One often comes
across or hears the above concepts
or terminologies used in such a way to
suggest a synonymy in meaning. Is the international community the same thing as
the international society or do the two concepts sum up to or are still different from the international
system? we often hear comments such as:
the international community will
not tolerate such and such actions or behaviours
from certain quarters. For instance,
when Iraq invaded Kuwait in august 1990,
and then proceeded to pronounce
the country its 19th province, some months later, the then US president, purporting to be speaking for the world,
declared that the
international community will not sit idly by
and allow such recalcitrance to stand.
The US government then went ahead to
mobilize the so-called international community through the auspices of the united nations to undo the
Iraqi fait-accompli.. who or what then
constitutes the international community? It
may be difficult to give an
answer with a pin point accuracy to this poser.
In their very comprehensive and interesting analyses
of the various themes in the discipline, Palmer and Perkins sub-titles their
work. “the world community in transition: 12. in their attempt to differentiate between
international relations and international politics, they opine that some commentators are of the opinion that international
politics deals with “the politics of the
international community”, while
international relations is a term
“embracing the totality of the relations
among peoples and groups in the international society”. It
international politics, is
the politics of the international
community., it follows that the international community refers to the various peoples of world conceived as
a unit. It equally follows that certain
facilities or resources are commonly
hence the struggle (politics) to control or dominate such conceived as the sum of the peoples of the
world irrespectively of the
nation-states to which they belong., when
therefore of the nation-states to
which they belong. When therefore
references are made to certain behaviours or development that are considered abhorrent or outrageous,
such that they are not to be tolerated by the community.,
it follows that there are norms or
accepted standards of conduct prevalent in the
community. The international community is thus a cultural phenomenon.
The international society , on the other hand,
may not be much different form the
international community, except
that it is a social phenomenon.
Unlike a “community of peoples”., it is a ‘society of states” . according to
Hedley bull it “exists when a group of state (already
forming a system) conscious of certain
common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they
conceive themselves to be bound by a
common set of rules in their relations with one
another …13 in other
works, while the international community is ruled by norms, the
international society is governed by rules which are mutually agreed upon, and which the states consider as being in their
interests to adhere to this is much like
what obtains in various social organizations and union. The moment an individual or a component of any such organization considers
the rules governing the
organization(charter, constitutions,
covenant etc), as no longer in his or its interest, the tendency will be either leave it or work to destroy it so that
another organization with different set
of rules will replace it.
This was the case with the league of nations, and it
is increasingly looking as if the UN will suffer the same fate as many members
are becoming increasingly frustrated by what
they consider as the hijacking of its instruments for the advancement of not only the selfish interests
of a single super –power member,
but more importantly, the violation of
its rules by the some super power .
If the international society is a society of states
formed members of the society to ensure that such values are not trampled upon
by any of its members. But if, according to Bull, it is a conscious creation,
formed after the evolution of an international system, it follows that some
member-states of the international
system may opt our of memberships of the
international society. This could be by way of adoption of isolationist
policies such as the US policy of internat9ional isolation before the early 20th
century, and typified by the Monroe doctrine of 1823.
Be
that as it may, we are persuaded by historical hindsight that whatever policies
a nation-state adopts, by virtue of the fact that it is a member of the
international system, it can only remain isolated form the international society in the short-run not in the long –run
. It is therefore, the interest of
members of the international society
to ensure that the rules of the society are not only
adhered to but respected; for the interest of the stability of the
society.