International Relations

Difference between International Society and World Society

On the other hand, there is also a difference between international society and world society:

• International society is pluralist and rests on sovereign states;
• World society is solidarist and rests on the community of human kind: it is manifested by many international organizations and the mission to protect human rights; UN, Council of Europe and its ECHR, the ICC (to which US, China and Russia haven't become parties).

One of the first authors was Hedley Bull, who wrote in 1977 "The anarchical society", elaborating a number of concepts, especially those on order and primary and secondary institutions. He was a "state-centric" solidarist.

Hedley Bull was also famous for the concept of primary institutions: principles such as sovereignty and diplomacy, war (not international organizations), customs and beyond on specific areas of international interactions which have codified and repeated patterns, given the need of state to build a minimum of interaction rules.

For order and the preservation of their own independence. Among the broad idea of what are primary institutions, there are: war, diplomacy, international law, great power management, sovereignty, balance of power, equality and hierarchy, market, environmental stewardship. The idea is not that primary institutions are normative efforts set in motion, but natural developments, no predefined, but evolving through historical process of layering across centuries, depending on the inclination of states at different points in time, the will of diplomatic leaders. They emerged gradually as shared practices, consensual and based on the agreement of states, solidified, and become standards. They are constitutive of the anarchical society, as states need them to survive and guarantee that anarchy is preserved against world government and subversion of anarchy into hierarchy. Different anarchies can be into place: Hobbesian ones, mature Grotian/Kantian in other parts, nothing that guarantees that the

situations stays the same., without cyclical logical but dictated by historical developments and the coexistence of anarchies and the international interactions. War is the example of this juridical idea of international politics, which is regulated as well as war in itself. Violence is circumscribed by the fact that only states can wage it, a very juridical conception. Wars are fought for many reasons, some of them being for conquests, restitutions, ideological principles, defence, some legitimate and some are not. In addition of the traditional motivations, there is the protection of human rights, as human militarized interventions have become a topic for analysis by many scholars, and in addition to the limits of the just war theory a new limitation is the one under the umbrella of humanitarian protection theory, humanitarian law. Secondary institutions are instead what we call international organizations, embodying a variety of primary institutions, to which they are dependant. The two majorprinciples according to the English school are order and justice. Order is prior to violence, as "it is a condition for the realization of other values" (Bull). Order is necessary to pursue other values and applies to both the social interactions between human beings and to the relations among states (international order). World order goes beyond interstates relations and aspires to universal value. Justice can regard human justice, interstate justice and world justice. The English school's approach takes into consideration that international relations are basically human activities with fundamental values, for which the two most important ones are: - International order: 'a pattern or disposition of international activity that sustains' the basic goals of the society of states (preservation of the international society, maintaining peace and limitation of war, principle of reciprocity and mutual recognition of state sovereignty). - International justice: moral rule whichconferiti diritti e doveri agli Stati, che possono essere distinti tra commutativi e distributivi e tra tre livelli (internazionale, individuale e globale). La giustizia commutativa si riferisce alle procedure e alle reciprocità, gli Stati devono agire secondo la stessa regola; la giustizia distributiva promuove una maggiore solidarietà nelle relazioni internazionali, secondo l'idea che la giustizia richiede una ridistribuzione delle risorse dai più ricchi ai più poveri. Credeva, come studioso grotiano, che gli individui siano titolari di diritti fin dal momento della nascita e che la società internazionale sia creata da loro. Questo costituisce la base per la giustificazione dell'intervento in altri contesti sovrani per la salvaguardia dei diritti umani. Tuttavia, l'importanza della sovranità come istituzione primaria deve essere considerata e senza ordine non può esserci giustizia. Pertanto, c'è stato un dibattito sulla preservazione del principio di sovranità nonostante l'intervento contro la violazione dei diritti umani, essendo questi due principi.which can be in conflict with each other and have been debated within the English school. John Vincent envisages two international values: states sovereignty and human rights. States are supposed to respect one another's right of non-intervention, by recognizing each other's authority. On the other hand, human beings have rights, regardless of which state they are citizens. These two values may sometime conflict between each other, as in the case of a state which doesn't respect its citizens' human rights, are the other states supposed to intervene? To answer this question Hedley Bull had conceived two main answers, which also responds to the debate among the different positions within the English School: - Pluralism: as right and duties to citizens in the international system are conferred by states, their sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention should always come first. Plurality must be preserved for order to be in place, avoiding conflict and tensions. - Solidarity: as human

beings existed even before then States did, and because they are the ultimate members of the international society, they should have the precedence over the rights of states.

However, in different times either one or the other had prevailed: during the 19th century the former had prevailed, while in the 20th century the solidarist had.

The pluralist approach aims at the preservation of order:

• keeping the promises made to other states, commitments and with reference to customary law principles (such as pacts must be guided by states who had signed them – pacta sunt servanda)
• the preservation of the situation in which the pact was signed – rebus sic stantibus
• cuius regio, eius religio, meaning that every king has the right on the faith and creed of their subjects
• the idea of sovereignty legitimized by the control of the state authority over that particular territory and population, and by the reciprocal legitimation among states

Support among states happens under

Specific circumstances and historical dynamics shape the goals of English scholars, but not systematically. How can English scholars defend themselves from the accusation of being too normative, as such goals are not always respected? They reply that such goals serve specific functions, such as guaranteeing order, which is essential for the state's habitation in the international society. This order:

• Preserves the anarchic society and the strategies to maintain it
• Guards it against imperial attempts and guarantees the independence of states

Stability is the normal condition if order is preserved, which does not mean that war doesn't happen and everything is happy. However, as long as the system remains anarchic and states remain sovereign and independent, then order and stability are preserved. This pluralist approach has a conservative nature, despite not believing that war is the norm as realism does. For the English school, war can be restrained by the law and institutions, as well as the limits that states have elaborated, and can also be legitimated.

Despite international law is important, at time gets bypassed by power-based articulation, high politics and diplomacy between leaders. The system can become a prey of attempted conquest and can also end up for some to be subject to hierarchical principles, especially when major power has extended their dominance in areas beyond western European territory through colonial conquest.

Balance of powers according to Bull: can be distinguished between simple and complex (bipolarity vs. multipolarity) and between general and local balance of powers (globally vs. regional- Buzan). Bull emphasizes the fact that international wars have declined in relation to civil wars because of the cold war stand-off between the two superpowers and the UN norms and general condemnation of conflicts; however, a third type of "asymmetric" wars has increased in numbers: revolutionary wars. National liberation wars, secessionist wars, etc. given a new "social anarchy" which has restricted the

to promoting and protecting human rights in the solidarist order. On the other hand, the pluralist ideal type focuses on the role of states as the main actors in international relations. States are seen as pursuing their own interests and engaging in power politics. In this view, international institutions are seen as tools for states to advance their interests and maintain stability. It is important to note that these ideal types are not mutually exclusive and can coexist in different contexts. The English School approach recognizes that both solidarist and pluralist principles can be present in international relations, and the balance between them can vary depending on the specific situation. In conclusion, the use of ideal types in analyzing international relations helps to simplify complex realities and understand different perspectives. However, it is important to recognize their limitations and not to rely solely on them for a comprehensive analysis. A more holistic and multidimensional approach, such as comparative methodology, is necessary to fully grasp the complexities of international relations.importante. La legittimità è garantita attraverso il rispetto del diritto internazionale e dei principi fondamentali dell'umanità, come i diritti umani e la giustizia sociale. Inoltre, la diplomazia e il dialogo sono strumenti essenziali per risolvere i conflitti e promuovere la cooperazione tra gli attori internazionali. In conclusione, la politica estera si basa su una serie di principi e valori condivisi, che includono il multilateralismo, la responsabilità umanitaria, l'uguaglianza, la protezione dell'ambiente e lo sviluppo sostenibile. Questi principi sono sostenuti da istituzioni internazionali e organizzazioni che lavorano insieme per affrontare le sfide comuni e promuovere il benessere globale.also an important component of successful foreign policy. If primary institutions do behave in a way considered acceptable in the eyes of others in the international arena, they will be very powerful, if not they will be regarded as illegitimate; legitimacy can also be turned upside