INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

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  19^th   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 20^th 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.