To Rethink Standards of Civilisation, Start with the End

Abstract

Many people recognise that there is a need to distinguish between states in the international system, such as on the basis of legitimacy. For much of the system's history the means of drawing such distinctions have been standards of civilisation. For some, the need to divide and separate is unavoidable; others are more critical of standards of civilisation because of the consequences that come with exclusion or the pressure to conform. On both sides it is often downplayed that standards of civilisation are, by and large, a means to an end. If we want to rethink the way standards of civilisation work and mitigate some of their more unsavoury consequences, then we need to rethink the end they are designed to achieve, which is best captured in Kant's title 'Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View'.

An international hierarchy of science: conquest, cooperation, and the 1959 Antarctic Treaty System

“…Daggett’s (2019: 2) work on fossil fuels and thermodynamics demonstrates how the European understanding of scientific progress became global, allowing the ability to harness energy through the science of thermodynamics to become a global ‘unit of equivalence through which we can compare human civilizations’. Even as civilizational standards faded as formal legal benchmarks, the ideational legacy of these standards continue to inform our current understanding of ‘backwards’ and hence illegitimate states from the ‘failed states’ discourse to the war on terror (Anghie, 2004; Bowden, 2014; Gruffydd Jones, 2013). Similarly, the notion of scientific progress embedded in these civilizational standards continues to shape our understanding of successful and modern actors in international politics.…”

Shape shifting: Civilizational discourse and the analysis of cross-cultural interaction in the constitution of international society

“…This refers to how international mechanisms and institutions are employed by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to promote the standards of a liberal economic order such as trade and financial liberalization, transparency and regulation. As with earlier ‘standards of civilization’, states that do not or cannot comply with these standards may formally remain sovereign, but may find access to important resources and institutions limited or conditional (Best, 2006; Bowden, 2014; Bowden and Seabrooke, 2006; Fidler, 2001; Mozaffari, 2002). Nicolaides et al (2014) similarly explore how the European Union and the concept of ‘normative power Europe’ establishes an ideal of ‘the good state’ premised on democracy, human rights and economic openness.…”

‘Conquest from barbarism’: The Danube Commission, international order and the control of nature as a Standard of Civilization

“…This idea of separation was shaped by influential political theorists, including John Stuart Mill. 2 Standards included basic institutions of government, the organized capacity for self-defence, published legal codes and domestic rule of law, and recognition of international law (Bowden, 2014: 617).…”