|
|
|
| The Correlation Between the Fundamental Institutions and the Notion of International Society on the English School: Consensus and Differences |
| Zhang Qianming |
| School of Marxism, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Although the concept of “fundamental institutions” is the corner stone of the International Social Theory and “international society” is the core concept of the English School, the English School’ scholars have reached no agreement on what is meant by international society. For a long time, scholars of international relations have devoted themselves to telling the similarity/difference between the concept of institution proposed by the English School and the regime theory by Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, paying little attention to the inter-connection between understandings of the English School’s scholars on the concepts of fundamental institution and the notion of international society. This paper, departing from defining fundamental institution, gives a detailed analysis of the internal connection between the two, especially the scholars’ consensus/dispute over the concept. Their noteworthy consensus is a recognition that, fundamental institutions consist of “constitutional institution” and “coexistence institution” and make up a hierarchical system in which sovereignty is the constitutional institution of international society while diplomacy and international law is something derived from principle of sovereignty. This consensus defines what is meant by fundamental institution and what international society is, and tells institutionalism by the English School apart from the regime theory by Neo-Liberal Institutionalism. Their dispute lies in what fundamental institution consists of and how they interact with each other, rather than the type of institution in Buzan’s term. These differences are the important reasons that lead to the diversified understandings as pluralism and solidarism, etc. in their understanding of the idea of the international society. The English School Scholars headed by Hedley Bull, James Mayall and Robert Jackson divided over what consists of fundamental institution, insist that sovereignty and non-intervention be the basic principles of international society; nation state be the subject of the international law and human rights not be put before state sovereignty. International society should maintain a plural order in which nations coexist and compete with each other. The second group, headed by Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheelers, believe that the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention are compatible to, rather than conflicting with, respecting human rights and international society should be a universal solidarism one that values human right and is open to intervention. The third group, headed by Andrew Hurrell, inherit many ideas from the classical school. Besides, they adopt the ideas of comparative studies in regionalism to make up for the deficiency resulting from classical school’s little efforts in regional studies and economic researches. And so they choose a middle way between traditional pluralism and liberal-solidarism to understand international society. Barry Buzan, with his unique understanding of what consists of fundamental institution and how sovereignty is related to human rights, advocates a state-centered solidarism position toward international society, aiming to reshape the English school by revising the ideas of fundamental institution, reinterpreting international society and pushing the structuring of international society. The diversified understandings of international society demonstrate that the English School is still undergoing a flourishing development in theory. The debate between the English School’s concept of the fundamental institutions and the notion of the international society provide important lessons for a world working towards building up a universal community of shared destiny for the entire humanity. The realistic basis for the formation of a universal community of shared destiny is a high degree of commonalities and interdependency among all countries and peoples. The contemporary international society has many actual common interests and is facing common problems that threaten the survival of the humanity as a whole. This requires countries around the world to strengthen international cooperation in the fields involving the common interests of the international society and the interests of the humanity as a whole, and to develop common human values in these fields. Although theoretically a community of common destiny for all humanity should take the entire humanity as the main body, advocating not only the common interests and common responsibilities, but also the common values of the humanity, the building of a community of common destiny for the entire humanity in practice must be based on this stage of sovereignty where a win-win cooperation, rights and responsibilities, common interests and responsibility can be effectively promoted. The “China plan” is signifying that China advocates building a new type of international relations featuring a win-win cooperation, to jointly build up a community of common destiny for all humanity in line with the UN Charter about the purpose and principle of sovereign equality, and consistent with the development trend of the era. It not only helps to limit overbearing power hegemony, to highlight fair distribution and exercise of interests and rights, and to promote international justice, but also to foster the spirit of solidarity, power and responsibility, to curb nationalism, enhance the common interests of the humanity. It is a practical path forward for international society that is advancing towards building up a universal community of shared destiny.
|
|
Received: 24 August 2020
|
|
|
|
1 Bull H.， The Anarchical Society： A Study of Order in World Politics， London： Macmillan Press， 1995.
2 Buzan B.， From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2004.
3 Buzan B.， “Rethinking Hedley Bull on the institutions of international society，” in Little R. & Williams J. （eds.）， The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World， Palgrave： Macmillan， 2006， pp. 75-96.
4 Keohane R.， International Institutions and State Power， Boulder： Westview Press， 1989.
5 Reus-Smit C.， “The constitutional structure of international society and the nature of fundamental institutions，” International Organization， Vol. 51， No. 4 （1997）， pp. 555-589.
6 Wendt A. & Duvall R.， “Institutions and international order，” in Czempiel E. & Rosenau J. N. （eds.）， Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges： Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s， Lexington： Lexington Books， 1989， pp. 51-75.
7 Knudsen T. B.， “Fundamental institutions and international organizations： theorizing continuity and change，” in Knudsen T. B. & Navari C. （eds.）， International Organization in the Anarchical Society， London： Palgrava Macmillan， 2019， pp. 23-50.
8 Wight M.， Power Politics， Leicester： Leicester University Press， 1979.
9 Wight M.， Systems of States， Leicester： Leicester University Press， 1977.
10 马国林： 《反思赫德利·布尔的国际制度思想》，《世界经济与政治》2015年第1期，第111-126页。
11 Jackson R.， The Global Covenant： Human Conduct in a World of States， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2000.
12 英］詹姆斯·梅奥尔： 《民族主义与国际社会》，王光忠译，北京：中央编译出版社，2009年。
13 Mayall J.， World Politics： Progress and Its Limits， Cambridge： Polity Press， 2000.
14 Holsti K. J.， Taming the Sovereigns： Institutional Change in International Politics， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 2004.
15 Hurrell A.， On Global Order： Power， Values， and the Constitution of International Society， Oxford： Oxford University Press， 2007.
16 Dunne T. & Wheeler N. J.， “Introduction： human rights and the fifty years’ crisis，” in Dunne T. & Wheeler N. J. （eds.）， Human Rights in Global Politics， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1999， pp. 1-28.
17 英］巴里·布赞： 《英国学派理论导论》，颜震译，北京：世界知识出版社，2018年。
18 张小明： 《国际关系英国学派的发展动向》，《中国人民大学学报》2014年第6期，第21-29页。
19 张辉： 《人类命运共同体：国际法社会基础理论的当代发展》，《中国社会科学》2018年第5期，第43-68页。
20 习近平： 《习近平谈治国理政》（第一卷），北京：外文出版社，2018年。
21 蔡拓、杨雪冬、吴志成主编： 《全球治理概论》，北京：北京大学出版社，2016年。
22 蔡拓： 《世界主义与人类命运共同体的比较分析》，《国际政治研究》2018年第6期，第9-24页。
23 习近平： 《习近平谈治国理政》（第二卷），北京：外文出版社，2017年。
24 王毅： 《构建合作共赢为核心的新型国际关系——“对21世纪国际关系向何处的中国答案”》，《学习时报》2016年6月20日，第1版。 |
|
|
|
2021, Vol. 51 
