La Legitimite, C’est Moi

REVIEW BY ANTHONY A. LOH

Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University

Legitimacy in International Society. By Ian Clark. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.288 pp., $55.00 (ISBN: 0-19-925842-2).

Legitimacy in International Society, by Ian Clark, takes a ‘‘distinctive approach to le-gitimacy’’ (p. 9) that is cast within the context of ‘‘international society.’’ The book iselegantly divided into two parts: historical international society and contemporaryinternational society. Part I looks at the major peace settlements in Europe: West-phalia, Utrecht, Vienna, Versailles, and 1945 (chapters 2–7). Part II looks at le-gitimacy after the Cold War. In these latter chapters, Clark methodically treats theissues of legitimacy: membership, consensus, norms, and ‘‘equilibrium’’ (chapters9–12).

The international society approach is, of course, the flagship of the EnglishSchool of International Relations. This school has been in a state of existentialstruggle ever since Roy Jones’s article over two decades ago argued that the schoolwas ‘‘ripe for closure’’ ( Jones 1981:1, 12). There have even been ‘‘rumors about thedeath’’ of the English School (Mendelsohn 2005:68). In the 1990s, a wave ofscholars decided to borrow from regime theory (Buzan 1993), constructivism(Dunne 1995), structural realism (Buzan and Little 1996), and international po-litical economy (Bellamy 2004) in an attempt to rejuvenate the school. To be sure,there can be no closure in the midst of all this intellectual activity. At the same time,there is also a sense that the proponents of the English School are pulling in manydirections. In particular, the publication of Barry Buzan and Richard Little’s (2000)International Systems in World History has led a number of writers (Hall 2001; Thomas2001; Sharp 2003) to defend the ‘‘classical approach’’ of the English School, in partbecause they feel that this new scholarship is moving in a direction that is counter tothe spirit and character of the original English School. As a result, there has been arevival of interest in the works of Herbert Butterfield (1960) (also see Butterfieldand Wight 1966), Martin Wight (1977, 1978, 1991), and Hedley Bull (1977), whoare the reputed founders of the English School.

Legitimacy in International Society, with its apparent appreciation of diplomatichistory, laws and institutions, and international norms, at first bears a substantialresemblance to the English School’s classical approach (even though what consti-tutes this approach is not without controversy). However, on a closer examination,the book diverges from it in three important ways.

First, Clark announces that the book is situated within ‘‘revisionist historio-graphy’’ (chapter 2). Such a perspective would be less Eurocentric and more global.It would also be more consistent with the historiography of earlier and some con-temporary English School writers (for example, Neumann and Welsh 1991:327–348). But Clark does not have a pluralistic view of international society (see Jackson2000:408; Hall 2001:937). The diplomatic history he revisits is exclusively Euro-pean. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but there is neither the historicalsociology of comparative states systems nor the study of other religions (as a fun-damental category) that are so essential in the works, for instance, of Butterfield

r 2006 International Studies Review.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishing,350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA,and9600GarsingtonRoad,OxfordOX42DQ,UK.

International Studies Review (2006) 8, 97–100

(1960) and Wight (1977:34–35) (see also Epp 1998:47–63; Thomas 2000, 2001:925,929).

The second departure from the original English School writers is Clark’s argu-ment that the criteria for ‘‘rightful membership’’ (chapter 9) have resulted in acontraction of international society. At the end of the Cold War, he says, humanrights norms and economic liberalism have been added to democratic governanceas requirements for international society membership. One might counter that thisis merely a descriptive statement, but the key point is that Clark does not seek an‘‘expansion’’ of international society in the manner that Bull and Adam Watson(1984), for instance, envisioned. More starkly, Butterfield notes that ‘‘no state issufficiently wicked to be excluded from the international order which diplomacyworks to maintain. Every state is the authentic expression of at least some aspect ofits people’s will and aspirations, and hence enjoys a measure of legitimacy’’ (Sharp2003:869).

Third, Clark’s treatment of ‘‘power’’ in general veers to the side of neorealism(structural realism). To begin with, Clark claims to offer a ‘‘parsimonious’’ (pp. 6, 7),‘‘all-embracing legitimacy theory’’ (p. 188). The book’s most novel contribution is,in fact, its ‘‘political framework.’’ Clark diverges from others (for example, Jackson2000:39) who argue that international society is a ‘‘moral and legal framework’’ (p.7). For him, legitimacy does not have its own ‘‘scale of values’’ (pp. 219–220).Instead, it appeals to three normsFmorality, legality, and constitutionalityFinwhat is a political process of legitimation. Legitimacy is the result of a ‘‘shiftingbalance’’ between these normsFa consensus ‘‘around any one point of equilibri-um’’ (p. 210). Legitimacy is, says Clark, ultimately a political practice (p. 255).

Given this foundation, it is not surprising that Clark’s major finding is that le-gitimacy is dependent on the distribution of powerFa conclusion that neorealistscould surely embrace. Of the three variables he considers (norms, consensus, andpower), the most powerful determinant of legitimacy is power. As for internationalsociety, Clark thinks of it as a ‘‘set of historically changing principles of legitimacy’’(p. 7). What he refers to as the ‘‘shifting frameworks of legitimacy’’ (p. 8) is reallythe shifting distributions of power. In other words, international society operateswithin the logic of anarchy. Contrary to John Ikenberry’s (2001) representation ofthe post-World War II constitutional order, which is stable, Clark argues that con-stitutionality has the ‘‘greatest capacity for rapid change’’ (pp. 220, 221). He seemsto equate constitutionality, an international norm, with the material distribution ofpower! He admits that this conclusion presents a problem: the assumption that ‘‘thehumanitarian interventionism of the 1990s was less a reflection of a new moralpurpose in international society, but driven largely by the more permissive distri-bution of power’’ (p. 221).

The biggest problem with this insertion of a neorealist logic, however, is that,given Clark’s political framework, hegemony becomes the personification of legit-imacy. Because legitimacy is a political practice, the hyperpuissance may back itsclaims to legitimate actions (for example, war-making) with military power, while‘‘justifying’’ them by drawing on the three norms. Here, ‘‘legitimacy,’’ which is avalue, becomes conflated with ‘‘legitimation,’’ which is a process. This duality leavesopen the charge that legitimacy is merely an apology for US hegemony. As BruceCronin (2001) notes, hegemony can be seen as an institution of international so-ciety; if sustained, it might be a critical institution for the success of internationalsociety. Conversely, Barak Mendelsohn (2005) asks if terrorists could destroy in-ternational society by provoking the hegemon to overreact and violate the rules of‘‘rightful conduct.’’

In the end, not only is legitimacy what the hegemon or great powers say it is, butinternational society itself is ‘‘nothing more than what the great powers say it is’’(Ralph 2005:30). In contrast to this political framework, Butterfield’s ethical positionis that ‘‘even the most virtuous of powers,’’ if it is unchecked or is engaged in

La Legitimite, C’est Moi98

unbridled self-righteousness, is a threat to international security (Sharp 2003:869).As for Clark, he concludes that ‘‘because this is a realm of contested politics, therecan be no direct appeal to superior international norms at this stage’’ (p. 256). Butin a realm in which there can be no appeal to central authority or superior norms,the hegemon and international legitimacy in effect become one and the same.

Clark, thus, comes closer to Buzan and Little (1996, 2000) in their assumptionsabout international systems. Rather than looking at ways to mitigate anarchy, saysBuzan (1993:327), international society ‘‘can emerge as a natural product of thelogic of anarchy.’’ By contrast, what was important for the original English Schoolthinkers is that diplomacy can mitigate the effects of anarchy, even though theextent to which this is so remains unclear. Tensions have always existed betweeninternational society and realist perspectives of international relations (Halliday1992:438; Wheeler and Dunne 1996:94; Dunne 1998:xiv). However, what Clarkhas done is to inject into the English School’s familiar affinity with realism anotherdose of neorealism.

Clark’s framework leaves considerable room for hegemonic discretion, even ar-bitrariness, and certainly manipulation. Clark is not worried because he believes theUnited States shares values with the old European international societyFand be-cause he believes in the power of international society. In the end, Legitimacy inInternational Society is an Anglo-US book. The first half is Eurocentric; the secondhalf is US-centric. The political center of gravity might have shifted to the latter, butthe two share ‘‘common values, interests, institutions’’Fwhich is the gist of inter-national society. Yet, this assertion departs from the spirit of Martin Wight, whoasked if European international society could be ‘‘a genuinely universal and non-hegemonial structure of rules and institutions’’ (Wight, quoted in Bull and Watson1984:8). Butterfield, according to Paul Sharp, would add that ‘‘if the US and Britaindecided that only a certain kind of democracy was conducive to world peace andthat they would tolerate no other systems, then the result . . . would be ‘‘indistin-guishable from a project of Anglo-American domination.’’’’ (Sharp 2003:868, citingButterfield 1960:87).

For Butterfield and others, international relations is best studied through a moralframework. It is true that English School writers have been heterodox; the schoolstands for ‘‘methodological pluralism’’ (Bellamy 2004:637). But cross-breeding withother paradigms risks diluting the school’s identity. It should be remembered thatButterfield’s greatest admirers were from the United States, among them GeorgeKennan and Hans Morgenthau (Hall 2002:720). What can the English School con-tinue to give to US scholars and practitioners? Answer: by remaining true to itsoriginal self and continuing to offer a unique perspective. What good is it if theEnglish School loses its saltiness? The idea is not to mirror the US ‘‘scientific’’ orrealist–neorealist school of international relations, which is what Bull, Wight, andButterfield had resisted. For only by remaining unique can the English Schoolmaintain its legacy and contribution to international relations.

References

BELLAMY, ALEX J., ED. (2004) International Society and Its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.BULL, HEDLEY. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia

University Press.BULL, HEDLEY, AND ADAM WATSON, EDS. (1984) The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Claren-

don Press.BUTTERFIELD, HERBERT. (1960) International Conflict in the Twentieth Century: A Christian View. New York:

Harper.BUTTERFIELD, HERBERT, AND MARTIN WIGHT, EDS. (1966) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of

International Politics. London: Allen and Unwin.BUZAN, BARRY. (1993) From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and

Regime Theory Meet the English School. International Organization 47:327–352.

ANTHONY A. LOH 99

BUZAN, BARRY, AND RICHARD LITTLE. (1996) Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism MeetsWorld History. European Journal of International Relations 2:403–438.

BUZAN, BARRY, AND RICHARD LITTLE. (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study ofInternational Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

CRONIN, BRUCE. (2001) The Paradox of Hegemony: America’s Ambiguous Relationship with theUnited Nations. European Journal of International Relations 7:103–130.

DUNNE, TIM. (1995) The Social Construction of International Society. European Journal of InternationalRelations 1:367–389.

DUNNE, TIM. (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London: MacmillanPress.

EPP, ROGER. (1998) The English School on the Frontiers of International Society: A HermeneuticRecollection. Review of International Studies 24(5):47–64.

HALL, IAN. (2001) Review ArticleFStill the English Patient? Closures and Inventions in the EnglishSchool. International Affairs 77:931–942.

HALL, IAN. (2002) History, Christianity and Diplomacy: Sir Herbert Butterfield and InternationalRelations. Review of International Studies 28:719–736.

HALLIDAY, FRED. (1992) International Society as Homogeneity. Millennium 21:435–461.IKENBERRY, G. JOHN. (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after

Major Wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.JACKSON, ROBERT. (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.JONES, ROY. (1981) The English School in International Relations: A Case for Closure. Review of

International Studies 7:1–13.MENDELSOHN, BARAK. (2005) Sovereignty under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda

Network. Review of International Studies 31:45–68.NEUMANN, IVER, AND JENNIFER WELSH. (1991) The Other in European Self-Definition: An Addendum

to the Literature on International Society. Review of International Studies 17:327–348.RALPH, JASON. (2005) International Society, the International Criminal Court and American Foreign

Policy. Review of International Studies 31:27–44.SHARP, PAUL. (2003) Herbert Butterfield, the English School and the Civilizing Virtues of Diplomacy.

International Affairs 79:855–878.THOMAS, SCOTT M. (2000) Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence

of Religion and the Transformation of International Society. Millennium 29:815–841.THOMAS, SCOTT M. (2001) Faith, History and Martin Wight: The Role of Religion in the Historical

Sociology of the English School of International Relations. International Affairs 77:903–929.WHEELER, NICHOLAS J., AND TIMOTHY DUNNE. (1996) Hedley Bull’s Pluralism of the Intellect and

Solidarism of the Will. International Affairs 72:91–107.WIGHT, MARTIN. (1977) Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press.WIGHT, MARTIN. (1978) Power Politics, Edited by Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad. London: Leicester

University Press.WIGHT, MARTIN. (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions. Edited by Gabriele Wight and Brian

Porter. Leicester: Leicester University Press.

La Legitimite, C’est Moi100