Explore the vast range of titles available.

While scholars within the English School have increasingly approached the traditionally liberal concept of solidarism in a normatively agnostic fashion, the idea of an ‘illiberal solidarism’ and historical manifestations thereof remain underexplored. One notable case in point surrounds the peculiar body of Italian interwar international thought, herein referred to as ‘international Fascism’. By discerning a synchronic outline of international Fascism, alongside the manner by which this project mutated and ultimately failed as it transformed from a vision theorised in the abstract to a practical initiative under the auspices of the Fascist regime, this article offers historical and theoretical insights into the realisability of illiberal forms of solidarism. Combining this historical account with theoretical insights derived from Reus-Smit's study on international order under conditions of cultural diversity, this article argues that the realisation of some form of solidarism necessitates the acceptance of a substantive pluralist component. Yet messianic illiberal visions that endeavour to retain the states-system, while simultaneously asserting the superiority of one community or a highly exclusionary vision of the ‘good life’, ostensibly lack the capacity to reconcile the contradictions inherent in efforts to universalise such projects.

This article analyzes the Kurdish question in the Middle East from the English School perspective in international relations. The central argument is that the international community consistently deals with the Kurdish question through the principle of order rather than justice. It has respected the sovereignty of those nation-states hosting the Kurds rather than protecting the Kurdish population from grave human rights violations. Consequently, the Kurds have failed to achieve a semblance of autonomy, let alone independence. However, I argue that while the implementation of the no-fly-zone over northern Iraq in 1991 by the international community is a case for justice, it is not necessarily a case against the principle of order. In other words, the international community only dealt with the Kurdish issue using the principle of justice when implementing the 1991 no-fly-zone—but, notably, this was not against the principle of order. Esta investigación analiza la cuestión kurda en Oriente Medio desde la perspectiva de la escuela inglesa en las relaciones internacionales. El argumento central es que la comunidad internacional se ocupa sistemáticamente de la cuestión kurda a través del principio de orden y no de justicia. Ha respetado la soberanía de los estados nacionales que albergan a los kurdos en lugar de proteger a la población kurda de graves violaciones de derechos humanos. En consecuencia, los kurdos no han logrado la autonomía, y mucho menos la independencia. Sin embargo, si bien la implementación de la zona de exclusión aérea sobre el norte de Irak en 1991 por parte de la comunidad internacional es un caso para la Justicia, no es necesariamente un caso contra el principio de orden. Por lo tanto, la comunidad internacional solo se ocupó de la cuestión kurda utilizando el principio de justicia al implementar la zona de exclusión aérea de 1991. En particular, esto no iba en contra del principio de orden. 本研究从国际关系中的英国学派视角分析了中东的库尔德问题。主要论点认为，国际社会持续通过秩序原则而非正义原则来应对库尔德问题。其尊重那些接纳库尔德人的民族国家的主权，而不是保护库尔德人不受严峻的人权侵犯。结果则是，库尔德人无法实现自治的表象，更不用说取得独立。不过，我论证认为，尽管 1991 年国际社会在伊拉克北部实行禁飞区一事是正义案例，但却未必违反了秩序原则。换句话说，国际社会在实行 1991 禁飞区时仅使用正义原则应对库尔德问题，但明显的是，这并未违反秩序原则。

On the level of normative political philosophy, Scheler not only criticizes “individualism” in a familiar sense, but also rejects “universalism”. But then he develops the “third way” of “solidarism” as different from both individualism and universalism. Solidarism is fundamentally a kind of value-personalism in its phenomenological essence. It is to be founded both upon Scheler’s distinction between the individual person (Einzelperson) and the collective person (Gesamtperson), and upon “a theory of all possible essential social units”. Fundamentally, the so-called “third way” is first of all the “principle” of a phenomenological “meta-sociology” and of a “meta-ethical-politics”, but not a concrete project for the development of social history.

Based on biographical materials of armed militants of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and Red Brigades, this article analyses variation within the micromobilization that leads to armed groups. Three general paths are singled out: the ideological path, the instrumental path and the solidaristic path. Each of these is characterized by complex interactions between the individual motivations for involvement (micro-level), the networks that facilitate the recruitment process (meso-level), and the effects of repression on individuals (macro-level). We discuss the discoveries we have made and conclude by describing the advantages of our approach.

This article explores the theoretical challenges for normatively progressive foreign policy following the rise of populist nationalism during the 2010s, using analytical concepts from the English School. It argues that populist nationalism exposes a problem of internal dissensus on the future trajectories of solidarist international society, within the Western states that have traditionally been its principal supporters. The ‘populist moment’ reveals problems of disconnection between domestic publics, the practices, and institutions of contemporary international society, and state actions that are premised in part on ethical regard for non-citizens. The article contends that, as an interface point between rooted communities and global ethical concerns, progressive foreign policy approaches have an important role to play in ameliorating these disconnections. However, these approaches must look beyond a simple ‘re-booting’ of liberal internationalism, focussing instead on building a path towards solidarist international society that is rooted in everyday-lived experiences, communities, and identities within the state. Building upon theorizations of good international citizenship, the article advances an alternative framework of good global statehood, which draws upon a coproduction methodology as a means of creating progressive foreign policies that are better attuned to pluralism and diversity across, but also within state borders.

This study illustrates collaborative platforms and diversifying partnerships for South-South and triangular cooperation in development. The English School's pluralism-solidarism spectrum is applied as a tool to explain transformative features of the changing international society in times of crisis. The study focuses on the intermediary pluralist-solidarism phase that shows dynamics of middle power coalitions using nation branding and collaborative governance as key strategies. The transitional phase is exemplified by two approaches. One is the bilateral approach to coalition shown through the case of China, whereas the other is the inclusivemultilateral approach demonstrated through the case of South Korea. Implications are given toward relatively loose networks that have the potential to evolve into platforms with institutional grounds, especially for middle powers seeking opportunities in the new normal.

This article discusses how changes in the welfare regime are shaped by the inherited institutional setting as well as by politics with reference to the particular case of Turkey, where the former social security system combined Bismarckian conservatism with informality and clientelism. Both the reassertion of traditional forms of solidarity and the discovery of social rights as an aspect of equal citizenship figure in the currently emerging social solidarity models. The ability of political actors to defend these contesting models is likely to influence the ongoing transformation of the countryãs eclectic welfare regime.

Despite Barry Buzan’s significant attempt to conceptualize world society, a set of questions pertaining to world society remain highly debated and are taken as central concerns to our investigation in this special issue. For example, what is the relationship between international and world society? Does the idea of world society promote or undermine international society? Does international society provide the basis for the development of world society and under what conditions? In which areas could we observe the development of a world society? Are there primary world society institutions? What is the distinct contribution of an English School conception of a world society to the study of international relations? Is world society thinking related to other theoretical approaches to the study of international relations and how? Can the normative, historical, and analytical approaches to the concept of a world society be reconciled? Is the concept of a world society the key to resolving the pluralist–solidarist debate and can this debate illuminate the concept of a world society? Do the different senses of a world society in the literature of the English need to be terminologically distinguished? These questions need to be revisited in order to advance the English School world society debate and tighten the English School’s theoretical coherence and to maintain its relevance.

The convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters (Aarhus) celebrates its twentieth birthday in 2018, yet its ethical potential remains unexamined. This paper assesses its ethical potential via the ethico-normative lens of the English School of international relations, eliciting the degree of pluralism and solidarism evident. It first presents pluralism and solidarism as ideal types against which research objects are assessed. Second, it analyses Aarhus’ trinity of procedural rights, identifying solidarist potential whilst noting pluralist realities. Third, it casts Aarhus as exemplifying a nascent process cosmopolitanism, rendering sovereignty more responsible by enriching it with humanity, which here denotes a rudimentary sense of affinity between humans, irrespective of territorial identities, based on the rights shared by, and duties towards, one another. The paper concludes that Aarhus demonstrates the presence of, and contributes to, a solidarist international society, delineated by convention membership. If weaker cosmopolitanism accords equal concern to humans and stronger cosmopolitanism requires equal treatment, Aarhus demonstrates the feasibility of a stronger cosmopolitanism emerging in international environmental politics. Chiefly, Aarhus seeks to reduce imposed harm, suffered by humans who lack the knowledge and autonomy to influence decisions that affect them. Such headway is tentative, but this is welcomed as evolutionary reform coheres with the persistence of sovereign statehood. Aarhus’ cosmopolitanism, yielding a moderating influence on sovereignty, will not emerge without a stable framework in which states institutionalise it. International politics remains, but can be enriched by procedural approaches to foregrounding human rights, which states must accommodate to be deemed legitimate.

This article analyzes the Kurdish question in the Middle East from the English School perspective in international relations. The central argument is that the international community consistently deals with the Kurdish question through the principle of order rather than justice. It has respected the sovereignty of those nation‐states hosting the Kurds rather than protecting the Kurdish population from grave human rights violations. Consequently, the Kurds have failed to achieve a semblance of autonomy, let alone independence. However, I argue that while the implementation of the no‐fly‐zone over northern Iraq in 1991 by the international community is a case for justice, it is not necessarily a case against the principle of order. In other words, the international community only dealt with the Kurdish issue using the principle of justice when implementing the 1991 no‐fly‐zone—but, notably, this was not against the principle of order. ORDEN CONTRA JUSTICIA EN ORIENTE MEDIO: La cuestión kurda en la perspectiva de la escuela inglesa Esta investigación analiza la cuestión kurda en Oriente Medio desde la perspectiva de la escuela inglesa en las relaciones internacionales. El argumento central es que la comunidad internacional se ocupa sistemáticamente de la cuestión kurda a través del principio de orden y no de justicia. Ha respetado la soberanía de los estados nacionales que albergan a los kurdos en lugar de proteger a la población kurda de graves violaciones de derechos humanos. En consecuencia, los kurdos no han logrado la autonomía, y mucho menos la independencia. Sin embargo, si bien la implementación de la zona de exclusión aérea sobre el norte de Irak en 1991 por parte de la comunidad internacional es un caso para la Justicia, no es necesariamente un caso contra el principio de orden. Por lo tanto, la comunidad internacional solo se ocupó de la cuestión kurda utilizando el principio de justicia al implementar la zona de exclusión aérea de 1991. En particular, esto no iba en contra del principio de orden. 中东的秩序与正义：英国学派视角下的库尔德问题 本研究从国际关系中的英国学派视角分析了中东的库尔德问题。主要论点认为，国际社会持续通过秩序原则而非正义原则来应对库尔德问题。其尊重那些接纳库尔德人的民族国家的主权，而不是保护库尔德人不受严峻的人权侵犯。结果则是，库尔德人无法实现自治的表象，更不用说取得独立。不过，我论证认为，尽管 1991 年国际社会在伊拉克北部实行禁飞区一事是正义案例，但却未必违反了秩序原则。换句话说，国际社会在实行 1991 禁飞区时仅使用正义原则应对库尔德问题，但明显的是，这并未违反秩序原则。