733A40: History of International Relations
Aron Nordmark
Gabriel Uhlin
Marine Teixidor
Daniel-Alexandre Gagnon
Franziska Feigl
Anton Aloshyn
17.09.2012
Group 2: Keene’s central argument is that the orthodox account of international society is not
only a regime of toleration but at the same time an order promoting a standard of civilization.
To what extent is this true of 20th century international politics and present time international
politics?
This paper addresses the question of how the two patterns of international order described by
Edward Keene (toleration and civilization) have manifested themselves during the 20th and
21th centuries.
By the end of the nineteenth and in the beginning of the twentieth century the international
system was still to a large extent characterized by the notion of civilization that had
dominated the international relations of the colonial era. The idea of a civilizational ideal had
concretized into an actual standard of civilization which constituted the basis of the then
International law. This standard included a number of more or less subjective criteria that
states had to fulfill to be accepted as fully-fledged members of the international society. All
the standards criteria embraced the liberal European values and norms which had deep roots
in Latin Christendom. Nations that were not able to satisfy the criteria were not allowed to
join the international club of fully sovereign civilized nations and did not receive full
protection under international law.1
In the early years of the twentieth century the international society could be viewed as
hierarchical consisting of two different spheres. The first smaller one was comprised of
mostly European countries who regarded themselves as civilized with full sovereignty and
protection under international law. The other sphere included the rest of the world’s nations
who were considered backwards and uncivilized to some degree.2
In the wake of the First World War the hierarchical and discriminatory worldview as well as
the notions of a certain superior civilization started to be questioned. The rise of communist
and fascist ideologies coupled with the fact that several states that were considered civilized
had fought each other during the war had challenged the belief of the superior European
civilization to some extent. But these thoughts were still manifested in the aftermath of the
Great War and it would take another world war between the so called civilized states of
Europe before civilization as an instrument of discrimination between nations was discarded.3
The Second World War and its consequences shook the foundations of the international order
to its core. Since the experience of the barbarity of fascism significantly weakened the
European claim to represent a higher stage of civilization.4 An since, at the same time, the
peoples of Africa and Asia, previously subjugated by European colonial powers now started
demanding a right for national self-determination.
The resulting world order obviously became more inclusive due to a very minimal standard of
civilization ones described by Jack Donnelly as “Hobbesian conception of sovereignty”.
According to this view, “the whole globe had been recognized as civilized”5 and thus the only
thing required for membership in new international society was the control of a given territory
with absolute right for non-interference in domestic affairs of states.
De-facto, this meant the extending of international recognition even to some most repressive
regimes. The UN Charter as the key document of the post-war international order makes no
distinction between “civilized” and “non-civilized” nations while suggesting that the UN
should strive to fulfill some of the classic goals of civilization. However, despite this duality,
1 Gong, Gerrit, The Standard of Civilization in International Society, 1984, 15.
2 Keene, Edward, Beyond the Anarchical society, 2002, 111.
3 Ibid, 121.
4 Ibid, 137-138
5 Donnelly, Jack. International affairs.1 1998. 13
the cold war – more or less – was a period of global toleration and minimal standards of
civilization.
The collapse of the USSR might seem as a confirmation of the genuine Westphalian nationstates system with respect and tolerance of territorial sovereignty. Indeed, since the cold war
ended, both superpowers had allegedly reduced their willingness to maintain spheres of
influence. Such stance of affairs might lead to belief that the Westphalian system had never
been so strong before. Edward Keene, from his side, has brought a quite legitimate reflection
concerning the dichotomous nature of the actual international relations system. Although
Keene’s idea of a world orders promoting the certain standard of civilization can be criticized.
In this respect, it is hard to avoid Fukuyama’s “End of History” as an empirical reflection of
Keene’s idea meaning that the end of cold war is far from disappearance of global events or
state interactions. On the contrary: the emergence of new concepts like “responsibility to
protect” definitely points in that direction. Indeed, the responsibility to interfere in other
state’s affairs in case of brutal violations of human rights corresponds in some ways to
Keene’s assumption on actual international order where the certain standard of civilization
could – or even should – be actively promoted.
Quite recent international events like the Iraqi invasion of the USA primarily motivated by the
will of turning the country into democracy clearly illustrated the recurrent passion of certain
states to civilize the others. Finally, the standard of civilization could also be observed in
membership conditions affirmed by some international and regional organizations like the
WTO. While the adhesion to such institution is not mandatory, it is rather difficult not to be a
member due to market economy as a globally dominating model.
The same civilizing approach can be easily seen when it comes to European Union
enlargement criteria. Even the territorial closeness of a state to Western Europe as EU’s heart
doesn’t automatically guarantee the inclusion of the state in civilized European family. The
Turkish aspiration for EU membership has been postponing regardless its official status as a
candidate state while the former Yugoslavian countries are clearly seen as future EU memberstates.
To conclude, we believe that the two patterns of international order described by Edward
Keene have been present through the whole period of XIX-XX centuries, and do exist today.
They have manifested themselves differently depending of certain historical events as the
dominance of both toleration and civilization has swung back and forth. As we see, in modern
globalizing world the civilized states mostly prefer using some sort of common standard
developed by international community within world institutions. But unfortunately even this
global solidarity is hardly perceived as a unique shield for any country unable to preserve its
sovereignty against military invasions with assertively civilizing purposes.