Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:25:33.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The unipolar society: the value of an international society approach to preponderance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2010

JAMES PLUNKETT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article aims to reassert the relevance of the international society approach by highlighting the value it could bring to the project of understanding the effects of unipolarity. Bull's approach to war and international law as ‘institutions of international society’ could help to frame our understanding of the way in which preponderance has impacted on war and law. Examining the phenomenon of bilateralism suggests that there is also value in a more general attempt to trace the effects of unipolarity on international society.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 787 - 804
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Hedley Bull, ‘International Society and Anarchy: Introductory Talk by Hedley Bull’, paper presented to the British Committee (22 July 1961).

2 Bull, AS, p. 71.

3 Quoted in Bull, AS, p. 97. (and in the original French in Bull, AS, p. 312).

4 Hurrell, Andrew, ‘Foreword to the Third Edition: The Anarchical Society 25 Years On’, in Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), p.viii.Google Scholar

5 Bull lists three functions, however the second refers specifically to the local balance of power and so is not of relevance here.

6 Bull, AS, p. 102.

7 Wight, The Balance of Power, p. 96.

8 Bull, AS, p. 104.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 Respectively Bull, International Society and Anarchy, p. 8. Bull, AS, p. 194. Bull, AS, p. 196. Bull, AS, p. 196.

14 Bull, AS, p. 89.

15 The tension is further reduced by Bull's distinction between local and general balances, reconciling local preponderance with general balance.

16 Bull, AS, p. 194.

17 Ibid.

18 Vattel, quoted in Bull, AS, p. 104.

19 Bull, AS, p. 195.

20 Ibid., p. 107.

21 Butterfield, ‘Notes for a Discussion on the Theory of International Politics’, British Committee Paper (January 1962), Bull Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

22 Wight, The Balance of Power, p. 103. Latter quote from Buzan, From International to World Society?, p. 183.

23 Reisman, W. Michael, ‘Assessing Claims to Revise the Laws of War’, AJIL, 97:1 (2003), pp. 82–90Google Scholar ; Falk, Richard A., ‘What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?’, AJIL, 97:3 (2003), pp. 590–598Google Scholar .

24 Yoo, International Law, p. 574.

25 National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

26 See again, National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

27 Byers, Michael and Nolte, Georg (eds), US Hegemony and Internatioanl Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar .

28 Bull, AS, p. 191.

29 Ibid.

30 Bull is particularly strong in making this point in a paper presented to the British Committee in 1962, the following day reasserting his position in discussion. Hedley Bull, ‘The Grotian Conception of International Relations’, British Committee Paper (14 April 1962), Bull Papers.

31 President George W. Bush, Remarks by the President to Military Personnel (17 October 2001), {http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011017–20.html} last accessed 10 July 2006.

32 As one example among many, Greenberg, Karen and Dratel, Joshua (eds), The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

33 Ratner, ‘Jus ad bellum and jus in bello after September 11’, AJIL, 96:3 (2002), pp. 905–921 (p. 913)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

34 Whitehouse Press Release (7 May 2003), {http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507–18.html} last accessed 23 June 2006.

35 The rising significance of private security firms has produced an extensive literature. For key texts see Avant, Deborah D., The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar . Singer, Peter W., Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatised Military Industry (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar . For an interesting UK government response to the trend see United Kingdom Parliament: House of Commons, ‘Green Paper on Private Military Companies: Options for Regulation 2001–2002’ (London: The Stationery Office, 12 February 2002). Available online at: {http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/mercenaries,0.pdf}.

36 Bull, AS, pp. 179–80.

37 Vagts, Detlev F., ‘Hegemonic International Law’, AJIL, 95:4 (2001), pp. 843–848.Google Scholar

See, for example, Steinberg and Zasloff's summary of the positions on the relationship between power and international law – Steinberg, Richard H. and Zasloff, Jonathan M., ‘Power and International Law’, AJIL, 100:1 (2006), pp. 64–87Google Scholar . See also Byers, US Hegemony. Bull quote is from Bull, AS, p. 126.

38 Malone, Linda and Khong, Foong, ‘Resisting the Unilateral Impulse: multilateral engagement and the future of US leadership’, in Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy: international perspectives (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2003), p. 422Google Scholar .

39 Krisch, Weak as Constraint, p. 52.

40 Malone, Linda and Khong, Foong, ‘Resisting the Unilateral Impulse: multilateral engagement and the future of US leadership’, in Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy: international perspectives (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2003), p. 422Google Scholar .

41 Particularly relevant work in this area includes Shirley Scott, ‘Revolution, Or “Business As Usual”? Internatioanl Law And The Foreign Policy Of The Bush Administration’, in David, C. and Grondin, D., (eds), US Hegemony Revisited: The Redefinition of American Power Under George W. Bush (London: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 67–85Google Scholar . Also Ralph, Jason, Defending the Society of States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar .

42 As discussed in Bull, AS, p. 104.

43 Krisch, International Law, p. 399.

44 Ibid., p. 385.

45 Krisch, Nico, ‘Weak as Constraint, Strong as Tool: the place of international law in US foreign policy’, in Malone, Linda and Khong, Foong (eds), Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy: international perspectives (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2003), p. 46Google Scholar .

46 Bull, AS, p. 122.

47 David Kennedy's work in the increasing role played by legal arguments is particularly interesting in this regard. Kennedy, David, ‘Modern War and Modern Law’, Baltimore Law Review, 36:1 (2007), pp. 173–194Google Scholar .

48 Bull, AS, p. 122.

49 Wiseman has written interestingly in relation to the US neglect of diplomatic norms in relation to the invasion of Iraq, though this does not relate directly to the institution/process of diplomacy as discussed here. Wiseman, Geoffrey, ‘Pax Americana: Bumping into Diplomatic Culture’, International Studies Perspectives, 6:4 (2005), pp. 409–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

50 For example, President Clinton's expulsion of a Cuban diplomat for alleged spying on 26 February 2000 was followed by Cuba's imposition of restrictions on the movement of US diplomats in early 2003, itself followed by the US State Department's imposition of similar restrictions in response. David Teather, ‘US expels 14 Cuban diplomats as relations take a nosedive’, The Guardian (14 May 2003).

51 Abbott, Kenneth and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’, International. Organization, 54:3 (2000), pp. 421–456 (p. 449, n. 68)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

52 ‘Features particular to the US would include, for example, the requirement of a supermajority in the Senate for treaty ratification, which may be construed as driving a wedge between the negotiation and ratification of international legal treaties, and is a requirement not present in any other industrialised democracy.

53 Krisch, International Law, p. 388.

54 Ibid.

55 Doremus, Paul N., ‘The Externalization of Domestic Regulation: Intellectual Property Rights Reform in a Global Era’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 3:2 (1996)Google Scholar .

56 Doremus, Externalization of Domestic Regulation, p. 356.

57 Laura Carlsen, ‘Timely Demise for Free Trade Area of the Americas’, IRC Americas Programme Commentrary Paper (23 November 2005), {http://americas.irc-online.org/am/2954} last accessed 9 June 2006.

58 Carlsen, Timely Demise, p. 2.

59 Hornbeck, p. 6.

60 See Gann, Pamela Brooks, ‘Compensation Standard for Expropriation’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 23 (1985), pp. 615–653, (p. 616)Google Scholar .

61 Guzman, Andrew, ‘Explaining the Popularity of Bilateral Investment Treaties: Why LDCs sign treaties that hurt them, Virginia Journal of International Law, 38 (1998), pp. 639–688Google Scholar .

62 There is great scope for further investigation into the implications for international society of the blurred relationship between bilateralism and multilateralism. The practice of negotiations based on ‘Most Favoured Nation’ provides a particularly interesting example of the potential complexity of this relationship.

63 Emphasis in original, Ruggie, p. 566.