Tuesday, May 11, 2021
Home World Pluralist Diplomatic Relations: COVID-19 & the English School’s International Society

Pluralist Diplomatic Relations: COVID-19 & the English School’s International Society

What type of worldwide society ought we have now? The pluralist-solidarist debate emerged inside the English college to reply this query theorizing totally different conceptions of order inside the worldwide society (Bain, 2018). Hedley Bull’s 1966 essay, “The Grotian Conception of International Society”, most popular a Hobbesian worldwide order whereby states will not be able to solidarity amongst worldwide society regarding the enforcement of the regulation (Bull, 1966). Instead, as Bull argues, “states… are capable of agreeing only for certain minimum purposes which fall short of the enforcement of law” (Bull, 1966:52). Whilst Bull’s pluralist choice of worldwide society displays a realist notion of worldwide order, it departs from a conventional realpolitik state of nature absent of worldwide regulation due to this fact accepting the existence of worldwide society. The solidarist conception resembles a Kantian world society nonetheless additionally affirms worldwide society’s existence by acknowledging tolerated ideas amongst its brokers. Therefore, the pluralist-solidarist debate inside the English college idea of worldwide relations focuses on the diploma to which worldwide society can, and extra importantly ought to, resemble both a conventional realist worldwide order or a cosmopolitan world society inside the framework of worldwide regulation binding obligations of worldwide society’s brokers (Bain, 2018).

Two frequent errors ought to be averted when partaking in the debate. Firstly, it isn’t an ‘either-or’ proposition – worldwide society is just not both pluralist or solidarist. Rather, it’s to what diploma worldwide society comprises pluralist or solidarist points, rising a pluralist-solidarist spectrum (Buzan 2004). What comes with higher contestation resembles realist, Hobbesian worldwide order with a hierarchical construction to the system, however extra settlement derives in the direction of a liberal, Kantian world society in the spirit of raison de systéme over raison d’état. Subsequently, the pluralist-solidarist debate is making an attempt to uncover which kind of worldwide society results in “good life” (Williams, 2005). A second mistake is to restrict solely contemplating normative and philosophical issues when partaking in the debate. The English college is basically an empirical idea evaluating historic proof to clarify why sure occasions/developments exist in worldwide politics. Academic information wants historic depth (Dunne, 2016). Moreover, when partaking in the debate philosophical values like the morality of intervention will not be the solely concern, but additionally sensible parts of worldwide politics ought to be thought of to clarify why worldwide society has pluralist or solidarist dimensions. Other than ideology, what else can uncover why sure states go for a raison d’état-inspired strategy to a particular dimension, and why different states are extra raison de systéme-influenced. A mixture of those frequent errors of engagement assist formulate the premise to which this essay is sure.

According to William Bain (2018), engagements inside the pluralist-solidarist debate are deployed for 3 main functions: (1) to critique a conception of order inside a normative framework, (2) a idea of change that explains transformation inside a specific order, and (3) use of empirical proof to clarify this alteration. This essay will interact with these three ideas by a up to date lens to finally conclude that: (1) solidarist order inside the English School’s conventional establishment of diplomacy (2) is topic to pluralist transformation attributable to the introduction of COVID-19, (3) which has stripped worldwide summits of its constitutive performative ramifications. This conclusion is reductionism in its purist type and derives from evaluation of micro-level interactions between state representatives at bodily summits. Ultimately, the transfer to on-line summits in the wake of COVID-19 has stripped them of their ritualistic pageantry with pluralist penalties on a solidarist dimension of worldwide society: environmental stewardship.

This essay proceeds in two sections. First, a short critique of classical English college theorists and their conceptions of pluralist and solidarist worldwide society concerning humanitarian intervention might be analysed. This part will then mission this debate to the solidarist dimension of worldwide society: environmental stewardship. Second, the essay will reply how the introduction of COVID-19 has stripped diplomacy of its performative attributes endangering solidarist dimensions of worldwide society; a very pertinent conclusion contemplating the present realms of worldwide politics. By stressing the significance of micro-level interactions at summits constitutes an empirical evaluation of broader worldwide relations. Practical parts as little as handshakes can clarify the perpetuation of solidarist or pluralist dimensions of worldwide order. To some extent, these dimensions are tough to empirically examine. This essay due to this fact turns to sensible parts as a methodological proxy to embody these dimensions of worldwide society, giving them empirical weight.

Classical pluralist-solidarist debate

A basic query connected to the pluralist-solidarist debate is whether or not we will have a sturdy and lasting worldwide society. Bull concluded in his pessimistic piece of writing, “The Anarchical Society”, that enlargement of western European society to non-European states rendered worldwide society unstable (Bull, 1977). A helpful begin to figuring out whether or not worldwide society will be sturdy and lasting is to grasp what prompted expansion-cum-instability. Membership to the worldwide society was outlined in the nineteenth century by a ‘standard of civilization’ setting situations for inside governance that corresponded with European values and beliefs. Countries inferior to this commonplace have been relegated to a subservient standing in worldwide regulation (Buzan, 2014). As the non-European world met this commonplace, western European society expanded to the worldwide, a world transformation of the nineteenth century. This is just not solely of historic significance however underlies the genesis of the up to date society of states as a figuring out consider the processes by which international society evolves. The enlargement of worldwide society is a narrative of shifting boundaries of inclusion and exclusion (Dunne, 2016). Membership of worldwide society, though based on reciprocal recognition of sovereignty, can be primarily based on varied kinds of deterministic values or pre-requisites.

Whereas the commonplace of civilisation was the norm in the nineteenth century, it’s much less clear what defines the twenty-first century. Ideational points resembling human rights, non-intervention, environmental stewardship, nationwide self-determination, and equitable distribution of financial wealth have all vied for acceptance as worldwide norms. Whether we will have a sturdy and lasting worldwide society is due to this fact a higher concern at present than it was to Bull. Western European society was cohesive however because it has expanded globally it lacks common settlement on substantive values, vital to the English college is the absence of a common human rights discourse whereby the procedural worth of non-intervention restricts cross-border armed humanitarian intervention to rescue people from genocide or epidemic (Wheeler, 1992). To Bull, this has rendered the now international worldwide society as inherently unstable (Bull, 1977).

It was humanitarian intervention which catalysed the pluralist-solidarist debate, notably following the publication of John Vincent’s 1986 e-book, “Human Rights and International Relations” whereby the language of ‘pluralism’ and ‘solidarism’ not directly evaluates the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention (Bain, 2018). In Wheeler and Dunne’s (1996) evaluation of Bull’s “Hagey Lectures” (1984), he responds to the pluralist product of justice being a home somewhat than worldwide concern by conceiving humanitarian intervention as deepening worldwide society’s dedication to justice which transcends explicit states mediating worth guidelines of sovereignty and non-intervention transmit; “states that… violate human rights should forfeit their right to be treated as legitimate sovereigns, thereby morally entitling other states to use force to stop oppression”. On the different hand, Mayall asserts that “pluralists still hold the ascendency” (Mayall, 2000:14). In distinguishing the choices between a minimalist pluralist order and a progressive solidarist order, Mayall, amongst others, opts for a pluralist conception to respect the coexistence of states that subscribe to totally different pursuits and values by stressing the significance of continuity over change (Mayall, 2000; Jackson, 2000). In doing so, pluralists recognise worldwide society is topic to alter.

This is evident when understanding the significance of establishments in worldwide society. To distinguish English college theorists from neo-liberal institutionalists on this sense is thru recognition of summary establishments in serving a foundation for tangible establishments to function (Dunne, 2016). Traditional main establishments as per Bull (1977) embrace diplomacy, worldwide regulation, warfare, the steadiness of energy, and nice energy duty, nonetheless, required amendments embrace discarding dynastic intermarriage, a bedrock of worldwide society rendering a purposeful Western Europe for a minimum of 1500 years, and a regular of civilisation the place decolonisation pressured increasing European society to turn out to be extra accepting of non-European states. Additions embrace sovereignty (Wheeler, 1992) and, extra related to this essay, environmental stewardship (Falkner and Buzan, 2014) to the college’s pantheon of establishments which knit worldwide order collectively.

Falkner and Buzan assess the affect local weather change has had on the normative order of worldwide worldwide society, accepting environmental stewardship as a main establishment primarily based on secondary establishments focussed on this norm (Buzan and Faulkner, 2014). Environmental stewardship is deposited as a recognizable solidarist main establishment of worldwide society by the finish of the twentieth century whereby “nearly all states… had accepted the need to participate and develop multilateral institutional infrastructure to discharge their duties as environmentally-responsible members of [global international society]” (Faulkner and Buzan, 2014:2, para. 10).  Secondary establishments resembling the Kyoto Protocol, Paris Climate Accords, amongst the quite a few summits held resembling COP help this argument.

It is in the curiosity of this essay to not study why environmental stewardship emerged as a solidarist dimension of worldwide society, however to clarify why it’s dropping this solidarist facet in up to date worldwide diplomacy. The subsequent part will uncover the rising use of obfuscatory language as a instrument by states to depart themselves from binding environmental agreements and excuse raison d’état-inspired locations on the matter.

COVID-19 and worldwide diplomacy

Amongst Bull’s conventional establishments of worldwide society was diplomacy, a procedural inclusion as the establishment for bilateral and multilateral negotiation between states (Bull, 1966). While English college students typically attribute company to states extra usually, they imagine company ought to be accredited to diplomats and representatives who act on behalf of a state and establishments that means. In a narrowly empirical sense, the diplomatic elite are the actual brokers of worldwide society (Dunne, 2016). Historically, diplomacy predates sovereignty in worldwide society as marked by Antoine Pecquet; “ministers formed an ‘independent society’ bound by a ‘community of privileges” (Pecquet, 1999:2). Therefore, true company of worldwide society is vested in diplomatic tradition; “that realms of ideas and beliefs held in common by official representatives of states” (Der Derian, 1987; Neumann, 2012).

State-interaction is exhibited largely in large showcases of worldwide diplomacy and worldwide summits are the biggest stage for a state to ‘act’ in these tradeshows of worldwide society. As a end result, bold agenda is commonly unveiled by state representatives to assist justify the preliminary enterprise of the summit, its expense, and to respect the outstanding nature of the tradeshow, due to this fact it’s worldwide summits which assist assess the stage of forfeiture in particularist insurance policies in favour of a solidarist notion of a substantive worth (Naylor, 2020). Summits function focal factors in the direction of which energies of diplomats are directed to provide hallmark achievements, due to this fact, incentivising the improvement of bold coverage and construction the structure of such agenda in years to come back (Naylor, 2020).

The introduction of COVID-19 stripped summits of their secondary transaction, performative aura like formal dinners and gala performances, in addition to casual interactions, projecting coverage dialogue, the main transaction of summits, to offline replicates’ sole function. Multilateral establishments like the UN, WTO, WHO, G20, G7 amongst others have momentarily moved on-line to assist curtail worldwide unfold of the pandemic. A transfer to on-line conferences, by the lens of a liberal rationalist, has little consequence to coverage final result as these dimensions are epiphenomenal and the final result is preserved no matter dialogue platform. This view overlooks the important, constitutive results of performative summitry; they don’t seem to be “irrelevant vestiges of a bygone era” however are vital parts in serving to mission summits as chic phenomena (Naylor, 2020). Additionally, it’s these vestiges which act as methodological proxies for this essay to materialise ideational values of worldwide society as they’re greater than mere aesthetics (Neumann, 2012). Assessment of micro-level rituals can clarify the forfeiture of rasion d’état-driven locations in favour of raison de systéme. Two dimensions of summits are affected when shifting on-line; (1) the position of summits in the worldwide system and (2) the conduct of worldwide society’s company.

The position of summits in the structure of worldwide politics is influenced by the dramaturgy of bodily summits elevating the summit to authoritative heights the place states are momentarily free of the pretence of sovereignty inside the worldwide system (Naylor, 2020). What is directed from the commanding heights of a summit has results on states past the assembly and the wider worldwide society. Ritualistic performances are particularly vital in the context of worldwide governance due to the various stage of abstraction and diploma of complexity concerned in managing fashionable worldwide society (J. Alexander, 2011). The larger the abstraction and complexity, the higher the significance of formality is in fostering authority, energy and standing from the current state representatives. Therefore, a summit stripped of its performative parts like these held on-line is submitting itself to a weaker position in worldwide society. Online summits cut back the event to a mere assembly amongst states which lacks this momentary freedom from worldwide politics rendering elevated ignorance of states to respect solidarity leading to self-inspired and subsequently pluralist definitions of worldwide society.

Secondly, a break from quotidian affairs not solely impacts a summit’s position in the international governance structure but additionally yields particular person results on state representatives themselves (Holmes and Wheeler, 2020). Participants in a bodily summit, while holding their exalted rank, really feel a way of belonging to a bunch with unique duties in the stewardship of the worldwide system rendering duty for the brokers to behave in solidarity when contemplating the bold agendas proposed at the summit. The significance of bodily co-presence in reaching solidarist political outcomes is the conclusion of Holmes and Wheeler’s (2020) sociological evaluation of interactions between diplomats and political leaders whereby summitry is contingent upon for his or her case research. Moreover, Naylor (2020) stresses the significance of “inter-moments” between political leaders in fostering relationships and discussing bilateral and multilateral agreements. Physical meeting of political leaders permits for casual interactions on the margins of formal conferences wherein diplomats can interact and talk about coverage, “often giving rise to significant breakthroughs in international affairs” (Pouliot, 2016). It is casual engagements between political leaders which inspires states to concede on particular person particularist approaches in help of a wider, extra international goal concerning extra substantive values – the essence of a solidarist worldwide society. “Most people see what happens in the conference rooms, but that is not the UN” as it’s corridors, cafeterias, and stairways, amongst others, which decide a summit’s outcomes (Pouliot, 2016). The introduction of COVID-19 has eradicated the alternative for formal engagements between political leaders and due to this fact rising the chance of worldwide society’s stage for states to ‘act’ to advance a extra pluralist strategy.

When inspecting one in every of up to date worldwide society’s solidarist dimension, the results of on-line summits yield vital outcomes. This was certainly the case with the latest One World Summit, hosted in January 2021 between heads of state and authorities, leaders of worldwide organisations, monetary establishments, personal sector firms and NGOs, all of which will be thought to be actors in the worldwide society as per the English college (Dunne, 2016). The introduction of COVID-19 reduces environmental stewardship to the backburner of worldwide society in favour of financial international restoration. This offline local weather summit absolutely acknowledged the necessity of fast multilateral motion to fight local weather change, specifically the significance of wholesome biodiversity for a wholesome planet but failed to deal with unilateral failures in the pursual of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) – the main reasoning behind holding the summit. Instead, additional bold environmental targets have been flirted with and obfuscatory language like “consistent with the needs of our domestic goals” and “essential to our response to COVID-19” dominated discussions which grants cowl for states to pursue explicit nationwide pursuits[1]. Additionally, failure to deal with the environmentally harmful EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is additional demonstration of missing solidarist points of this on-line summit. It is that this empty language and raison d’état-inspired coverage which general do extra hurt than good in the international environmental effort and which a solidarist worldwide society seeks to beat. Moreover, a US-representative was absent following former president Trump’s choice to withdraw from the Paris local weather settlement in November 2020, an additional demonstration of rising particularist dimensions of one in every of worldwide societies obvious solidarist safety-net. Other notable absentees have been representatives of Russia, Brazil and India. Whilst this can be a salient consider explaining why worldwide society will be deemed pluralist, it falls outdoors the realms of which this essay intends to interrogate.

Perhaps the significance of performative rituals can clarify the stunning lack of progress made at this explicit environmental summit. This is definitely supported when assessing the success of multilateral solidarity in different worldwide summits. Naylor’s (2020) examination of the G20 on-line summit hosted in March 2020 accredits the lack of ‘sublime governance’ and ‘inter-moments’ to an elevated raison d’stat-agenda, supporting the above arguments.


Therefore, it’s right to argue that on-line summitry situations particularist behaviour in what is commonly thought to be up to date worldwide society’s solidarist insurance coverage coverage: environmental stewardship. Classical English college empirically helps this argument by the establishment of diplomacy; states ‘act’ by their diplomats and representatives. As a tradeshow of worldwide diplomacy, a summit is due to this fact the biggest political stage for states to behave but the absence of performative summitry obtainable in on-line replicates renders the constructive results of summitry in absentia, conditioning extra of a pluralist worldwide society – a apply theoretical and maybe constructivist line of inquiry but a related contribution to the pluralist-solidarist debate.

In reflecting upon the pluralist-solidarist debate in the English college, maybe the software of a ‘practice theoretical’ lens to clarify why states fail to behave inside a solidarist framework is extra related at present than ever earlier than. The introduction of COVID-19 has satirically exacerbated the results of bodily summits by their absence, sorely missed by solidarist advocates. This framework is reductionism in its purist type exhibiting a departure from Waltz’ worldwide relations empiricism; the alternative for micro-level discussions and ritualistic pageantry impacts worldwide society at the maximalist stage. With worldwide summits no nearer to a return to physicality, the prospects for a solidarist worldwide society are slim.


[1] Quoted from One World Planet summit recording supplied by UN through YouTube, digital summit, 11/01/2020 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMQInK3clIU


Alexander, J. C. (2011). Performance and Power Cambridge: Polity.

Bain, W.  (2018). The Pluralist–Solidarist Debate in the English School. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of International Studies.

Bull, H. (1966). The Grotian Conception of International Society. In H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds.) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp. 51-73.

Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bull, H. (1984). Justice in International Relations: 1983–4 Hagey Lectures. Ontario: University of Waterloo.

Buzan, B. (2004). From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Buzan, B. (2014). The ‘Standard of Civilisation’ as an English School Concept. Millennium, 42(3), pp. 576–594.

Der Derian, J. (1987). On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Engagement. Chicago University Press.

Dunne, T. (2016). Chapter 6: English School. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, S. Smith (eds.) International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 107-123.

Falkner, R., & Buzan, B. (2019). The emergence of environmental stewardship as a main establishment of worldwide worldwide society. European Journal of International Relations, 25(1), pp. 131–155.

Holmes, M., Wheeler, N. (2020). Social Bonding in Diplomacy. International Theory, 12(1), pp. 133-161.

Jackson, R. (2000). The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mayall, J. (2000). World Politics: Progress and its Limits. Cambridge: Polity.

Naylor, T. (2020). All That’s Lost: The Hollowing of Summit Diplomacy in a Socially Distanced World. Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 15(4), pp. 583-598.

Neumann, I. B. (2012). At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry, 1st ed.  Cornell University Press.

Pecquet, A. (1999), [1738]. Diverse Thoughts of Man. Age of Revolution and Romanticism (27), Peter Lang.

Pouliot, V. (2016).  International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wheeler, N. (1992). Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society. Millennium, 21(3), pp. 463–87.

Wheeler, N., and Dunne, T. (1996). Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and Solidarism of the Will. International Affairs, 72(1), 91–107.

Williams, J. (2005). Pluralism, Solidarism and the Emergence of World Society in English School Theory. International Relations, 19(1), pp. 19–38.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

Leave a Reply

Tuesday, May 11, 2021
All countries
Total confirmed cases
Updated on May 11, 2021 12:32 am

Most Popular

Most Trending

Recent Comments

Chat on WhatsApp
How can we help you?
%d bloggers like this: