Dear kimikazu,
My summaries follow. If you have any concerns about my answer, don't
hesitate to let me know through a Clarification Request so that I have
the opportunity to fully meet your needs before you assign a rating.
Regards,
leapinglizard
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6: International Law and International Order
Hadley Bull defines international law as a body of rules. He rejects
the argument that it it is purely a social process, since we can reason
independently of empirical fact about the normative properties of
international law. However, he recognizes that international law must
reflect social realities.
Some theorists argue that international law is not truly law because it
is not applied by coercion, but Bull scorns this notion. Others propose
that it does feature coercion in a decentralized form because states
can individually or in groups punish, economically and militarily, the
transgressors of international law. Bull dismisses this idea as fiction
because we cannot achieve global unanimity as to which side in a dispute
are the lawbreakers and which the victims. A competing notion is that
law is defined not by coercion but by primary rules or strictures on
behavior and by secondary rules -- rules about rules -- that govern the
recognition and adjudication of the primary rules. The weakness of this
argument is that international law consists solely of primary rules,
with no accepted standard for recognition and adjudication.
Bull contends that international law must be understood as law rather
than morality or etiquette because it is practiced as such by lawyers
and governments, using the same language and institutional structures
as municipal law. He affirms that international law has efficacy -- that
it is not merely formulated but subsequently observed -- even though its
rules are occasionally broken. States habitually obey international law,
judging that it is in their best interest to do so, and make excuses when
they violate it. International law contributes to the international order
by organizing mankind into a society of sovereign states, by regulating
the relations between these states, and by encouraging compliance with
this social system.
International law must reflect the ways in which states naturally deal
with one another, and sometimes it clashes with reasonable political
considerations such as the need to maintain a balance of power. In
modern times, international law has been changing from rules governing
states to ones affecting individuals and organizations, and from purely
strategic matters to economic and environmental ones. International law
increasingly derives its legitimacy not from unanimous consent but from
majority consensus, and international lawyers are now dynamically forming
the rules rather than adhering to static interpretation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 8: Diplomacy and International Order
Bull defines diplomacy as the peaceful conduct of relations between
states by their authorized agents. Other political organizations with
world standing, such as the United Nations or national liberation
groups, may also engage in diplomacy. Diplomatic policy has evolved
from a mere exchange of messages to the formulation and execution of
a state's external policy. Diplomacy can be practiced as a bilateral
negotiation between two states, or as a multilateral conference among
a greater number of states seeking to resolve a problem together. The
existence of diplomacy presupposes a society of sovereign states dealing
with one another on equal terms.
The establishment of permanent embassies, with ambassadors who do
not meddle in the affairs of the host country, is a relatively recent
development. To be effective, diplomacy must be conducted continuously and
universally. Bull cites Callieres, a diplomat in the service of Louis XIV,
who wrote that a diplomat is ideally a professional negotiator and not
a clergyman, soldier, or lawyer. Callieres also introduced the notion
that diplomacy should be conducted rationally rather than emotionally,
befitting the advent of the Age of Reason.
Some contend that the pursuit of diplomacy by professional diplomatists
has been partially supplanted in the twentieth century by negotiations
between ministers, intelligence agents, treasury employees, and other
officials. Another observation is that relations between some states
are today so intimate, or on the contrary so hostile, as to preclude the
usual style of diplomacy in favor of close cooperation or minimal contact,
respectively. Also, multilateral diplomacy has grown relative to bilateral
diplomacy. However, Bull argues that these newer kinds of diplomacy lead
not to the diminished importance of professional diplomatists but to an
enlargement of their role.
What is true is that the twentieth century has seen the decline of the Old
Diplomacy, in which ambassadors negotiate in pursuit of common ground,
in favor of the New Diplomacy, featuring rhetorical contests in which
the ambassadors address their remarks not to each other but to third
parties whose support they seek to win. Traditional diplomacy has also
given way to international collaborations devoted to managing technical
subjects such as environmental, economic, and social problems shared by
multiple states. Furthermore, diplomacy in the context of the Cold War
has largely turned competitive and antagonistic. Nonetheless, professional
diplomatists continue to make a valuable contribution to the international
society of sovereign states by exercising their functions, which are to
facilitate communications, negotiate agreements, gather intelligence,
minimise friction in international relations, and symbolize the society
of sovereign states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
