English School and Terrorism
I have discussed the definition of terrorism and English School (ES) Theory in my previous articles. The key learning outcomes that I want you to develop at the end of this period (Week 9-11) for IR431 are:
I like the book by Buzan titled 'From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization'. I ordered a copy for the Friendship library, make sure you borrow the hard copy if you do not like reading the electronic copy.
So let us ask the important question; how is the ES connected to the phenomenon of terrorism? At what point does the ES as a school of thought connect with the phenomenon of terrorism?
I will attempt to make a connection but will advise you to read widely and see what others have to say. What I will share is my interpretation after consulting various literature related to our discussion. I also have many unanswered questions about the ES.
Please do not be gullible and think my explanation is the only or correct way to explain the connection. Also, I challenge you to look for gaps or inconsistencies in my interpretation for the purpose of debate.
To start the discussion, I would like us to look at the evolution of universal human rights as a norm. Human rights was not really a big concern in the past but as the world changed it dramatically became a prominent norm.
Brown and Ainley (2005, p.208) said:
Brown and Ainley (ibid.) went further by talking about how the West used the idea of human rights as a strategic bargaining tool or used it to embarrass the East during the Cold War. They also made an interesting point that after 1989 the political barriers to the universal spread of the notion of human rights came down.
The change was also influenced by advances in technology. NGO's like Amnesty International now exert more influence than ever before. Have a look at their website or follow the organization on Twitter.
Brown and Ainley (ibid.) also stated that another good example is the increase in the number of states ratifying the six main human rights convention and covenants since 1990. Ratifications of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grew from around 90 to nearly 150 over the decade.
Furthermore, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is based on the notion of human rights. Goal 5 on gender equality is connected to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Brown and Ainley (2005, p. 221) commented that that 1990s also saw the birth of a new, more violent, phenomenon of rights protection known as 'humanitarian intervention'. They said the notion is a challenge to the sovereign states and the norm of non-intervention.
At this juncture, you have to go back to the article on ES in this blog to reflect on the distinction between pluralism and solidarism. Understanding the difference is vital in order to answer our main question.
Buzan (2004) defined pluralism as:
On the other hand, he defines solidarism as:
Apart from US military presence, the British and Australians contributed their military personnel and equipment. According to BBC, other countries provided overflight or basing rights, logistical support or assistance with reconstruction efforts. A total of 30 named countries associated themselves with the US action against Iraq.
Is the war on terror a case of humanitarian intervention? The debate is still ongoing, some argue that it is a case of humanitarian intervention while others argue against. Those arguing against state the case of French intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo which was later backed by the UN.
According to Human Rights Watch, for the invasion in Iraq, the UN security council did not approve the invasion and the Iraqi government violently opposed it. But the US led coalition forces justified the invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, a minor one was humanitarian.
From my understanding, as human beings, all US citizens have a right to life, liberty and security of person according to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights of many were violated during the 9/11 attack. Thus, the US government had to act in the best interest of its citizens in order to avoid another attack of such magnitude.
Thus, all the 30 countries who assisted the US one way or another acted in a solidarist manner. Cooperation was necessary to establish order if we look at Buzan's definition. If we look at Lawson's (2012) explanation, the collective will of the 30 states was necessary to enforce the accepted standard of behviour or respect for human rights.
What about the human rights of those in Iraq? That is another another issue we need to debate.
References
Brown, C. & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Determine the connection between the English School Theory and the phenomenon of terrorism.
- Argue the merits and demerit of using the English School Theory to explain the phenomenon of terrorism.
I like the book by Buzan titled 'From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization'. I ordered a copy for the Friendship library, make sure you borrow the hard copy if you do not like reading the electronic copy.
So let us ask the important question; how is the ES connected to the phenomenon of terrorism? At what point does the ES as a school of thought connect with the phenomenon of terrorism?
I will attempt to make a connection but will advise you to read widely and see what others have to say. What I will share is my interpretation after consulting various literature related to our discussion. I also have many unanswered questions about the ES.
Please do not be gullible and think my explanation is the only or correct way to explain the connection. Also, I challenge you to look for gaps or inconsistencies in my interpretation for the purpose of debate.
To start the discussion, I would like us to look at the evolution of universal human rights as a norm. Human rights was not really a big concern in the past but as the world changed it dramatically became a prominent norm.
Brown and Ainley (2005, p.208) said:
"Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, there was a surge of activity in the development of the human rights regime. The idea that individuals have rights as human beings which they ought to be able to claim against their own governments was established in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, but little progress was made towards claiming these rights for all people until relatively recently."
Brown and Ainley (ibid.) went further by talking about how the West used the idea of human rights as a strategic bargaining tool or used it to embarrass the East during the Cold War. They also made an interesting point that after 1989 the political barriers to the universal spread of the notion of human rights came down.
The change was also influenced by advances in technology. NGO's like Amnesty International now exert more influence than ever before. Have a look at their website or follow the organization on Twitter.
Brown and Ainley (ibid.) also stated that another good example is the increase in the number of states ratifying the six main human rights convention and covenants since 1990. Ratifications of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights grew from around 90 to nearly 150 over the decade.
Furthermore, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is based on the notion of human rights. Goal 5 on gender equality is connected to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Brown and Ainley (2005, p. 221) commented that that 1990s also saw the birth of a new, more violent, phenomenon of rights protection known as 'humanitarian intervention'. They said the notion is a challenge to the sovereign states and the norm of non-intervention.
At this juncture, you have to go back to the article on ES in this blog to reflect on the distinction between pluralism and solidarism. Understanding the difference is vital in order to answer our main question.
Buzan (2004) defined pluralism as:
"second-order societies of states with a relatively low degree of shared norms, rules and institutions amongst the states, where the focus of society is on creating a framework for orderly coexistence and competition, or possibly also the management of collective problems of common fates (e.g. arms control, environment)."
On the other hand, he defines solidarism as:
"can be used as a synonym for cosmopolitanism, but in my usage defines international societies with a relatively high degree of shared norms, rules and institutions among states, where the focus is not only on ordering coexistence and competition, but also on cooperation over a wider range of issues, whether in pursuit of join gains (e.g. trade), or realization of shared values (e.g. human rights)."Now let us look at the war on terror. According to Rogers (2008) the response to the 9/11 atrocities was unusual because it focused on military action compared with other forms of counter-terrorism. The military action was cooperative which incurred the label 'coalition of the willing'.
Apart from US military presence, the British and Australians contributed their military personnel and equipment. According to BBC, other countries provided overflight or basing rights, logistical support or assistance with reconstruction efforts. A total of 30 named countries associated themselves with the US action against Iraq.
Is the war on terror a case of humanitarian intervention? The debate is still ongoing, some argue that it is a case of humanitarian intervention while others argue against. Those arguing against state the case of French intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo which was later backed by the UN.
According to Human Rights Watch, for the invasion in Iraq, the UN security council did not approve the invasion and the Iraqi government violently opposed it. But the US led coalition forces justified the invasion of Iraq on a variety of grounds, a minor one was humanitarian.
From my understanding, as human beings, all US citizens have a right to life, liberty and security of person according to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The rights of many were violated during the 9/11 attack. Thus, the US government had to act in the best interest of its citizens in order to avoid another attack of such magnitude.
Thus, all the 30 countries who assisted the US one way or another acted in a solidarist manner. Cooperation was necessary to establish order if we look at Buzan's definition. If we look at Lawson's (2012) explanation, the collective will of the 30 states was necessary to enforce the accepted standard of behviour or respect for human rights.
What about the human rights of those in Iraq? That is another another issue we need to debate.
References
Brown, C. & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding international relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society?
English school theory and the social structure of globalization.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rogers, P. (2008). Terrorism. In P. D. Williams (Ed.),
Security studies: an introduction
(pp. 171-184). New York: Routledge.
Comments
Post a Comment