One often comes across or hears the above concepts or terminologies used in such a way to suggest a synonymy in meaning. Is the international community the same thing as the international society or do the two concepts sum up to or are still different from the international system? we often hear comments such as: the international community will not tolerate such and such actions or behaviours from certain quarters. For instance, when Iraq invaded Kuwait in august 1990, and then proceeded to pronounce the country its 19th province, some months later, the then US president,
purporting to be speaking for the world, declared that the international community will not sit idly by and allow such recalcitrance to stand. The US government then went ahead to mobilize the so-called international community through the auspices of the united nations to undo the Iraqi fait-accompli.. who or what then constitutes the international community? It may be difficult to give an answer with a pin point accuracy to this poser.
In their very comprehensive and interesting analyses of the various themes in the discipline, Palmer and Perkins sub-titles their work. “the world community in transition: 12. in their attempt to differentiate between international relations and international politics, they opine that some commentators are of the opinion that international politics deals with “the politics of the international community”, while international relations is a term “embracing the totality of the relations among peoples and groups in the international society”. It international politics, is the politics of the international community., it follows that the international community refers to the various peoples of world conceived as a unit. It equally follows that certain facilities or resources are commonly hence the struggle (politics) to control or dominate such conceived as the sum of the peoples of the world irrespectively of the nation-states to which they belong., when therefore of the nation-states to which they belong. When therefore references are made to certain behaviours or development that are considered abhorrent or outrageous, such that they are not to be tolerated by the community., it follows that there are norms or accepted standards of conduct prevalent in the community. The international community is thus a cultural phenomenon.
The international society , on the other hand, may not be much different form the international community, except that it is a social phenomenon. Unlike a “community of peoples”., it is a ‘society of states” . according to Hedley bull it “exists when a group of state (already forming a system) 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 …13 in other works, while the international community is ruled by norms, the international society is governed by rules which are mutually agreed upon, and which the states consider as being in their interests to adhere to this is much like what obtains in various social organizations and union. The moment an individual or a component of any such organization considers the rules governing the organization(charter, constitutions, covenant etc), as no longer in his or its interest, the tendency will be either leave it or work to destroy it so that another organization with different set of rules will replace it.
This was the case with the league of nations, and it is increasingly looking as if the UN will suffer the same fate as many members are becoming increasingly frustrated by what they consider as the hijacking of its instruments for the advancement of not only the selfish interests of a single super –power member, but more importantly, the violation of its rules by the some super power .
If the international society is a society of states formed members of the society to ensure that such values are not trampled upon by any of its members. But if, according to Bull, it is a conscious creation, formed after the evolution of an international system, it follows that some member-states of the international system may opt our of memberships of the international society. This could be by way of adoption of isolationist policies such as the US policy of internat9ional isolation before the early 20th century, and typified by the Monroe doctrine of 1823.
Be that as it may, we are persuaded by historical hindsight that whatever policies a nation-state adopts, by virtue of the fact that it is a member of the international system, it can only remain isolated form the international society in the short-run not in the long –run . It is therefore, the interest of members of the international society to ensure that the rules of the society are not only adhered to but respected; for the interest of the stability of the society.
Related Posts: HIS
TORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION (H.I.R)
Be the first to comment