Despite Barry Buzan's significant attempt to conceptualize world society, a set of questions pertaining to world society remain highly debated and are taken as central concerns to our investigation in this special issue. For example, what is the relationship between international and world society? Does the idea of world society promote or undermine international society? Does international society provide the basis for the development of world society and under what conditions? In which areas could we observe the development of a world society? Are there primary world society institutions? What is the distinct contribution of an English School conception of a world society to the study of international relations? Is world society thinking related to other theoretical approaches to the study of international relations and how? Can the normative, historical, and analytical approaches to the concept of a world society be reconciled? Is the concept of a world society the key to resolving the pluralist-solidarist debate and can this debate illuminate the concept of a world society? Do the different senses of a world society in the literature of the English need to be terminologically distinguished? These questions need to be revisited in order to advance the English School world society debate and tighten the English School's theoretical coherence and to maintain its relevance.
This article contributes a step towards the consolidation of the wide-ranging intellectual history and rapidly growing literature of international order theory. It traces the development of international order theory across three eras: 1919 and the interwar era; 1945 and the Cold War era; and 1989–1991, the post-Cold War era and rise of the “liberal” order debate. Gathering this history finds that critics in contemporary debates are deploying arguments with a quasi-polemical style similar to those used by E.H. Carr and others in past international order debates. These polemical qualities, it is suggested, may likely make contemporary debates difficult to assess and persistently controversial, even after the contemporary crisis of international order has run its course in practice.
International relations today are widely considered to be experiencing deepening disorder and the topic of international disorder is gaining increased attention. Yet, despite this recent interest in international disorder, in and beyond the academy, and despite the decades-long interest in international order, there is still little agreement on the concept of international disorder, which is often used imprecisely and with an alarmist rather than analytical usage. This is a problem if international disorder is to be understood in theory, towards addressing its concomitant problems and effects in practice. As such, this article identifies and explores two ways international order studies can benefit from a clearer and more precise conception of international disorder. First, it enables a more complete picture of how orderly international orders have been. Second, a greater understanding of the problem of international order is illuminated by a clearer grasp of the relation between order and disorder in world politics. The article advances these arguments in three steps. First, an analytical concept of international disorder is developed and proposed. Second, applying it to the modern history of international order, the extent to which there is a generative relationship between order and disorder in international systems is explored. Third, it specifies the deepening international disorder in international affairs today. It concludes by indicating a research agenda for International Relations and international order studies that takes the role of international disorder more seriously.
The international society approach to the study of international relations has advanced a distinct understanding of international order in world politics. Does this approach therefore also implicitly have a distinct understanding of disorder in world politics, too? From a close reading of this literature, and the writings of Hedley Bull in particular, I argue that a “purposive” understanding of disorder in world politics is evident, as well as a set of sociological explanations of it, including hierarchy conflict, political value conflict, and the structural contradictions of international society. I suggest that this approach is more insightful and promising for studying increasing manifestations of disorder in world politics than alternative realist approaches. Finally, I make the case that this concept's analytical utility and theoretical role in this approach is the assessment of the continued viability of international society as a path to order in world politics.
This review essay conducts and works to contribute an assessment of recent realist critiques of liberal hegemony. It finds that realists identify important problems with liberal hegemony, but also finds that under scrutiny the alternative foreign policies that realist critics offer suffer from their own serious limitations. It makes the case that realist proposals of “restraint” and “offshore balancing” avoid the problems realists associate with liberal interventionism, but would also be generative of proxy wars, while offering insufficient additional institutions, practices, and norms for mitigating and managing proxy wars and great power conflict, among other global and international challenges. From closer examination and consideration, that is, the argument is made that these limitations of alternative realist foreign policies question their ability to contribute to international order in the twenty-first century and suggest, quite the opposite, that if pursued they would instead become new sources of international disorder, albeit while avoiding some of the problems associated with liberal internationalism.
Alternative world order proposals offered by scholars and philosophers have never been adopted in their entirety, but they have at times proven inspirational for statespersons and populations in eras of international crisis and reordering. In the strained context of the Cold War, the World Order Models Project, also known as WOMP, sought to explore alternative world order models able to realize a more stable and just peace. Gathering a transnational network of public intellectual scholars, WOMP formed by far the largest and most ambitious research project of its kind in the history of the field, producing a large body of literature across three decades (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.