Description
In the light of calls (such as Anne-Marie Slaughter’s) for international lawyers to make their discipline more relevant to international relations (IR) theorists, this paper explores international lawyers’ rejection of this “one way street” of communication, and argues that the English School (ES) of IR theory and international law have much to offer each other. The paper focuses on international peace and security law, specifically humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P); and examines some key features of the ES to explore links with the discipline of international law.
Early ES theory identified three ‘traditions’ of thought within international political theory – the realist (Machiavellian), revolutionist (Kantian) and rationalist, international society (Grotian), traditions. The common values of the society of states are presented within the ES as being either pluralist or solidarist. Pluralism has traditionally been viewed as the influence of realism on international society, displaying a thin consensus on values and norms that did not stray much beyond the importance of keeping order between members. Solidarism has been presented as the progressive, cosmopolitan-influenced, view of a global society where humanity is more important than states; where shared values moved beyond coexistence to cooperation and the achievement of justice for individuals. International law is a key component of ES theory, as the tool used by the society of states to mitigate conditions of anarchy and as a demonstration of the degree of value consensus within this society. Many scholars of international peace and security law and R2P either refer to ES theory explicitly or use the terminology and concepts of solidarism and solidarity to refer to an increasing global value consensus around protecting human rights and liberal governance.
This paper challenges the traditional views of pluralism and solidarism and how these are perceived as being represented in international law, exploring the dark side of solidarism and presenting pluralism as an ethical alternative.
