scale political group relation in Western Europe throughout the era of the Roman Empire and that of its success/ medieval Christendom, which lasted until about the 16th century. In the Middle Ages (1300-1500) the Renaissance Italians constructed and operated a small religion international society based on the city states of Northern and Central Italy. The first modern international society based on large-scale territorial states came into existence a little later in North-Western Europe out of which the contemporary global international society has evolved.
ANCIENT GREECE AND RENAISSANCE ITALY
The first historical manifestation of an international society is ancient Greece, then known as Hellas, which was geographical area and a cultural unity but not a single political entity or state. Hellenic international society comprised a large number of city-states based on geographically on the lower Balkan Peninsula and the many islands in the surrounding Aegean, Adriatic, and Mediterranean seas. The Hellenes thought of themselves as sharing a common ancestry, language, religion, and way of life, all of which distinguished them from neighbors whom the regarded as ‘Barbarian’, those who didn’t speak Greek, of whom the Persians were the defining case (Wight 1977: 46-7; 85).
The ancient Greece wasn’t a state. Hellenic international society consisted of city-states which were more/ lest independent of each other but shared a common culture.
The ancient Greeks did not articulate a body of international law because they could not conceive of the polis – the city-state political communities in which they lived – as having rights an obligation in relation to other city-states on some basis of rough equality (Wight 1977: 51). The ancient Greek city-states were politically self-contained even though they were based on a common culture and religion; they were not part of a larger political association consisting, for instance, of a common body of international law. Their national society was cultural-religious rather than legal-political.
The ancient Greece is often seen as the first significant international society in the Western tradition. But it should again be emphasized that the Greeks did not operate with a concept of equal sovereignty. Some states clearly were more equal than others. There were a few major powers, such as Athens and Sparta. And many lesser powers that often become entangled in their rivalries, coalitions, and wars. Mirror states weren’t the equals of major powers. That’s made clear by Thucydides in his account of the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta which polarized Greek international society. In a famous dialogue the people of Melos, a small city state, appeal for justice from the powerful Athenians, who have presented them with an ultimatum. But Athenians spurn this appeal with the response that justice between states depends on equality of power: ‘the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’ (Thucydides, tran. Warner: 402; 407).
Finally, Hella was overwhelmed by imperial Macedonia, which was a continental state based on the Balkan Peninsula. Even the greatest power in the ancient Greek world, Athens, lacked the power to withstand the Macedonian bid for supremacy over the Hellenes. The Romans (who eventually displaced the Macedonians) developed an even greater empire (a state which possesses both a home territory and foreign territories: an imperial state) in the course of conquering, occupying, and ruling most of Europe and a large part of the Middle East and North Africa.
After a long period of decline the (Western) empire at Rome disintegrated in the 4th century AD under the impact of ‘barbarian’ assaults from the imperial peripheries. It was eventually succeeded by a theocracy (a state based on religion). The (Eastern) empire at Constantinople, which also was a theocracy, wasn’t overthrown but lived on for another thousand years in the incarnation of Greek-Orthodox-Christianity (Byzantium). It was finally destroyed in the mid-fifteenth century by the Ottoman Turks, a rising Muslim imperial state.
The second noteworthy historical experiment in the evolution of international society involved the small states of the Italian Renaissance which were the first to break free from the medieval empire and flourished in Northern Italy between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries. The Renaissance was enlightenment in the arts and sciences launched by the recovery of ancient learning, particularly that of Greece and Rome, which had been kept alive by Arabic scholars in the Muslim world during the Middle Age.
In the end, the Italian city-states were too small, too weak, and too divided to defend themselves against the far larger territorial state which was being politically engineered by ambitious rulers in Western Europe. And in the sixteenth century they were overwhelmed by the Austro-Spanish Habsburgs and the France who long hegemony (power and control exercised by a leading state over other state) over Italian Peninsula didn’t finally end until the nineteenth century
Approximate chronology of international society
500-100 BC Ancient Greek/ Hellenic
1300-1500 BC Renaissance Italian
1500-1650 BC Early Modern European
1650-1950 BC European cum Western
1950-… Global
EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The procedural starting point of modern European international society is thus usually identified with the Peace of Westphalia.
Westpalian international society was based on 3 principle:
1. Rex est imperator in regno suo (the king is emperor in his own realm). Every king is independent and equal to every other king.
2. Cujur Regio, ejus religio (the ruler determines the religion of his realm). This norm specifies that outsiders have no right to intervene in a sovereign jurisdiction on religious grounds.
3. The Balance of Power. Intended to prevent any hegemony from arising and dominating everybody else.
The anti-hegemonial notion of a countervailing alliance of major powers aimed at preserving the freedom of all member states and maintaining the pluralist European society of states as a whole was only worked out by trial and error and fully theorized much later.
THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The spread of European political beyond Europe which began in the late fifteenth century and only came to an end in the early twentieth century proved to be an expansion not only of European imperialism, but also of international society, later (ull and Watson).
Not every non-Western country fell under the political control of a Western imperial state. But those countries which escaped were still obliged to accept international law and follow the diplomatic practices of international society.
The second stage of globalization of international society was via reactive nationalism and anti-colonialism. In that made reaction indigenous political leader made claims for decolonization and independence based on European and American ideas of self-determination. The final act of European decolonization which completed the globalization of international society was the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War.
Today, national society of global extent based on local territorial sovereignty and a common set of rules the most important of which are embodied by the United Nation Charter.
PROBLEMS OF GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
1. There’s a noteworthy absence of a common underlying culture o support global international society which cut across all the major cultures and civilizations.
2. If the global covenant is going to be supported in the future, that support is likely to be widely forth coming only if its core norms and values respond to the interests and concern of the vast majority if not all the members of contemporary international society.
3. The regional diversity of contemporary global international society is far more pronounced than that of European, international society/ any other previous society of states.
4. Since 1945 there has been a definite freezing and sanctifying of international boundaries as the globe has been enclosed by local sovereign jurisdiction based on self-determination.
5. Doctrine of non-intervention has created an inversion of traditional security dilemma in many states, particularly post-colonial and post-communist states. In those states the security threat is more likely to come from within: the prevailing pattern of warfare is internal rather than international (Holsti, 1996)
6. The current global international society, although based on formally equal state sovereignty, in fact contains huge substantive inequalities between member states, particularly between the rich OECD state and the poorest Asian African Third World States.
7. Global international society is perhaps evolving into a world society, both organizationally and normatively, which differs significantly in several important respects from previous international societies.
Finally, this tendency for international society to evolve into a world society raises important questions about the continuing primary of state sovereignty. State sovereignty has been a defining characteristic of international politics for 350 years. State sovereignty isn’t a dynamic institution and it continues to evolve.
I think that today international society is a global social framework of shared norms and values based on state sovereignty (an important of that social framework is the UN Charter). But those shared norms and values have provoked unprecedented problems and predicaments of contemporary world politics. There’s a current debate about the future of state sovereignty and thus also about the future of the contemporary global international society.
REFERENCES
Watson, Adam. 1992. The Evolution of International Society: the definitive study of the history of various international societies an rival or related empires. London: Routledge
Bull, Hedley & Watson, Adam. 1984. The Expansion of International Society: the elaborate account of the historical expansion of European society to the rest of the world. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Amstrong, David. 1993. Revolution and World Order: an important study of revolutionary states in international society. Oxford: Claredon Press
To understand the contemporary world and the significance of globalization we need to consider the evolution of international society. The historical origin of international relations can only be a matter of speculation, but it was a time when people began to settle down on the land and form themselves into separate territory-based political communities.
International society stands for relations between politically organized human groupings which occupy distinctive territories and enjoy and exercise a measure of independence from each other. International society can thus be conceived as society of political communities which are not under any higher political authority. The starting point of international relations is the existence of states, or independent political communities, each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relation to a particular portion of the earth’s surface and a particular segment of the human population. The earliest records f international society are formal agreements among ancient city-states which date as far back as 2400 BC, alliances dating to 1390 BC, and envoys as early as 653 BC (Barber 1979: 8-9).
Hedley Bull (1977: 13) offers the following definition of international society: “A society of states (or international society) exists 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 with one another, and share in the working of common institution”.
International society is an association of member states who not only interact across international borders but also share common purpose, organization, and standards of conduct.
One of the most noteworthy and characteristic arrangements between sovereign state is diplomacy which obviously is intended primarily to facilitate and smooth their relation. Of course diplomatic arrangements have been expressed differently for one time or place to the next: diplomacy in ancient Greece was not the same as diplomacy in Renaissance Italy which was different again from the classical diplomacy of the eighteenth century or the global diplomacy of the twentieth century (Nicolson 1954).
Empire was the prevalent mode of large scale political group relation in Western Europe throughout the era of the Roman Empire and that of its success/ medieval Christendom, which lasted until about the 16th century. In the Middle Ages (1300-1500) the Renaissance Italians constructed and operated a small religion international society based on the city states of Northern and Central Italy. The first modern international society based on large-scale territorial states came into existence a little later in North-Western Europe out of which the contemporary global international society has evolved.
ANCIENT GREECE AND RENAISSANCE ITALY
The first historical manifestation of an international society is ancient Greece, then known as Hellas, which was geographical area and a cultural unity but not a single political entity or state. Hellenic international society comprised a large number of city-states based on geographically on the lower Balkan Peninsula and the many islands in the surrounding Aegean, Adriatic, and Mediterranean seas. The Hellenes thought of themselves as sharing a common ancestry, language, religion, and way of life, all of which distinguished them from neighbors whom the regarded as ‘Barbarian’, those who didn’t speak Greek, of whom the Persians were the defining case (Wight 1977: 46-7; 85).
The ancient Greece wasn’t a state. Hellenic international society consisted of city-states which were more/ lest independent of each other but shared a common culture.
The ancient Greeks did not articulate a body of international law because they could not conceive of the polis – the city-state political communities in which they lived – as having rights an obligation in relation to other city-states on some basis of rough equality (Wight 1977: 51). The ancient Greek city-states were politically self-contained even though they were based on a common culture and religion; they were not part of a larger political association consisting, for instance, of a common body of international law. Their national society was cultural-religious rather than legal-political.
The ancient Greece is often seen as the first significant international society in the Western tradition. But it should again be emphasized that the Greeks did not operate with a concept of equal sovereignty. Some states clearly were more equal than others. There were a few major powers, such as Athens and Sparta. And many lesser powers that often become entangled in their rivalries, coalitions, and wars. Mirror states weren’t the equals of major powers. That’s made clear by Thucydides in his account of the Peloponnesian war (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta which polarized Greek international society. In a famous dialogue the people of Melos, a small city state, appeal for justice from the powerful Athenians, who have presented them with an ultimatum. But Athenians spurn this appeal with the response that justice between states depends on equality of power: ‘the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’ (Thucydides, tran. Warner: 402; 407).
Finally, Hella was overwhelmed by imperial Macedonia, which was a continental state based on the Balkan Peninsula. Even the greatest power in the ancient Greek world, Athens, lacked the power to withstand the Macedonian bid for supremacy over the Hellenes. The Romans (who eventually displaced the Macedonians) developed an even greater empire (a state which possesses both a home territory and foreign territories: an imperial state) in the course of conquering, occupying, and ruling most of Europe and a large part of the Middle East and North Africa.
After a long period of decline the (Western) empire at Rome disintegrated in the 4th century AD under the impact of ‘barbarian’ assaults from the imperial peripheries. It was eventually succeeded by a theocracy (a state based on religion). The (Eastern) empire at Constantinople, which also was a theocracy, wasn’t overthrown but lived on for another thousand years in the incarnation of Greek-Orthodox-Christianity (Byzantium). It was finally destroyed in the mid-fifteenth century by the Ottoman Turks, a rising Muslim imperial state.
The second noteworthy historical experiment in the evolution of international society involved the small states of the Italian Renaissance which were the first to break free from the medieval empire and flourished in Northern Italy between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries. The Renaissance was enlightenment in the arts and sciences launched by the recovery of ancient learning, particularly that of Greece and Rome, which had been kept alive by Arabic scholars in the Muslim world during the Middle Age.
In the end, the Italian city-states were too small, too weak, and too divided to defend themselves against the far larger territorial state which was being politically engineered by ambitious rulers in Western Europe. And in the sixteenth century they were overwhelmed by the Austro-Spanish Habsburgs and the France who long hegemony (power and control exercised by a leading state over other state) over Italian Peninsula didn’t finally end until the nineteenth century
Approximate chronology of international society
500-100 BC Ancient Greek/ Hellenic
1300-1500 BC Renaissance Italian
1500-1650 BC Early Modern European
1650-1950 BC European cum Western
1950-… Global
EUROPEAN INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The procedural starting point of modern European international society is thus usually identified with the Peace of Westphalia.
Westpalian international society was based on 3 principle:
1. Rex est imperator in regno suo (the king is emperor in his own realm). Every king is independent and equal to every other king.
2. Cujur Regio, ejus religio (the ruler determines the religion of his realm). This norm specifies that outsiders have no right to intervene in a sovereign jurisdiction on religious grounds.
3. The Balance of Power. Intended to prevent any hegemony from arising and dominating everybody else.
The anti-hegemonial notion of a countervailing alliance of major powers aimed at preserving the freedom of all member states and maintaining the pluralist European society of states as a whole was only worked out by trial and error and fully theorized much later.
THE GLOBALIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
The spread of European political beyond Europe which began in the late fifteenth century and only came to an end in the early twentieth century proved to be an expansion not only of European imperialism, but also of international society, later (ull and Watson).
Not every non-Western country fell under the political control of a Western imperial state. But those countries which escaped were still obliged to accept international law and follow the diplomatic practices of international society.
The second stage of globalization of international society was via reactive nationalism and anti-colonialism. In that made reaction indigenous political leader made claims for decolonization and independence based on European and American ideas of self-determination. The final act of European decolonization which completed the globalization of international society was the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War.
Today, national society of global extent based on local territorial sovereignty and a common set of rules the most important of which are embodied by the United Nation Charter.
PROBLEMS OF GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY
1. There’s a noteworthy absence of a common underlying culture o support global international society which cut across all the major cultures and civilizations.
2. If the global covenant is going to be supported in the future, that support is likely to be widely forth coming only if its core norms and values respond to the interests and concern of the vast majority if not all the members of contemporary international society.
3. The regional diversity of contemporary global international society is far more pronounced than that of European, international society/ any other previous society of states.
4. Since 1945 there has been a definite freezing and sanctifying of international boundaries as the globe has been enclosed by local sovereign jurisdiction based on self-determination.
5. Doctrine of non-intervention has created an inversion of traditional security dilemma in many states, particularly post-colonial and post-communist states. In those states the security threat is more likely to come from within: the prevailing pattern of warfare is internal rather than international (Holsti, 1996)
6. The current global international society, although based on formally equal state sovereignty, in fact contains huge substantive inequalities between member states, particularly between the rich OECD state and the poorest Asian African Third World States.
7. Global international society is perhaps evolving into a world society, both organizationally and normatively, which differs significantly in several important respects from previous international societies.
Finally, this tendency for international society to evolve into a world society raises important questions about the continuing primary of state sovereignty. State sovereignty has been a defining characteristic of international politics for 350 years. State sovereignty isn’t a dynamic institution and it continues to evolve.
I think that today international society is a global social framework of shared norms and values based on state sovereignty (an important of that social framework is the UN Charter). But those shared norms and values have provoked unprecedented problems and predicaments of contemporary world politics. There’s a current debate about the future of state sovereignty and thus also about the future of the contemporary global international society.
REFERENCES
Watson, Adam. 1992. The Evolution of International Society: the definitive study of the history of various international societies an rival or related empires. London: Routledge
Bull, Hedley & Watson, Adam. 1984. The Expansion of International Society: the elaborate account of the historical expansion of European society to the rest of the world. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Amstrong, David. 1993. Revolution and World Order: an important study of revolutionary states in international society. Oxford: Claredon Press
Comments
Post a Comment