-
An Assessment Of Twitter Ban On Nigeria’s Image In The International Community
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
-
-
As a sociological concept, ‘International Community'
The kind of
'international community' that may produce collective action and
internationally accepted ethical norms may be extended both via and
against international law, but it also transcends and presupposes any
normative system based on state consent and individual interests. Even
if the term "international community" is defined as a legal body with a
purely prudential constitution, there must be some pre-existing shared
interests and social objectives that drive the creation of such a
constitution. To put it another way, community interests do not arise
from a normative vacuum, and issues concerning a legal system's
normative goals naturally come before its actual organization. If one
approaches the term "international community" from a sociological
standpoint, the emphasis moves to a more abstract level. It's less about
the function of the law and the rule of law here than it is about the
degree of human connection, a sense of belonging, and the creation and
perception of what separates "Us" from "Others." This viewpoint stems
from Ferdinand Tönnies' fundamental difference between "society" and
"community" (Tönnies, 2002), and it is prevalent in English School
debates on global society and culture (Buzan 2004: 74-76). Tönnies'
differentiation (2002: 33-37) is based on the kind of connection that
exists between members of a social group. The term "organic community"
refers to a group of people who have a natural affinity to one another.
Society, on the other hand, is ‘mechanic,' having been created to serve
the rational interests of its members. With respect to the international
context, David Ellis (2009) expands on this concept of an organic
community. According to Ellis (2009: 7), the presence of a sufficiently
developed common ethos is the critical factor in the difference between
an international society based on interdependence and an international
community: The common ethos is made up of the values and conventions
that form the community's collective identity. It generates predicted
material consequences of cultural environments: states align their
self-presentations with the community ethos and derive their frames from
it (Schimmelfennig quoted in Ellis 2009: 7).
Two major corollaries
follow from a notion of "international community" based on a shared
ethos. The first is how this difference helps to clarify the connection
between international society and international community by drawing
some preliminary distinctions between the two notions. The presence of a
logical, contractual organization such as the society of states is
viewed as analytically antecedent to the development of a common ethos
(Tönnies 2002; Conklin 2012). The presence of specific constitutional
principles for the formulation and implementation of legal norms, as
well as state agreement and consistent practices, may be used to infer
the existence of international society. However, it does not assume the
sort of organic oneness required for the development of an international
community from a sociological standpoint. On this issue, the philosophy
of the English School is quite clear. International law is seen as the
foundation of international society, implying the kind of rule-governed
interaction that is fundamental to Bull and Watson's classic description
of international society (1984: 1). However, laws and procedural
procedures alone do not create or reflect the organic "we" feeling that
ties a community's members together. This raises a slew of difficult
issues regarding the connection between the terms "international
community" and "international society." As previously said, society is
the more fundamental, and definitely from an anthropological standpoint,
preceding concept. The literature of the English School supports this
viewpoint, arguing that in order to build an international society,
there must be a degree of shared interest and cultural unity (Bull 1977:
16, Wight 1977: 33). Barry Buzan (1993) suggests that there is
historical evidence to support this view, citing Wight's case studies of
classical Greece and early modern Europe, as well as Gong's (1984)
genealogy of the standard of "civilization" in his analysis of the
international system/international society distinction. Nonetheless, he
admits that ‘international society may emerge functionally from the
logic of anarchy without prior cultural ties' in principle (Buzan 1993:
334). David Ellis (2009: 8) goes even farther, claiming that the density
of contact generated and pushed by international society is an
essential prerequisite for the formation of a shared ethos. This would
imply a derivative connection, with international society arriving
first, supplying the normative backdrop structures required for the
formation of socio-cultural ties. This raises a slew of difficult issues
regarding the connection between the terms "international community"
and "international society." As previously said, society is the more
fundamental, and definitely from an anthropological standpoint,
preceding concept. The literature of the English School supports this
viewpoint, arguing that in order to build an international society,
there must be a degree of shared interest and cultural unity (Bull 1977:
16, Wight 1977: 33). Barry Buzan (1993) suggests that there is
historical evidence to support this view, citing Wight's case studies of
classical Greece and early modern Europe, as well as Gong's (1984)
genealogy of the standard of "civilization" in his analysis of the
international system/international society distinction. Nonetheless, he
admits that ‘international society may emerge functionally from the
logic of anarchy without prior cultural ties' in principle. 334 (Buzan
1993). David Ellis (2009: 8) goes even farther, claiming that the
density of contact generated and pushed by international society is an
essential prerequisite for the formation of a shared ethos. This would
imply a derivative connection, with international society arriving
first, supplying the normative backdrop structures required for the
formation of socio-cultural ties. My unsatisfactory intuition is that
both logics are at work, and that the relationship between international
society and international community is reticular rather than
derivative: continuous interaction, enabled and facilitated by
international society's fundamental institutions such as diplomacy,
great power management, and international law, leads to, and is
generated by, international community.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 4]
Page 2 of 4
-
