var textForPages = ["‡ ‰ ‹ ‘  •                                                  ‹                              – ‡ ”  ƒ – ‹ ‘  ƒ Ž     ‘ … ‹ ‡ – ›                              Š ‡      ‰ Ž ‹ • Š     … Š ‘ ‘ Ž   ƒ –   – Š ‡     — „ Ǧ   Ž ‘ „ ƒ Ž     ‡ ˜ ‡ Ž                                                           Ž‡æ  ƒ”ƒœ‹                                     ‹Ž‹’’‘  ‘•–ƒǦ —”ƒ‡ŽŽ‹                                          ‘‰Œ‹  Šƒ‰                                           ‡†‡”‹…‘  ‡”‡","Masaryk University                                             Regions in International Society                        The English School at the Sub-Global Level                                                Aleš Karmazin                                       Filippo Costa-Buranelli                                           Yongjin Zhang                                           Federico Merke                                                                  Br no 2014","1                                                                                                                                                                         3                                                       Global Politics                                        www.globalpolitics.cz/en                             Všechna práva vyhrazena. Žádná část této elektronické knihy nesmí být reprodukována nebo           šířena v papírové, elektronické či jiné podobě bez předchozího písemného souhlasu           vykonavatele majetkových práv k dílu, kterého je možno kontaktovat na adrese Nakladatelství           Masarykovy univerzity, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno.                   All rights reserved. No part of this e-book may be reproduced                or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written                permission of copyright administrator which can be contacted                at Masaryk University Press, Žerotínovo náměstí 9, 601 77 Brno.                         Pre-publishing review: Mgr. Marian Majer, PhD                  © 2014 Masarykova univerzita                © 2014 Aleš Karmazin, Filippo Costa-Buranelli, Yongjin Zhang, Federico Merke,                Katarzyna Kaczmarska                 ISBN 978-80-210-6787-5                DOI 10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-6787-2014","3                                                                                      III                  Authors                 Aleš  Karmazin  received  his  MSc  degree  in  International  Relations  (Research                Track) from the Aberystwyth University, UK and is currently following another                postgraduate degree in China in Comparative Perspective at the London School of                Economics and Political Science. He is focused on International Relations theory                (specifically English School), state sovereignty and possibilities of transformation                of the modern state, and China’s domestic and foreign policy. He works as an                editor of Global Politics.                 Filippo Costa-Buranelli is a PhD Candidate in the Department of War Studies                at King’s College London, UK, where he also works as a research and teaching                assistant. He received his MSc in IR Theory (with Distinction) from the London                School  of  Economics  and  Political  Science.  He  has  published  on  Millennium:                Journal of International Studies  and  the Journal of Eurasian Studies, and his work                on  the  English  School  and  philosophy  of  language  won  the  2014  edition  of                the  “Best  Graduate  Student  Paper”  awarded  by  the  English  School  section                of  the  International  Studies  Association.  His  research  interests  are  IR  Theory,                Eurasian studies, sociology of international relations, philosophy of language and                international history.                  Yongjin Zhang is Professor of International Politics at the University of Bristol.                He has published widely on topics ranging from International Relations theory                to Chinese foreign policy, economic transformation and international relations.                His latest publications include “International Orders in the Early Modern World:                Before the Rise of the West” (edited with Shogo Suzuki and Joel Quirk, Routlege                2014) and “International Society and the Contest over ‘East Asia’” (edited with                Barry Buzan, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).                  Federico Merke is Professor of International Relations at the Universidad de San                Andrés and Researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technological                Research, Argentina. His research interests include International Relations Theory,                international politics and security, Latin American international relations, and                Argentine and Brazilian foreign policy. He holds a Ph.D. from the Latin American                Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO), a Master of Arts in International Studies                from University of Warwick (UK). His latest publication is “Foreign Policy and                Human  Rights  Advocacy:  An  Exercise  in  Measurement  and  Explanation”  in                Human Rights Review 2013.                 Katarzyna Kaczmarska is a PhD Candidate in the Department of International                Politics, Aberystwyth University, UK and a graduate of the School of Oriental and                African Studies, University of London. She worked as a Research and Teaching                Fellow  at  the  OSCE  Academy  in  Bishkek  and  has  several  years  of  practical                experience in the field of development cooperation. Her academic interests are                the English School, development studies, Central Asia, and state-building.","1 IV                   Acknowledgements                        From the position of the author who was responsible for the editorial work                      on this volume, I would like to thank several people who commented on                      its  various  drafts  at  various  stages.  Michal  Kořan,  Nik  Hynek,  Richard                      Turcsányi, Jan Daniel, Lukáš Hoder, and Petr Manoušek contributed with                      their valuable reflections. The publication was developed as a new kind of                      project within Global Politics journal and transformed from the initial idea                      of a journal special issue into this book publication. Global Politics' editorial                      team was involved in the evolution of the project from its beginning to the                      very last stage and, thus, I am indebted to all my colleagues on the editorial                      board who directly or indirectly helped with the project in any way.                                                                            Aleš Karmazin                         The authors of this volume declare that they are wholly responsible for the                      following text, including any possible inaccuracies or mistakes in the indi-                      vidual chapters they authored.","IV                                                                                  V                   contents                  1  Introduction: English School Investigations at the Regional Level   1                   Aleš Karmazin                 2  The English School and Regional International Societies:                   Theoretical and Methodological Reflections                        22                   Filippo Costa-Buranelli                 3  Towards a Regional International Society:                   Making Sense of Regionalism(s) in East Asia                       45                   Yongjin Zhang                 4  Unpacking South American International Society:                   A Historical Sketch                                               68                   Federico Merke                  APPENDIX                   Questioning Regional International Society in Central Asia        88                   Katarzyna Kaczmarska","1                                                                                                                                                                         2                  1      Introduction: English School Investigations                       at the Regional Level                                                                          Aleš Karmazin                     The presented book is concerned with the English School (ES) of International                Relations  (IR)  and  its  approach  to  regions  in  international  politics.  The  ES                has  understood  international  society,  which  is  its  key  concept,  to  be  globally                homogeneous  and  to  be  sharing  the  same  characteristics  at  least  as  far  as  the                most  fundamental  ones  are  concerned.  This  prevailing  understanding  of  the                global level of international society as highly coherent has been contested as it has                obscured regional variations and specifics. This volume aims to (1) highlight the                gap between the perception that international society is globally homogeneous                and the current state of international society, (2) to develop the emerging issue                of the ES’ analysis of the regional level and (3) provide empirical examinations                of three regions, namely, East Asia, South America and Central Asia, which have                                                                                    1                not been much analyzed at the sub-global level in the existing ES scholarship.  Or                in more general terms, this volume investigates regions from the ES perspective,                develops (theoretical) frameworks and ways for studying regions, and provides                critical explorations of the ES at the regional (sub-global) level.                   The recent proliferation of contemporary ES scholarship has been preceded                and facilitated by growing interest in this theoretical tradition during the 1990s.                During the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, the ES was little known outside of                the British IR epistemic community. During the second half of the 1990s and 2000s,                however, the ES became increasingly recognizable as a contending approach to                theorizing IR, thanks to a series of conscious efforts by a group of scholars that                included, among others, Andrew Hurrell, Tim Dunne, Robert Jackson, Hidemi                Suganami, Andrew Linklater, Barry Buzan and Richard Little. It is Tim Dunne                and Barry Buzan who have perhaps done the most for the promotion of the ES.                Dunne  dedicated  his  doctoral  thesis  (published  as  a  book  in  1998,  see  Dunne                1998) to exploration of the history of the ES and has continued to advance the ES                afterwards. Buzan argued for the theoretical promise and potential of the ES at                the 1999 British International Studies Association conference and subsequently                issued  a  call  to  revive  the  ES  through  his  2001  article  (Buzan  2001).  He  has                been inspirational in the last decade or so for the global diffusion of the ES as                a theoretical tradition.                  1   Thanks to the volume edited by Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez (2009), the region which                    has been studied most comprehensively is the Middle East. Barry Buzan, this time with Yongjin                    Zhang who authored a part of this book, are currently preparing another extensive piece focused                    on East Asia (Buzan and Zhang forthcoming). Europe is another region which received greater                    deal of attention (Czaputowicz 2003, Diez and Whitman 2002, Stivachtis and Webber 201, Sakwa                    2011). Other regions were analyzed only limitedly at best.","2                     The efforts of the aforementioned scholars have led to rich production of ES                scholarship as well as to growing connections between the ES and other theoretical                perspectives. Current ES debates clearly demonstrate that the ES is not and does                not aim to be a mere compromise between realism and liberalism as sometimes                claimed (comp. Dunne 2008: 268, Weber 2005: 56). The ES has always included                different types of inquiry which becomes more apparent during the 2000s when                the ES broadened and widened its scope. Despite this, or perhaps because of this,                it is possible to unveil a minimal definitional core of the ES. The main claim of                the ES is that international politics and relations among states are embedded in                a societal environment. Just like people form and are formed by society, states (and                other actors) form and are formed by international (second-order) society. This                second-order society exceeds domestic society and, like its domestic counterpart,                has  own  norms,  both  formal  and  informal  institutions,  culture  and  power                relations. The ultimate ES question, hence, is to understand international society                and its actors, processes, structure, institutions, norms and functions (Buzan 2004:                1, Dunne 1998).                   One key question, which is a consequent follow-up of the ES’ fundamental                focus on international society, is if and how such second-order societies exist not                only at the global level, but also at the sub-global (regional) level. For a long time,                the ES overlooked the existence of regional groupings and their normative and                institutional specifics. Although this gap has recently started being addressed, the                topic is still underexplored. In this context, it is necessary to note that the “regional                topic” is not so new. The ES conducted some investigations on regions previously,                                            th                usually dealing with the pre-20  century world (espec. Bull and Watson 1984).                                                                                       2                This line of investigations was not continued, however, after the early 1990s.  This                                                                                   3                book critically engages the ES in another way. The ES was satisfied (and perhaps                continues to be satisfied) with a simple composition (or structure) of international                society which means that the ES elaborates on institutions of international society,                but it often does not pay close attention to their mutual relationship (for more                details see the next section) or to the existence of other specific constituents of                international  society  like  regions.    Regions  should  be  apparently  considered                as parts of international politics and its structure and composition. Hence, this                paper  questions  the  prevailing  ES  view  (which  does  not  incorporate  regions)                and indicates the need for a new one (which would take regional dynamics into                account).                   Although this book develops a debate within the tradition of the ES, its con-                tribution is not without relevance outside this theoretical approach. It is directly                relevant to two other groups. Firstly, the book should deliver more understanding                to area specialists. The ES approach helps to bring regional character of issues like                sovereignty and diplomacy into light. Secondly, through examination of different                 2   I call these previous efforts the first wave of regional research while current ES regional research is                    labeled as the second wave.                3   Watson´s book (1992) on societies of states from Sumer to the contemporary global international                    society can be regarded as the last piece of the first wave of regional research.","3                                                                                                                                                                         4                  regional settings, the volume contributes to understanding of the contemporary                global order. Much has been said about the decline of the USA and the West on the                one hand and the rise of emerging powers (mainly from Asia) on the other. Since                the dynamics of this change (whether real or alleged) has a regional basis, looking                at regions seems to be necessary and imperative.                    The rest of this chapter, which has the character of an editorial introduction,                is  divided  into  three  parts  and  proceeds  as  follows.  The  first  part  introduces                intellectual terrain of the ES to those readers who are not closely familiar with                this theoretical approach. It is done so with respect to the current trends and to                the  topic  of  regions.  The  second  part  summarizes  and  analyses  development                of ES views on regions. This step is important because a coherent elaboration                on  the  development  of  the  topic  was  missing.  Different  waves  and  stages  of                development and their characteristics are discussed. The third part explains this                volume’s rationale and basic characteristics. It also introduces the rest of the book,                defines its concrete goals and provides a basic conceptual ground.                   Re-Emergence of the English School: Topics and Intellectual Terrain                 This section presents two specific topics which are quite characteristic, although                                                                      4                not completely unique, of the current development of the ES.  Both help to situate                the revival of the ES and contextualize the topic of regional international societies.                As a part of its revival, the ES has developed a debate between pluralism and                solidarism.  The  origins  of  this  first  significant  topic  are  derived  from  Wight’s                seminal article (1960) where he asked why IR does not have theories which would                give answers on what international politics should be like while domestic politics                have such theories of “good life”. Trying to deal with this, he distinguished three                         5                traditions   which  are  relevant  for  answering  this  question  and  which  contain                seeds of a pluralist and solidarist view (Wight 1991). The distinction between these                two orientations was fully introduced later on (Bull 1966). Pluralism emphasizes                a state-centric international society and positivist international law and can be                likened to realism. Solidarism, on the other hand, emphasizes cosmopolitan values                in international society, natural law and can be likened to liberalism (Buzan 2004:                45-62, Linklater and Suganami 2006: 59-74, Mayall 2000).                   After the end of the Cold War, the pluralist – solidarist debate has focused,                among  others,  on  possibilities  and  justification  of  humanitarian  interventions.                As this issue has become one of the crucial topics of IR, it helped the ES to get                involved  with  mainstream  debates.  The  topic  of  humanitarian  interventions                was comprehensively discussed by classical ES scholars as early as during 1970s                4   It is not possible to say that the ES was concerned by the topics mentioned in this paragraph only.                    There have always been various research topics more or less related together or centered around                    the core ES claims. The paragraph examines two broad issues which may be regarded as distinc-                    tive for this time period.                5   He developed his discussion in a slightly different way later on (see espec. Wight 2005,  the book                    collected and published after Wight’s death).","4                  (Vincent 1974). However, it was only after the end of the Cold War and succession                of  new  generations  of  ES  scholars  when  cardinal  arguments  for  humanitarian                interventions (i.e. a clearly solidarist stance) started to be forcefully articulated.                Solidarists aim to propose an intentionally normative vision to justify humanitarian                interventions. As aptly expressed by the title of the key solidarist piece, their goal                is “saving strangers” (Wheeler 2000). Solidarism draws some inspiration from                the Christian tradition and is mainly rooted in the Western liberal tradition of                                                    6                thinking (Knudsen 1997, Wheeler 1992).  Contrary to this, pluralists claim that                solidarism  is  too  ethnocentric  and  projects  Western  liberal  visions  onto  other                cultures. The goal, thus, should be to guarantee greatest possible sovereignty of                cultural frameworks in international politics (Jackson 1992, 2000).                   Although pluralism intentionally brings topic of cultural differences into light,                it has not coherently connected this theme with regional aspect of the international                society. In spite of this, pluralists managed to produce important works tackling                a  common  ES  view  that  the  most  important  (primary)  institutions  are  evenly                shared  across  the  contemporary  globalized  international  society  (e.g.  Jackson                1992).  Bearing  in  mind  that  primary  institutions  and  international  society  are                mutually constitutive, there is just a small step towards highlighting the existence                of particular regional international societies.                   The second topic, or rather an area of interest, is a broader one and relates                to what could be called composition and structure of international society. This                could  be  tentatively  divided  into:  (A)  a  specification  of  the  ES’  classical  triad                (international system – international society – world society), (B) a composition of                international society itself, (C) the topic of regional international societies which is                a part of this broad topic as much as it is a stand-alone question. One of the main                analysts of all the three sub-topics is Barry Buzan (espec. 2004).                   (A) The ES (most notably Bull 1977) differentiated between three ideal types of                how a second-order level of politics can work. International system is preoccupied                with power-political mechanisms. International society exists as a grouping of norms,                institutions and states as main actors. World society requires inclusion of non-state                actors  and  cultural  and  normative  framework  among  them.  The  ES  mainstream                chiefly focused on analysis of international society while world society was almost                completely  overlooked  during  the  Cold  War  period.  World  society  has  recently                                                               7                received more attention from three different angles. Firstly, solidarists devoted more                attention to this term as it is connected with their vision of cosmopolitan world (see                above). Secondly, a broader interest to examine this topic is more apparent (Clark                2007). Thirdly, some want to clarify a position and role of world society within the                classical triad of international system, international and world society (Buzan 2004,                Little 2000, comp. Linklater and Suganami 2006: ch. 3, Keene 2009, Pella 2013).                   (B)  Unlike  the  prominent  solidarist-pluralist  debate  and  the  discussion  on                (A), which was cultivated and developed in the last decade or so, the issue of                composition  of  international  society  has  been  avoided  to  some  extent.  Firstly,                6   This, however, does not mean that all solidarist efforts or actions need to embrace liberal values.                7   John Vincent (1974, 1978, 1992) was an eminent exception.","5                                                                                                                                                                         6                  we  lack  a  systematic  and  comprehensive  elaboration  on  institutions  of  the                contemporary  international  society.  Secondly,  one  can  intuitively  suspect  and                expect that institutions of international society are not of the same importance.                However, the ES is usually concerned with neither delineating mutual relationship                between particular institutions, nor their relative importance. Buzan (2004: ch. 6)                summarized works of others to get at least a basic image of hierarchy between                primary institutions, but the most developed and sophisticated work was released                by Reus-Smit (1999) who managed to connect normative background of politics,                primary and secondary institutions.                   (C) In the Cold War period, the ES produced some historical works on non-                Western regional societies before their inclusion into the current global (Western-                led) international society (Bull and Watson 1984, Watson 1992, Gong 1984). But                neither did these authors examine regional formations within the current global                international society, nor did they understand regional international societies as                operating at the sub-global level. As I argue and show later on, this first wave of                regional research does not constitute an inception of a possible solution to the lack                of regional research within the ES, but it is rather a part of the problem.                   The  new  awareness  of  sub-global  (regional)  international  societies  (the                second wave of regional research) was prefigured by Mohammed Ayoob’s (1999)                comprehensive article on the topic which was, however, not followed by a direct                increase in regional research. Although he clearly linked his article with the ES                tradition, Ayoob has been on the fringe of the ES which seems to be the reason why                he did not manage to stimulate further investigations. In 2002, another pioneering                paper appeared when Yongjin Zhang delivered his contribution called “Towards                a Regional International Society? Making Sense of Regionalism(s) in Asia” at the                International Studies Association Convention. We are lucky to present an updated                version of this paper as a part of this volume (chapter 3). Zhang combines an                outline of the new research program with an analysis of a specific region. One of                the most influential impetuses is provided in Barry Buzan’s re-elaboration of the                ES, which leads him, among others, to take regions as a topic from his previous                research and put it on the ES table (Buzan 2004). Since then, Barry Buzan has been                the main vanguard figure of this topic and his leading role has been confirmed                by  two  edited  volumes  (Buzan  and  Gonzalez-Pelaez  2009,  Buzan  and  Zhang                forthcoming). Another strong line of regional research is developed in Andrew                Hurrell’s works. His attention to regions and the ES are connected and appear and                in his magnum opus (2007a) and, even more explicitly, in other papers (2007b).                   Regional International Societies as a Topic for the English School                  It has already been indicated that there are two waves of ES regional research. The                first wave was interested in regional international societies before the emergence                of the current global international society. An overview of the main works of the                second wave has been provided in the previous paragraph. This section argues","6                  and shows that the first wave of the ES publications on regions tended to preclude                further  research  on  regional  international  societies.  Then  the  section  proceeds                to show which influences led to the revival of the topic and that the influences                originated largely outside the ES. Finally, the current stage of development of the                second wave is examined.                   The First Wave of Regional Research                 The first wave of ES regional research was interested in historical investigations on                international societies in different cultural contexts (most frequently the Middle                East, South and East Asia, and Europe). The first wave can be understood with the                                                                                 8                help of three key books (Bull and Watson 1984, Watson 1992, Gong 1984)  which                are all based on the same narrative with the following steps. They analyze: (1)                international societies across the world before the existence of a global international                society; (2) their subsequent incorporation into the European international society                                                                          th                which originated along with European modernity (roughly the 16  – 18  century)                                                                               th                and  which  became  global  after  it  had  managed  to  incorporate  non-European                societies;  and  (3)  the  emergence  of  the  global  international  society  which  has                diminished the importance of regions to minimum.                   These  books  describe  socialization  of  the  non-Western  into  the  West  and                disappearance of the non-Western element. The story ends with transformation                of  outsiders  into  insiders  and  with  a  strong  teleological  moment  of  Western                universalization. The subsequent global international society is then understood                as  even  and  homogeneous  because  all  alien  and  non-Western  elements  are                suppressed.  Geographical  and  societal  composition  of  the  global  international                society is flat as everything is absorbed into one global layer. This description given                by the first wave was correct only to some extent and only for a limited period                of  time.  Even  during  the  Cold  War,  there  were  important  regional  deviations                (decolonization or regional integrations) which indicated that the vision cannot be                completely accurate. A major problem related to this narrative of the first wave of                regional research, however, is that the main part of the ES adopted this story as an                answer to how the current international society was created and as an assumption                which stands beyond its research about the current international society. Thus,                there was no need to conduct analyses of the regional dimension because this                issue was understood as solved and irrelevant at the same time.                   Inceptions of a New Regional Research: Influences from Inside and Outside                  Mainly outside influences helped to break the ES’ assumption of a homogeneous                and “non-regional” world. The rise of regions as a new agenda for analysis has                 8   Wight’s work (1977) can be partly added too.","7                                                                                                                                                                         8                  been obviously facilitated by enhancement of regional integrations, regionalization                of the world and rise of some non-Western regions. However, these real world                trends do not seem to influence the ES directly and immediately. Deepening or                widening of regional integrations took place during the 1990s in Europe, East                Asia and the Americas without having an evident impact on the ES. Quite the                contrary, the ES was inspired by intellectual development in other fields. The first                trend, which is also the most general and the most powerful force, exceeds IR and                is connected with a broader political-ideological constellation. For some part of                the 1990s, it could have seemed we did experience an ideological end of history                with the final victory of neo-liberal globalization which, however, proved wrong                and credibility of non-(neo)liberal alternatives to globalization gradually entered                into mainstream circles (comp. e.g. Rupert 2000, Mittelman 2004).                   Academic  influences  come  from  three  different  directions:  (1)  post-colonial                theory,  (2)  quite  broad  literature  on  regionalism  (new  regionalism),  and  (3)                security  studies.  (1)  Post-colonialism  was  brought  into  the  ES  by Ayoob  who                connected  these  two  approaches  and  based  his  article  (1999)  concerned  with                regional international societies on them. Although other encounters between the                ES and post-colonialism were not very close, some inspirations which (directly or                indirectly) came from post-colonialism to the ES can be traced or sensed (see e.g.                Acharya and Buzan 2010, Bellamy 2005, Jackson 1992, Keene 2002, Linklater 1998,                2007). Compared to the following two trends, this influence is the most culturally                sensitive. (2) New regionalism whose existence tends to be demarcated by various                dates but which, as a coherent body of literature, has existed since the late 1990s                has had an important impact too. Despite its central prominence in the research                on  regions,  new  regionalism  remains  a  source  of  rather  indirect  inspiration.                However, Zhang’s early 2000s expression (see chapter 3) of the need to investigate                regional international societies was based on this influence. (3) Security studies                and Barry Buzan as one of its main representatives (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde                1997, Buzan and Wæver 2003) became aware of the crucial importance of regions.                When  Buzan  started  engaging  with  the  ES  (comp.  Buzan  1993),  he  continued                developing his focus on regions.                   These influences helped to set the new agenda of regions within the ES, but                have  not  created  specific  interconnected  nexuses  of  the  ES-regionalism,  ES-                postcolonialism or ES-security studies through which research on regions would                be conducted. The most eminent exception is Barry Buzan who connected his                interest in security studies, regions, social structuralism (and others) into a new                research agenda which is one of the dominant approaches to ES regional research                at the moment (see espec. Buzan 2004, Buzan and Gonzalez-Pelaez 2009). The                Buzanian path will be more closely discussed in the third section.                   Certain studies (Clapham 1996, Grovogui 2002, Krasner 2001) which worked                on the fringe of the ES realized that characteristics and institutions of the current                international society are not evenly distributed. These authors did not link their                arguments and observations with the existence of regional international societies,                though. The ES pluralist works (discussed previously) can be generally added","8                  into this group. From the heart of the ES, two academics were struck with a missing                                  9                regional dimension . Both of them arrived to this persuasion differently. Keene                (2002) articulated a rather theoretical dissatisfaction with the ES conception of                international society related to civilizations, colonial legacy and global composition                of norms. However, the articulation of the regional dimension was a by-product                of his research. For Hurrell (1995), on the contrary, the important role of regions in                world politics was a result of his empirical observations which he has continued                to improve and deepen afterwards (2007a, 2007b).                   The Second Wave and the Current State of Research                 In  order  to  illustrate  the  second  wave  of  research  on  regional  international                societies, it may be useful to summarize its current stage of development and to                look at potential room for improvement. The second wave focused, until recently,                on  defining  main  questions  and  issues  related  to  international  societies  at  the                regional level, articulation of the topic, and investigations on particular regional                societies  and  their  norms,  institutions  or  characteristics.  This  investigation  is                usually conducted through synchronic stand-alone case studies.                   As  it  is  typical  for  academic  inquiry,  there  are  possibilities  for  developing                a further stage of research. As we can see its inceptions nowadays – the last section                of this chapter should indicate some of these inceptions within this publication                – we should not draw strong boundaries between the “current” stage and the                “further” stage. The distinction serves rather as an illustrative example and it                works with a certain level of simplification. The further stage should potentially                be able to understand and analyze subsidiarity of norms between the regional                and  global  levels  and  coexistence  of  different  (and  potentially  contradicting)                forms of the same institutions which are present at both global and regional levels                (like sovereignty). Another potential task lies in inter-regional comparisons and                especially in understanding normative and institutional dynamics in inter-regional                dynamics. At the same time, the ES regional research would highly benefit from                exploring dynamics between regions and regional international societies as both                these entities may have different background, development and manifestations.                A specifically important question is whether (regional) international societies can                overlap. If so, what happens to the norms and institutions of such overlapping                regional  societies?  Are  there  any  specific  societal  outcomes  when  norms  and                institutions  which  exist  in  different  forms  in  different  regional  international                societies  come  to  interact  together?  Understanding  the  dynamics  between  the                global and the regional element, between different regions and within one region                is necessary for the ES to engage critically and more thoroughly with second-                order societies at both global and regional level.                   9   Others’ works are aware of the issue only partially (like e.g. Suganami 2002).","9                                                                                                                                                                        10                  The first and second wave of regional research                    Terminology of this    When the research     Characteristics of the                 book                   conducted?            research                    First wave             Late 1970s –          Analyzing separate regional                                        early 1990s           societies before the emergence                                                              of the global international                                                              society                  Second wave            Late 2000s, early 2010s   Analyzing regional societies                                        and onwards?          as sub-global phenomena;                                        (this publication takes   Mainly (synchronic) case                                        notice of the state of   studies                                        research until 2013)                   Characteristics of This Volume                 Goals of the Volume                  This  book  brings  together  five  authors  (including  the  author  of  the  appendix                chapter) – each responsible for one of the chapters – whose particular approaches                are comprised of both similarities and differences. This section tries to highlight                common themes (or themes which could be used for a basic comparative reading                between  the  chapters)  while  each  author’s  chapter  will  unveil  some  differences                later on. As stated at the very beginning, this volume explores regions from the ES                perspective, develops (theoretical) frameworks and ways for studying regions in                international society, and provides critical explorations of the ES at the regional (sub-                global) level. More concretely, this volume wants to (1) highlight a gap between the                perception that international society is globally homogeneous and the current state                of international society; (2) develop the issue of regional (sub-global) international                societies; and (3) empirically examine regions which have not been much analyzed                through  the  perspective  of  international  society  at  the  sub-global  level.  The                volume’s investigations and its goals can be juxtaposed with Buzan’s version of the                ES. The question why a discussion with Buzan is highlighted deserves a few more                words. Buzan’s approach to the regional level is one of the most developed and                dominant ones within the ES. Buzan made a very strong argument for regions to                become a new topic of the ES investigation in 2004. In 2009, he with other colleagues                produced the most detailed empirical contribution on the topic so far. In 2012, he                spoke about the topic on behalf of the ES and offered a summary of it to a broader                audience (Buzan 2004, Buzan and Gonzalez-Pelaez 2009, Buzan 2012).","10                     Buzan, a synthetist by inclination and a taxonomist in his ES research mission,                proposes a new version of the ES which incorporates his previous interests in                the debates about structuralism in security studies and social sciences. He turns                international  society  into  a  set  of  concepts  and  analytical  categories  which                are  universally  applicable  to  analyzed  cases  (including  regions  or  regional                international  societies).  This  volume  does  not  question  Buzan’s  contribution                and  its  importance.  However,  it  undertakes  ways  of  exploration  which  differ                from  that  of  Buzan  in  some  aspects. At  some  points,  the  volume  emphasizes                a more emic perspective and perhaps stronger connections between phenomena                (norms, institutions etc.) and political practice. To make sure, this book does not                aim to reject Buzan’s approach but wants to show other possibilities, ways or                frameworks  of  research.  Each  of  the  volume’s  authors  develops  his/her  own                angle of how to look at his/her case. Some of them point to certain weaknesses in                Buzan’s approach (espec. chapter 2 and appendix), while others (espec. ch. 4) are                not so distant from it.                   This Volume within the English School Terrain                 Except for this one, the book consists of other three chapters and one addendum                chapter. The following chapter develops and deepens theoretical discussion on the                topic of international societies at the sub-global level while other contributions are                primarily focused on particular regions (East Asia, South America, Central Asia).                None of these regions has been comprehensively examined from the perspective                of regional international societies until now and, thus, the three chapters provide                                                             10                some  of  the  first  steps,  findings  and  conclusions .  Besides  having  a  separate                theoretical  elaboration  on  regional  international  societies  (chapter  2),  each  of                the empirically-focused chapters contains its own theoretical discussion as the                theoretical chapter of the book cannot address all possible points, as its goal is                not to provide a direct and strict framework for analysis, and as each empirical                chapter chooses a slightly different way of exploration. This format helps authors                to follow their points of view and arguments, to show and develop varieties of                directions the ES can incorporate, and to indicate a certain degree of theoretical                pluralism. Pluralism is sometimes mentioned as one of the crucial signs of the                ES which, however, does not mean that the ES is a free space without theoretical                demarcations. A specification of this publication’s position within the ES follows.                   The second chapter by Costa-Buranelli develops a theoretical discussion on                a triangle of novelty of the topic, institutions at the regional level, and methodologi-                cal questions. The questions of novelty of the topic and institutions help to show                how  dynamics  of  formation  of  international  societies  and  institutions  at  the                regional level can be grasped. This is oriented to a more dynamic understanding                of global-regional, inter-regional, and intra-regional relations which has not been                10   Southeast Asia has already been analyzed by Quayle (2010). Although using the ES, Quayle has                    largely focused on civil society within this region.","11                                                                                                                                                                       12                  fully developed within the ES regional perspective. The question of methodology                unfolds a dialogue with Barry Buzan. Other papers can be characterized as (mainly)                synchronic  studies  focused  on  particular  regional  societies.  The  third  chapter                is  written  by  Zhang  who  originally  developed  his  text  as  a  conference  paper                in 2002 with the aim to break silence about regional dimension of international                society. Although his text is updated by a new part, the paper contains an original                discussion of the topic including some theoretical points, which were necessary to                illuminate the topic ten years ago. The original conference paper and this book's                chapter serve as an indirect backdrop for further avenues of research on regional                society/societies in East Asia (Buzan and Zhang forthcoming). The fourth chapter                by Merke deals with the South American international society and, among other                things, sketches possibilities for comparative dynamics between institutions of the                global international society and institutions of the South America society. The last                part of this volume by Kaczmarska is incorporated as an appendix chapter because                it presents a counter-argument against the existence of a regional international                society in the case of Central Asia and, thus, differs from other chapters. Despite                this divergence, Kaczmarska’s contribution remains highly relevant to the topic                of the publication and develops its discussion on regions in international society.                   Research within the ES can be distinguished with the help of two classifications                of  the  ES  which  can  help  to  approximately  situate  this  book  and  its  chapters                within the ES terrain. The first classification (Linklater and Suganami 2006: ch. 2)                differentiates between three basic types of research: (1) structural, (2) functional,                and (3) historical. The main goal of structural research is to understand institutional                and  constitutional  structure  of  international  societies.  Functional  research  is                interested in how societies work and what their functional merits can be. More                specifically, this type often looks at how different societies maintain international                order.  The  last  one  studies  history  of  international  societies.  The  second                classification (adjusted from Buzan 2004: 12-14) can be used to distinguish how                international society is understood; whether as: (A) a set of ideas and visions in the                minds of political actors, (B) a set of ideas in the minds of theorists or philosophers                that expresses their belief how international society should be organized, (C) a set                of externally imposed concepts that can be used as analytical tools and that are                designed to capture composition and/or functions of international society.                   The case studies in this book are interested in structural, normative, or institu-                tional characteristics of the regional level (functional aspects, like preserving or-                der, are more or less disregarded) and mainly understand regional developments                and international society as derived from real world politics. Thus, they come                close to the type of (3A). This categorization should not be understood too strictly,                but rather as an ideal type which this volume approximates. At the same time, it                is necessary to bear in mind that each chapter of the volume has its specifics. The                distinction between (A) and (C) deserves a short discussion, especially in the con-                text of Merke’s chapter on South America. Merke borrows from Buzan’s vision of                international society as an analytical concept and thus the chapter leans towards                (3C). Although he uses the concept of primary institutions as a category for analy-","12                  sis, he proceeds with emphasis on understanding of specific norms from within                the society itself (and thus has elements of 3A). One of the ways how to increase                cultural sensitivity of analytical categories (which are derived from researcher’s                thinking) is to develop their sub-categorizations according to practices contained                within examined cases (regions). Merke does so when he points at some insti-                tutions which were derived solely from South American politics and when he                touches on formation of social bonds and relations in the region which are prior                to formation of institutions.                   Conceptual Basis                 This  section  provides  a  closer  conceptualization  of  key  terms  which  are  used                in  this  book. As  discussed  by  Costa-Buranelli  (ch.  2),  the  ES,  especially  in  the                classical  generation  and  in  the  first  wave  of  regional  research,  relied  on  an                intuitive understanding of what regions are. Any attempt to conceptually and                operationally grasp the topic of regional international societies is complicated by                the ES’ general reluctance to define its research procedures. Although conceptual                definitions can be found or at least distilled from ES texts, they usually lack closer                operationalization and conceptualization.                   As this book shifts ES’ focus from the global level to the regional (i.e. sug-                global)  one,  it  is  useful  to  highlight  the  differences  between  them.  The  global                level includes social relations and interactions at the level of the whole world.                Related to this and to ES-oriented investigations, we presume that the current                international society is spread all over the world. At the same time, it is assumed                that  although  social  manifestations  (e.g.  international  society  as  such,  state                sovereignty, the United Nations, particular norms of international law etc.) are                directly  or  indirectly  derived  from  the  totality  of  social  relations  in  the  whole                world, inquiry on their main characteristics and main dynamics can be conducted                                                                    11                without the necessary need to research this world totality.  The regional level is,                on the other hand, defined as a sub-global ontology that is contained in the global                ontology, but sub-global social relations and manifestations (institutions, culture                etc.), i.e. regional variations, are distinct from global manifestations.                   Because the ES has not been fully capable to provide an adequate definition of                a region, we borrow from a quite general understanding of region which comes                outside the ES. According to a theoretical definition which serves as a basic ground                for our examination in this publication, regions can be defined as spaces “that are                proximate to each other and are interconnected in spatial, cultural and ideational                terms in a significant and distinguishable manner” (Paul 2012: 4). The following                chapter contains a deeper conceptual discussion including a clarification that ES                views  tend  to  comprise  both  material  and  ideational  elements  when  defining                region.                11   However, I do not claim that global manifestations and institutions need to be investigated at the                    global level only. It may be useful to focus on lower levels of analysis, too.","13                                                                                                                                                                       14                     Unlike in the case of regions, there is a consolidated understanding of another                key concept – international society. Since the purpose of this publication is not to                theoretically re-elaborate conceptual foundations of the ES, we are going to use                a generally shared and accepted definition by Hedley Bull. According to him, “[a]                society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious                of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that                they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations                with one another, and share in the working of common institutions“ (Bull 1977:                   12                13).  This definition is applicable to the regional level. However, it requires certain                specifications, especially related to Bull’s usage of the term “state“. Bull restricts                his definition to a society among states only, which is, however, too narrow and                not followed by all ES authors (comp. Linklater and Suganami 2006, Buzan 2004).                For this volume, international society is conceived as second-order society where                states (polities) are the constitutive and key actors while other political actors are                present too. Second-order societies, generally specified, are “those in which the                members are not individual human beings, but durable collectivities of humans                possessed of identities and actor qualities that are more than the sum of their                parts“ (Buzan 2004: xviii). It is good to note that regions and international society                are defined through both material and ideational aspects while it is not declared                whether the material or the ideational is the primary element.                   Regional international society is a kind of international society which exists                at the sub-global level. It means it is a constitutive part of the global level but                it is also distinct from it. Regional international societies have the character of                second-order societies and are formed by or within a region. We intentionally do                not claim that a region precedes a regional international society or otherwise, but                what is apparent is that there cannot be a regional international society without                a region (or more accurately, without at least a minimal regional consolidation).                On the contrary, it remains an open question if there cannot be a region without                a regional international society, but it seems it is neither logically necessary nor                empirically inevitable for each region to form a regional international society.                   International societies, including regional ones, are understood by the ES to                be fundamentally composed of institutions which are accumulations of norms                and rules. Institutions are understood in a sociological way. According to Meyer                et  al.  (1987:  13)  institutions  are:  “cultural  rules  giving  collective  meaning  and                value to particular entities and activities, integrating them into larger schemes”.                This definition of institutions by the Stanford School of sociology is in agreement                with the ES approach as argued by some of ES writers themselves (Buzan 2004:                167,  Reus-Smit  2009,  Wæver  1998:  112).  For  the  purposes  of  this  publication,                it  is  important  not  only  to  define  institutions  but  also  to  distinguish  between                primary and secondary institutions. While primary institutions can be outlined                by  the  previously  mentioned  definition  (they  create  general  rules),  secondary                12   Similarly  to  Bull,  the  majority  of  ES  authors  connects  their  understandings  and  definitions                    of international society with interests, rules, norms, institutions or some combination thereof                    (Armstrong 1993: 12; Reus-Smit 1997; Dunne 1998: 188; 2003: 305; Keal 2000: 61).","14                  institutions  are  represented  by  regimes  and  organizations  (they  create  rules                about the rules). (comp. Bull 1977: part 1, Buzan 2004: 167, Navari 2009a, 2009b).                Bull (1977) famously mentioned the following primary institutions: the balance                of  power,  international  law,  diplomacy,  war,  managerial  role  of  great  powers                whereas  particular  international  organizations  or  particular  international  laws                could be examples of secondary institutions.                   All the definitions which are mentioned above are primarily of a theoretical or                conceptual character. Each of the following chapters chooses a slightly different                way  of  investigation,  but  here  we  can  introduce  a  basic  operationalization  of                two key notions – a regional international society and primary and secondary                institutions. Regional international society can be investigated through common                interests and values, institutions it creates and adherence of actors’ identities to                a set of interests, rules, norms. It also can be investigated through bonds (binding                principles)  which  are  present  in  a  particular  international  society.  Institutions                can be observed and evaluated through their history and evolution, collective                meanings they provide, rules they are based on, ways how they integrate actors                into larger entities, practices and identities associated with them.                   How to Read and Understand This Volume                  This book can be read with the help of two theoretical discussions. Firstly, it uses                Buzan’s approach to the ES regional analysis as a backdrop from which it departs                and diverges to undertake more or less different paths. This volume tries to put                forward a context sensitive approach and to produce a more emic understanding                of regions and not to be strictly confined by applying analytical categories derived                from researcher’s analytical scheme. In this respect, Costa-Buranelli discusses the                distinction between emic and etic research and its implications for the topic of                regional international societies (ch. 2). Zhang, while analyzing East Asia, provides                a  discussion  which  shows  possibilities  to  understand  regional  international                societies through their specific regional integration processes (ch. 3). Although                Merke  starts  with  the  analytical  scheme  developed  by  Buzan  (2004)  and  with                Bull’s (1977) classical list of institutions to analyze South America, his findings                point out that any analysis should carefully examine the state of institutions in                society  itself.  He  grounds  his  approach  in  an  informed  investigation  of  South                America’s  understanding  of  primary  institutions  (ch.  4).  Kaczmarska  (in  the                book’s addendum) points out certain limitations of applying Buzan’s approach                to those regions where regional international societies are loosely formed or not                formed at all (as she claims in the case of Central Asia).                   The second way of reading this work is through a thesis that regional interna-                tional societies can be at different stages of consolidation and/or can be based on                different kind of sociality, socialization, integration or cohesion. This may sound                self-evident and unproblematic, but it has not been reflected in the ES research                which tends to be performed in “either – or” categories (either there is a regional","15                                                                                                                                                                       16                  society or there is no regional society). To get a deeper perceptiveness, the ES can                confront itself with literature on regional integration, which is usually aware of                different levels of integration and of regional cohesion, and with (especially) con-                structivist inquiries on socialization in regional or world politics. The first wave                of ES regional research can be helpful to some extent too as it was concerned with                a wide range of societies in different contexts. However, it did not offer deeper un-                derstanding of intra-regional socialization. A closely related question is whether                a regional international society is always formed in every region. The question                is shortly discussed from the theoretical point of view in the second chapter by                Costa-Buranelli and closely examined in the case of Central Asia. In her contri-                bution, Kaczmarska argues and shows that a regional international society has                not been formed in the region of Central Asia which has broader implications. It                strongly challenges the view that links between regions and regional international                societies arise naturally.                   As ES comparative research is still missing at the regional level, there was                no need to think about different types of socializations or cohesion in different                regional international societies. This publication is not a comparative study either                but at the same time allows a certain level of a comparative reading. Central Asia                is a region, as argued by Kaczmarska in the last part, without established regional                international society. Central Asia possesses a high level of potential and quite                strong preconditions to form a regional international society at both inter-human                and inter-state levels, but also experiences intrusive influences which prevent its                emergence. The Central Asian framework of regional organizations, which could                be a possible channel for developing a regional international society, is hollowed                and,  hence,  does  not  help  either.  East Asia,  as  discussed  in  the  third  chapter,                reveals  a  certain  level  of  ambivalences.  Zhang  points  out  some  contradictory                opinions regarding the East Asian regional society. His chapter tends to explore                varieties and ambiguities of the region rather than to strictly decide what the East                Asian region is. Despite these contradictions about both geographical and societal                demarcation which exist due to dense and overlapping networks (rather than due                to lack of them), it is impossible to ignore strong elements of  East Asia’s regional                society of states while consolidation at the inter-human level remains dubious.                South America (ch. 4) exhibits a case of a regional international society formed at                the level of political and inter-state framework which is, as indicated by Merke,                backed-up with common cultural preconditions at the inter-human level.                   Thus, we face three hypothetical scenarios of development of regional inter-                national societies. The word “hypothetical” is to connote a state of the very tenta-                tive elaboration. The first one (derived from Central Asia) describes a case with                quite clearly demarcated region and strong preconditions for forming a regional                international society which is complicated by inner and outer political impacts.                The second one (derived from East Asia) shows a situation when cultural precon-                ditions or cohesion at the level of inter-human society are quite low but regional                international society seems to be formed from above through rich (yet rather in-                formal)  regional  integration  with  abundant  political  ties  maintained  via  many","16                  overlapping  regional  organizations.  This  type  of  regional  international  society                seems to be more dependent on regional organizations and regionalisation pro-                cesses. This can, as in the case of East Asia, complicate demarcation of regional                borders although it seems that we need to accept this “scatteredness” to fully                appreciate a way of regional socialization/cohesion. East Asian regional society                seems to be concentrated around ASEAN countries, but other regional organiza-                tions as ASEAN+3, ARF, APEC seem to blur geographical limits of the regional                international society. The last scenario (derived from the South American case) is                ultimately grounded in a common cultural space and a deep consolidation at the                inter-human level while international society, formed in such a region, seems to                be a consequent result. In other words, this kind of regional international society                receives an impetus from below which is reciprocated from above.","17                                                                                                                                                                       18                   references                 Acharya, Amitav and Buzan, Barry, eds. 2010. Non-Western International Relations                Theory. Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London, New York: Routledge.                  Armstrong, David. 1993. Revolution and World Order. The Revolutionary State                in International Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.                  Ayoob, Mohamed. 1999. “From Regional System to Regional Society: Exploring                Key Variables in the Construction of Regional Order.” Australian Journal of                International Affairs, no. 53, 3, pp. 247–260.                 Bellamy, Alex J., ed. 2005. International Society and Its Critics. Oxford: Oxford                University Press.                 Bull, Hedley. 1966. “The Grotian Conception of International Society.”                In: Diplomatic Investigations. Essays on the Theory of International Politics. Eds.                Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, London: George Allen \& Unwin, pp. 35-50.                 Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics.                London: Macmillan.                 Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society.                Oxford: Clarendon Press.                 Buzan, Barry. 2001. “The English School. An Underexploited Resource in IR.”                Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 471-488.                 Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory                and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Buzan, Barry. 2012. “How Regions Were Made, and the Legacies for World                Politics. An English School Reconnaissance.” In: International Relations Theory and                Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,                pp. 22-48.                 Buzan, Barry, Wæver, Ole and de Wilde, Jaap. 1997. Security. A New Framework                for Analysis. London, Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner Pub.                 Buzan, Barry and Wæver, Ole. 2003. Regions and Powers. The Structure                of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Buzan, Barry and Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana, eds. 2009. International Society and                the Middle East. English School Theory at the Regional Level. London: Palgrave                Macmillan.","18                  Buzan, Barry and Zhang, Yongjin, eds. Forthcoming. International Society and                the Contest over “East Asia”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Clapham, Christopher. 1996. Africa and the International System. The Politics                of State Survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Clark, Ian. 2007. International Legitimacy and World Society. Oxford: Oxford                University Press.                 Czaputowicz, Jacek. 2003. “The English School of International Relations and Its                Approach to European Integration.” Studies \& Analyses, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-55.                 Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard. 2002. “Analysing European Integration,                Reflecting on the English School. Scenarios for an Encounter.” JCMS: Journal of                Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 43-67.                 Dunne, Tim. 1998. Inventing International Society. A History of the English School.                Basingstoke UK: Macmillan Press.                 Dunne, Tim. 2003. “Society and Hierarchy in International Relations.”                International Relations, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 303-320.                 Dunne, Tim. 2008. “The English School.” In: The Oxford Handbook of International                Relations. Eds. Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, Oxford: Oxford                University Press, pp. 267-285.                 Gong, Gerrit W. 1984. The Standard of “Civilization” in International Society.                Oxford: Oxford University Press.                  Grovogui, Siba N. 2002. “Regimes of Sovereignty. International Morality and                the African Condition.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 8, no. 3,                pp. 315-338.                 Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World                Politics.” Review of International Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 331-358.                 Hurrell, Andrew. 2007a. On Global Order. Power, Values, and the Constitution                of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.                 Hurrell, Andrew. 2007b. “One World, Many Worlds? The Place of Region in the                Study of International Society.” International Affairs, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 127-146.                 Jackson, Robert. 1992. Quasi-States. Sovereignty, International Relations, and                the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.","19                                                                                                                                                                       20                  Jackson, Robert. 1992. “Pluralism in International Political Theory.” Review                of International Studies,  vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 271-281.                 Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant. Human Conduct in a World of States.                Oxford: Oxford University Press.                 Keene, Edward. 2002. Beyond the Anarchical Society. Grotius, Colonialism and Order                in World Politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.                 Keal, Paul. 2000. “An ‘International Society’?” In: Contending Images of World                Politics. Eds. Jacinta O’Hagan and Greg Fry, London: Macmillan, pp. 61-75.                 Keene, Edward. 2009. “International Society as an Ideal Type.” In: Theorising                International Society. Ed. Cornelia Navari. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.                 Knudsen, Tonny Brems. 1997. “European Approaches to Humanitarian                Intervention. From Just War to Assistance - and Back Again?” In: European                Approaches to Crisis Management. Ed. Knud Erik Jørgensen, Hague, London:                Kluwer Law International, pp. 171-199.                 Krasner, Stephen D., ed. 2001. Problematic Sovereignty. Contested Rules and Political                Possibilities. New York: Columbia University Press.                 Linklater, Andrew. 1998. The Transformation of Political Community. Ethical                Foundations Of The Post-Westphalian Era. Cambridge: Polity Press.                 Linklater, Andrew. 2007. Critical Theory and World Politics. Sovereignty, Citzenship                and Humanity. London, New York: Routledge.                  Linklater, Andrew and Suganami, Hidemi. 2006. The English School of                International Relations. A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge                University Press.                 Little, Richard. 2000. “The English School’s Contribution to the Study of                International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 6, no. 3,                pp. 395-422.                  Mayall, James. World Politics. Progress and its Limits. Cambridge: Polity.                 Meyer, John, Boli, John, and Thomas, George M. 1987. “Ontology and                Rationalization in the Western Cultural Account.” In: Institutional Structure.                Constituting State, Society, and Individual. Eds. George M. Thomas, John Meyer,                Francisco O. Ramirez, and John Boli, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 10-29.","20                  Mittelman, James H. 2004. Whither Globalization? The Vortex of Knowledge                and Ideology. London, New York: Routledge.                 Navari, Cornelia, ed. 2009a. Theorising International Society. English School                Methods.  New York: Palgrave Macmillan.                 Navari, Cornelia. 2009b. “Introduction. Methods and Methodology in the                English School.” In: Theorising International Society. English School Methods.                Ed. Cornelia Navari, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-20.                 Paul, T.V. 2012. “Regional Transformation in International Relations.”                In: International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul,                Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-21.                 Pella, John Anthony. 2013. “Thinking Outside International Society. A Discussion                of the Possibilities for English School Conceptions of World Society.” Millennium.                Journal of International Studies, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 65-77.                  Quayle, Linda. 2010. “Bridging the Gap. An ‘English School’ Perspective                on ASEAN and Regional Civil Society.” The Pacific Review, vol. 25, no. 2,                pp. 199–222.                 Reus-Smit, Christian. 1997. “The Constitutional Structure of International                Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions.” International Organization,                vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 555-589.                 Reus-Smit, Christian. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State. Culture, Social Identity,                and Institutional Rationality in International Relations. Princeton: Princeton                University Press.                 Reus-Smit, Christian. 2009. “Constructivism and the English School.”                In: Theorising International Society. English School Methods. Ed. Cornelia Navari,                New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 58-77.                  Rupert, Mark. 2000. Ideologies of Globalization. Contending Visions of a New World                Order. London, New York: Routledge.                  Sakwa, Richard. 2011. “Russia and Europe. Whose Society?” European Integration,                vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 197-214.                  Stivachtis, Yannis A. and Webber, Mark. 2011. “Regional International Society                in a Post-Enlargement Europe.” European Integration, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 101-116.","21                                                                                                                                                                       22                  Suganami, Hidemi. 2002. “The International Society Perspective on World                Politics Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 2,                no. 1, pp. 1-28.                 Vincent, John. 1974. Nonintervention and International Order. Princeton,                NJ: Princeton University Press.                 Vincent, John. 1978. “Western Conceptions of a Universal Moral Order.” British                Journal of International Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 20-46.                 Vincent, John. 1992. “The Idea of Rights in International Ethics.” In: Traditions                of International Ethics. Eds. Terry Nardin and D. Mapel, Cambridge: Cambridge                University Press, pp. 250-269.                 Wæver, Ole. 1998. “Four Meanings of International Society. A Trans-Atlantic                Dialogue.” In: International Society and the Development of International Relations                Theory. Ed. Barbara Allen Roberson, London: Pinter, pp. 80-145.                  Watson, Adam. 1992. The Evolution of International Society. A Comparative                Historical Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.                  Weber, Cynthia. 2005. International Relations Theory. A Critical Introduction.                London, New York: Routledge.                  Wheeler, Nicholas J. 1992. “Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International                Society. Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention.” Millennium. Journal                of International Studies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 463–487.                 Wheeler, Nicholas J. 2000. Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention                in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.                 Wight, Martin. 1960. “Why There Is no International Theory?” International                Relations, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 35-48.                  Wight, Martin. 1977. Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press                for the London School of Economics and Political Science.                  Wight, Martin. 1991. International Theory. The Three Traditions. London: Leicester                University Press.                  Wight, Martin. 2005. Four Seminal Thinkers in International Theory. Machiavelli,                Grotius, Kant, and Mazzini. Oxford: Oxford University Press.","22                  2      The English School and Regional International Societies:                       Theoretical and Methodological Reflections                                                                  Filippo Costa-Buranelli                     IntroductIon 1                 One  of  the  beauties  of  the  discipline  of  International  Relations  (IR)  is  that  it                can move forward in terms of theoretical sophistication, analytical power and                explanatory ability not only by looking at the developments of the realm it seeks                to  study,  that  of  international  politics,  but  also  by  dealing  with  blind  spots,                lacunae and grey areas within its already established (or so believed) theoretical                toolkits. In this respect, the English School (ES) does not seem to be an exception.                The recent turn of the theory to the regional scale, shifting from the global level                of analysis to a lower, regional one, has been hailed as one of the most significant                theoretical (and hopefully empirical) advancements of the ES for the next decade,                ushering in a new regional agenda of the School (Buzan and Gonzalez-Pelaez                2009). The novelty is especially evident by looking at the historical conditions in                which the School was born in the lap of the British Committee of IR in the late                1950s (Dunne 1998). The rise of American hegemony, the systemic structuration                in a bipolar scheme according to the logics of the incipient Cold War, and the                ubiquitous presence of the two superpowers in every part of the globe to compete                for military pre-eminence and ideological supremacy led to a considerable neglect                of how the norms, rules and institutions of international society were interpreted,                re-framed and used in different regional contexts.                   However, with the demise of the USSR and with the world opening itself to                reinvigorated  political,  social,  cultural,  ethnic  and  normative  complexity  and                plurality, the role of regions has assumed increasing importance, especially as                places where international relations are not only consumed, but also produced                (Hurrell 1995, Lake and Morgan 1997, Buzan and Wæver 2003). The world, in sum,                has begun resembling a pan of fried eggs (Buzan 2004), where thick clusters of                cultural, ethical and normative commitments hinge on a shared-by-all, although                minimal, set of pluralistic rules and values aimed at the viability and sustainability                of the whole system.                   Here, it is argued that more than a theoretical novelty and the inauguration of                a new agenda, primarily the regionalisation of the ES represents a challenge for                the ES itself, but also a welcome off-ramp from which the ES research program                can  move  forward  providing  new  questions  and  enlarging,  enhancing  and                entrenching the scope of the research agenda on regional international societies.                1   I would like to thank Natasha Khurt, Elene Melikishvili and Daniel Matteo for their helpful                    comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. Also, I would like to thank Lola Buranelli for her                    support in writing this article.","23                                                                                                                                                                       24                                                                                   2                The gist of this paper is that the regionalisation of international society , more                than  a  novelty  in  the  ES,  should  be  seen  as  an  opportunity  for  what  may  be                called an intra-theoretical self-reflection. In particular, this chapter is intended as                presenting  three  specific  questions  whose  answers  are  aimed  at  refining  and                sharpening the theoretical utility both of the ES in general and of the concept                of regional international society in particular. First, what is novel about the new                “regionalisation” of the ES? Is it really a path-breaking analytical move? Second,                can we still speak of “institutions of international society” when they are subject                to  regional  interpretation  and  adaptation?  Third,  what  kind  of  problems,  and                indeed  opportunities,  does  the  regionalisation  of  international  society  elicit                from a methodological viewpoint? In the end, one could argue, the aim is also                to  understand  and  justify  the  need  and  the  utility  of  the  concept  of  regional                international society, both for the ES itself and for IR theory more widely.                   The argument will be developed as follows: in the first part, I will develop                the  questions  formulated  above,  explain  their  significance  in  relations  to  the                regionalisation of international society and identify in them possible critiques                to the whole theoretical body of the ES. In the second part, conversely, I will try                to  offer  plausible  answers,  or  at  least  suggestions,  to  tackle  the  interrogatives                formulated  in  the  first  part,  thereby  offering  new  prospects  for  theoretical                reflections and avenues of enquiry. In the third, conclusive part, I will argue that                the three questions and the three answers provided form an inextricable logical                and conceptual link, and I will argue that the regionalisation of the ES can be seen                as a progressive research programme in Lakatosian terms (1970).                   the fIrst QuestIon                 The first question contests the common assumption that the ES has consistently                neglected  the  regional  level  of  international  relations  (Buzan  and  Gonzalez                Pelaez 2009). It is certainly true that especially when looking at the inter-human                linkages of the post-Cold War period, the need to move to the analysis of regional                international societies is compelling. However, were not Wight’s (1977), Bull and                Watson’s (1984) and Watson’s (1992) works theoretical speculations and analyses                of historically specific, politically determined and culturally significant regional                international societies? Almost thirty years ago, Bull and Watson observed that in                the past “the world [...] comprised several regional international systems [...] each                with  its  own  distinctive  rules  and  institutions,  reflecting  a  dominant  regional                culture” (1984: 1).                   Especially by looking at the titles of their works, and in particular of some                subsections, it is possible to argue that those that can be considered among the                pillars of the ES literature were indeed idiographic historical enterprises (Linklater                2   While the ES encompasses the notions of international system, international society and world                    society, in this chapter the spotlight will be primarily on international society. However, when                    the other two concepts are relevant, they will be dealt with accordingly.","24                  and Suganami 2006: 87-88) concerned with regions, defined as territorial spaces in                which contiguous polities, or political communities, enjoyed constant interactions                among  each  others,  be  they  economic,  diplomatic,  cultural  or  all  of  these.                Therefore, the critic may argue, if three of the most renowned authors within                the ES had already dealt with regional international societies (or “systems”, in                Wight’s terminology), why should one regard the new regional agenda of the ES                as a novelty? What is distinctive in this enterprise (the second wave of ES regional                research) in comparison with the past ones mentioned (the first wave), and how                can it favour an advancement in the theory?                   the second QuestIon                 The second questions is not related to the level of analysis or the territorial ap-                plication of international society theory, but rather with its specific hallmark, or                “definitional soul” – that is, the concept of institutions, defined as durable but                not eternal patterns of behaviour that give predictability and order to a given                social system (Buzan 2004: 181). If the starting point of the regionalisation of in-                ternational society is the assumption that the institutions of global international                society can be adopted, re-interpreted or rejected, and if these institutions can                be re-interpreted and modified in a number of ways, potentially having several                international societies each of them having its own interpretation of a given norm                or institutions, to what extent is the theorist/analyst allowed to speak of the pres-                ence of a common institution? In other words, when does the renegotiation of the                meaning of an institution make it so blurred and multi-meaningful (“polysemic”                using the word above) that it is no longer possible to speak of a shared institution                at all?                   the thIrd QuestIon                 The third question is concerned with one of the most vulnerable aspects of the ES,                if one wants to say, the School’s Achilles’ heel: methodology and methods. As it                has been recently said, to speak about a defined and consolidated methodology                of the ES is a contradiction in terms (Navari 2009: 1) or, in other words, the ES                is antipathetic to methodology and methods (Wilson 2009: 184). This is not the                appropriate  place  to  thoroughly  analyse  the  complex  relationship  between  ES                theory and methodological stances, as it has been magisterially done elsewhere                (Navari 2009). However, a quick recapitulation may be useful for the construction                of the argument. Its methodological complexity notwithstanding, the ES has been                characterised as essentially an interpretive, qualitative and inductive enterprise,                based on the study of the discourses and practices of philosophy, history and                international law (Bull 1966, Navari 2009).","25                                                                                                                                                                       26                     There has also been a recent attempt to “soft-positivise” the ES, claiming that                international society is something visible “out there”, in the implementations and                sustainment of institutions and norms by the actors involved (Buzan 2004, Buzan                and Gonzalez-Pelaez 2009; for a recent critique, see Dunne 2005). However, one                may ask what is at risk in giving up the ideational, discursive and interpretive                character of international society. As it will be argued later, this “methodological                turn” has serious implications for the analysis of regional international societies.                   The  regionalisation  of  international  society,  therefore,  can  be  seen  both  as                a theoretical novelty but also as a set of new questions and conundrums, with                which the researcher should deal if he/she is to fully grasp the complexity not                only of regional international societies, but also of ES and world politics more                generally. Moreover, it is evident how these three sets of questions are inherently                linked among each other: to specify the regional dimension of a given interna-                tional society and its relation with the global level means to reflect on the need                of making justice to various interpretations of given norms, rules and institution                that may be thought, erroneously, as having a fixed and shared universal mean-                ing, and to the different meaning that some institutions can have in specific re-                gional settings. This last point is linked with the necessity of carefully pondering                our methodological choices and methods, especially since social research should                use methods, methodologies and tools “not because they have been used before,                but because they are fit for the task at hand” (Greener 2011: 50). And given that a                methodology should be applied in a specific and well-specified domain, this last                point is connected with the first one mentioned above.                   Figure 1: the triangle of conundrums in regional ES                                          Regional international societies                             Methodology and methods                 Polysemy of institutions                      By looking at the triangle above, one thing is already clear: like the most complex                structures in physics and biology, such as DNA, whenever we alter a character,                or a feature, of a theory, the whole body undergoes a chain of “mutations” that                should result in a modified, but still self-sustainable, organism. In this case, the                downgrading of international society to the regional level brings with it a number                of potential interesting changes both at the definitional/institutional level as well                as at the methodological one.","26                   the fIrst Answer                 The first question was one concerned with the apparent novelty of the concept                of regional international society. Many of the works in the ES tradition, as noted                above, dealt with regional international societies, and therefore there is nothing                really  “new”  in  the  recent  ES  agenda  on  international  society  and  regions.  Is                there not? To properly answer the question, a brief detour around the concept of                “region” as used in the ES is required.                   In social sciences, the concept of region is undoubtedly a contested one . When                                                                                 3                a definition of what a region is is asked for, “one detects a palpable unease among                scholars” (Hameiri 2013: 316). Yet, following the literature of comparative politics                and  international  political  economy  (Mansfield  and  Milner  1999;  Hettne  and                Soderbaum 2000, Fawn 2009, Mansfield and Solingen 2010) four conditions seem                to be necessary to identify a region in world politics. Firstly, a region should be                a sub-global ontology: to be analytical discernible, a region should be a distinct                part of the world, rather than the world itself. Secondly, there is proximity: for                a region to be meaningful, the units forming it should be close enough to facilitate                exchanges, interactions and flows of people, money, goods, and cultural practices                as  well  as  security  issues.  Thirdly,  there  is  interaction  capacity:  within  states                forming a region there should be a thicker flow of interaction, social, political,                economic  and  security-related  than  with  other  states  in  the  global  system,                although the latter are expected to exist as well in an era of globalisation. Lastly,                there is what Hameiri has called the geopsychological aspect of regions (2013:                317). This last factor is usually proposed by social constructivist theorists, arguing                that what makes a region is a complex web of ideational, social, normative and                identity-related relations (Katzenstein 2005).                   Following the conditions set out above, a region may be tentatively said as                being a cluster of states “that are proximate to each other and are interconnected                in  spatial,  cultural  and  ideational  terms  in  a  significant  and  distinguishable                manner” (Paul 2012: 4). In sum, despite the pervasive confusion and fragmentary                condition of the studies on regions and regionalism, both the material and the                ideational element seem to have to be present in order to meaningfully speak of                a “region”. 4                   Digging more specifically into IR Theory and the ES, it is possible to identify                two “ideal-types” of regions, used distinctively by the classical ES of Bull, Wight                                                   5                and Watson and the “new” ES of Buzan . In the classical ES and the first wave of                regional research, the term “region” was used in a very basic and simple manner                 3   While a thorough conceptualisation of “region” is necessary for the argument of the chapter,                    the following discussion should be intended as better identifying where ES situates itself in the                    regional debate, and not as a full-fledged attempt to solve the ontological and epistemological                    conundrum of what a region is.                4   The combination of material and ideational factors is usually referred as “regional identity”,                    a concept dear to the discipline of human geography (Paasi 2003).                5   I  am  grateful  to  an  anonymous  reviewer  for  suggesting  me  this  formulation  to  escape  the                    definitional aporia of the ES.","27                                                                                                                                                                       28                  to indicate a specific and well-defined geographical area composed of political                units interacting among each other through social institutions (above all trade,                diplomacy,  and  war)  underpinned  by  the  sharing  of  a  common  culture  and                historical legacy (Wight 1977; Bull and Watson 1992). The new ES and the second                wave  of  regional  research  goes  one  step  further,  and  argues  that  institutional                differentiation from the global level is what defines a region and, consequently,                a regional international society. By institutional differentiation from the global                level, I mean the condition when a region adopts institutions different from those                at the global level (or does not adopt specific institutions present at the global                level) and/or interprets differently institutions present at the global level, albeit                accepting them. This aspect, however, is dealt more in depth later in the text.                   Barry  Buzan  has  recently  stated  that  a  region  is  defined  primarily  by  its                interaction  capacity  (2012:  23),  and  that  a  region  is  essentially  “a  geographical                clustered  subsystem  of  states  that  is  sufficiently  distinctive  in  terms  of  its                internal structure and process to be meaningfully differentiated from a wider                international system or society of which it is part” (2012: 22). The distinctiveness                and differentiation mentioned in the definition pertain to the institutions that are                adopted in present-day regions, which are the key to identifying and distinguishing                specific clusters of states from the global level of world politics. This concept of                differentiation from the global level is, I argue, what distinguishes how the term                “region” was intended in the classical ES from how “region” is being used now                within the new ES. It was the establishment of a global international society that                made  possible  an  analytical  (and  territorial)  differentiation  between  the  two                levels,  the  global  and  the  regional  one,  where  the  institutional  differentiation                is and can be observable. This is why, for Buzan, the regions dealt with in the                classical ES should be better understood as international societies in their own                right (2012: 23-24).                   From the discussion above, it is also interesting to note how the ES conflates                the territorial and the ideational aspects of the definition of “region” dealt with                earlier, as it seems that in the new ES the analytical boundary between a region                and  regional  international  society  is  porous  at  best.  For  if  a  region  is  defined                by the intensity and frequency of the interactions among the constitutive units                (which are likely to occur more intensively over a short than a long distance),                arguably  these  interactions  will  require  by  necessity  a  common  set  of  social                and institutional arrangements and practices to be managed. Such non-material                arrangements,  when  sufficiently  institutionalised,  give  birth  to  a  society  of                regional states. With this distinction in mind, I argue that the new regional ES                can carve out its distinctiveness and analytical utility when compared to the first                wave of regional research in two respects.                   The first one is by focusing on what I would call a “diachronically idiographic                analysis”  of  regional  international  societies,  tracing  the  evolution  of  regional                norms, rules and institutions of a single and defined regional environment from                an historical perspective, through the centuries up to the present. It would be                diachronic  because  it  would  cover  a  long  and  extended  time-frame,  while  it","28                  would be idiographic because it would focus only on a single region. For example,                this  kind  of  enterprise  would  be  interested  in  covering  the  oscillations  from                pluralism to solidarism (and/or vice versa) within a single regional international                society, as if it was a world apart. This diachronically idiographic analysis would                be  also  distinct  from  previous  works  on  regions,  in  the  way  that  follows:  at                a deeper reading, Martin Wight (1977) was more interested in the social institutions                that constituted the social dimension of inter-relations among political entities,                and  therefore  he  provided  examples  of  specific  “historical  close-up  shots”  in                specific moments of the history of those parts of the world, to show how in past                centuries as well polities of every type, from city-states to empires, were able                to create, sustain and obey specific rules of conduct and institutions aiming at                preventing the order and the predictability of the system. Bull and Watson (1984)                were interested in the historical dimension of regional international societies as                well, but took the regional dimension of international society as a springboard to                analyse and trace the expansion of the society of a specific region, the European                one, more than in the historical evolution of those societies before the encounter                with the Europeans and after it.                   Also, in Watson (1992), the evolution of international society is looked at with                the “globality” of it in mind, as if it was implicit an assumption of uniformity and                inevitable  convergence  in  a  single,  global  international  society.  The  second  part                of the book is the one that most resembles a diachronically idiographic analysis                of a regional international society, the European one, from the city-states of the                Renaissance age, to the great Empires of the Nineteenth Century, to their break-up                in the Twentieth, and can serve as a useful proxy for future explorations of regional                evolutions of specific regional international societies in other parts of the world.                   The second way in which the second wave of regional research and its new                agenda  can  distinguish  itself  from  the  first  wave  is  the  move  from  a  discrete                analysis of systems of states (Wight 1977) to a more organic picture of society                of societies. It is akin to the metaphor of pan-fried eggs (Buzan 2004), but it also                moves a bit forward. Here, the crucial variable is that we should not forget the                existence of a global international society. The works of Wight, Bull and Watson,                and  Watson  resembled  what  social  scientists  call  “case  studies”,  intensive                descriptions of the “societiness” of given regions, standing alone one from the                other  before  the  European  model  of  doing  international  relations  spread  its                blanket all over the world creating a global international society. This singularity                of analysis was also due to the absence of an all-encompassing social structure                at the macro level, one in which several sub-systemic international society could                exist and relate to each other through globally shared institutions and norms.                The world was a “system of societies”, i.e. an environment where several regional                international societies coexisted being barely in touch with one another, due to                lack of means of communications, technology and sometimes even of knowledge                of each other’s existence (Buzan and Little 2000).                   After  the  European  expansion  of  international  society,  and  especially  as  it                has been noted with the end of the Cold War, these discrete and autonomous","29                                                                                                                                                                       30                  regional international society have been in contact with each other, have some                common rules and institutions on which they can base their relations (diplomacy,                sovereignty and international law above all) retaining their diversity both in the                sphere of inter-state and world society (Buzan 2010). From a system of societies, it                is as if we had moved to a society of societies or, to use an expression dear to the                ES, to a second-order pluralism (Buzan 2004). Therefore, with respect to the past,                it is noteworthy that the new regionalisation of the ES opens avenues for more                substantial  comparative  work  across  several  regional  international  societies,                on  their  degree  of  institutionalisation,  on  the  similarity  or  differences  with                respect to shared norms, rules and institutions, on what happens when pluralist                international societies meet more solidaristic ones (Morada 2012), or on how the                same institution has been interpreted in different ways in two or more regional                societies (on sovereignty, for example, see Cummings and Hinnebusch 2011).                   As noted above, the regionalisation of the ES has been believed to be necessary                due to the pre-eminence of the cultural factor in world politics as well (Buzan                2004, 2010). This cultural factor is to be found at the inter-state level but also and                perhaps more importantly, at the (regional) world society level, a level that was                much downplayed in previous ES analyses. Thus, an interesting shift from the                past can be a comparative analysis of the several configurations that a regional                inter-state society and a “regional” world society can assume (hand in hand? at                odds? indifference?). Works in this direction have started being produced, e.g. on                the Middle East (Valbjørn 2009, Hashmi 2009) or on ASEAN (Quayle 2010), but                                                                                      6                further work can be conducted on other regional international societies as well .                   To conclude, another suggestion may be to expand the agenda on the correlation                between a regional international society (RIS), a regional security complex (RSC),                and forms of regionalism. Put in relation with each other, the regional international                society pillar represents the social character of relations among states, from conflict                to  confederation,  passing  through  co-existing  pluralism  to  developmental                solidarism  (Buzan  2004);  the  regional  security  complex  pillar  represents  the                strategic-security character of the region, which can develop from conflict formation                to security community where war is unthinkable among the regional members;                the forms of regionalism represent the integrative character of the region, ranging                from sporadic interactions through more coordinated and integrated action to                a federation of states (Hettne and Soderbaum 2000). How these three characters                of a region are linked is still unknown, although the strongest hypothesis seems                to be that of a positive correlation among the three: the more solidarist a society                 6   It is important to note that the role of culture and of historical diachronism that can favour                    a  dialogue  between  the  ES  and  post-colonial  approaches  to  IR  and  regions.  The  analysis  of                    how local regional cultures interact and clash with social institutions inherited from previous                    experiences of domination interact, and of how local cultures have resisted forms of institutional                    impositions in a diachronic way combining ES and post-colonial narratives is a fertile ground                    of research. This richer approach can certainly be a valuable lens of analysis to understand the                    pluralist character of present-day international society. It is perhaps not surprising that a leading                    post-colonial theorist, Mohammed Ayoob, is strongly sympathetic to ES approaches to regional                    and world politics (see in particular Ayoob 1999). I am grateful to one of the two anonymous                    reviewers for reminding me of this very important link among the two perspectives.","30                  of states is, the more peaceful the security realm is, and the more integrative the                political-economic realm is. However, more empirical studies are needed on these                theoretical relations, especially as far as regional international societies and forms                of regionalism are concerned. The point made here, however, is that the concept                of regional international society can serve as an additional comparative term in                the wider literature on regions and regionalism, allowing the exploration of new                paths of enquiry and the investigation of relational forms of integration not only                from an economic viewpoint, but also from a social one.                   Figure 2: the hypothetical relations between RIS, RSC and RGN                                                     RIS                                         +                       +                                       RSC             +             RGN                      the second Answer                 The second critique dealt with above referred to what I called the polysemy of                institutions, arguing that it is difficult to speak of the universality of an institution                if this is subject to several interpretations, definition and content renegotiations.                I borrowed the term “polysemy” from linguistics, using this discipline as a proxy                for what the regionalisation of the ES has meant to the concept of institutions.                Commonly,  polysemy  refers  to  that  situation  when  the  same  word  assume                different (but related) meanings in different context within the same linguistic                structure (Lichtenberk 1991: 475). For example, the word “bank” means both the                physical building where money is stored (“the bank opens at...”) and the personnel                in that building (“the bank said that...”). At the heart of both meanings, however,                there is the idea of a financial institution in charge of managing people’s savings                (Pustejovsky 1995).                   I argue that the same occurs for institutions translated from the global level                of international society to the regional one: within the same “linguistic” (here                “institutional”) structure, that of global international society where all the poten-                tial regional international societies are included, the same institution can have                different meanings, or interpretation, or understandings in different (regional)                contexts. To put it simply, despite the attempts to expand a Western political and","31                                                                                                                                                                       32                  institutional vocabulary, “the various peoples of the world are speaking of differ-                ent things while uttering the same words” (Bozeman 1960: 9). So, “sovereignty”                can have a different meaning in Europe and East Asia, while “international law”                can be seen rather differently in the post-Soviet world compared to Europe, or                “market economy” can have various degrees or ways of interpretation in Africa,                Southeast Asia and, let’s say, the Middle East. And this is potentially valid for                all the other institutions, such as borders, diplomacy, environmental stewardship                and so forth. This opens up two questions: how to deal with these interpretations,                and how they are born.                   In my opinion, the main problem with the polysemy of institutions is that                they themselves are concepts so wide and all-encompassing that it is difficult to                pin them down. Just to give an example, the very notion of “sovereignty” is one                of the most debated, treated and dealt with within the discipline of IR (Krasner                1999).  Sovereignty  assumes  different  meanings  not  only  in  different  regional                international  societies,  but  also  in  different  IR  theories.  The  same  is  true  for                international law, or the “market economy”. So the question is, how to account                for  this  intra-diversification  within  institutions  and  inter-diversification  across                different regional international societies?                   What I suggest is to not forget that these terms, before being institutions, are                “concepts” and, as such, they run the risk of “conceptual stretching”, meant as                that situation when “our gains in extensional coverage tend to be matched by                losses in connotative precision” (Sartori 1970: 57). ES institutions, being wide                concepts and “big words” of politics, are potentially subject to meaninglessness                if  all  their  facets  and  differentiations  are  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  general                conceptualisation.  This  is  especially  true  if,  passing  from  the  global  to  the                regional,  concepts  (and  therefore  institutions)  “travel”  from  one  domain  to                several others, where the same concept can be seen in different terms (Sartori                1970, Acharya 2004). In the past, even the recent one, there was no need to do this,                as the global international society was the reflection of a single, coherent social                configuration,  the  Western-liberal  one.  Now,  with  several  regional  domains,                a sharper definition of global institutions is necessary if we are to trace their                change  and  semantic/social  renegotiation  in  several  regional  international                societies.  One  potentially  fruitful  path  would  therefore  be  to  define  those                minimal but key characteristics, those core features of the concepts that cannot                be neglected if the concept is to be meaningful and somehow operationalisable,                therefore  engaging  in  a  process  of  “concept  formation”  (Sartori  1970).  These                features should be then present in all the different interpretations of institutions                across  regions,  so  that  the  conceptual  cornerstone  of  the  institution  remains                intact while other features may change. Again, there are interesting parallels                with linguistics, if we think that one of the way to deal with polysemy is to                identify “a set of necessary and sufficient conditions satisfied by each and every                one of the meanings of an element” (Lichtenberk 1991: 475).                   Another interesting question, related to what is noted above, is to understand                why  some  institutions  assume  different  characteristics  and  interpretations  in","32                  some regions while retaining other meanings in others. Here, I believe that the                most convincing explanation is that of local imperatives (Adamson 2005) or, in                other  words,  norms  localisation  within  cultural  priors  (Acharya  2004:  251).  To                assume that the whole world has gone through the same historical, cultural and                social experiences is not simply an overstatement, but indeed a historical fallacy.                Due  to  diversity  in  culture,  uneven  paths  of  development  (both  qualitatively                and  quantitatively),  the  heterogeneity  of  societies  and  different  normative                commitments (both in the legal sense and in the ethical one, viz. “to do what is                right, normal”), world politics has become a space of plurality and difference,                with several Gemeinschaften hinging on the same, world-scale Gesellschaft. With                the regionalisation of the concept of international society, therefore, the ES agenda                has among its tasks that of understanding how norms travel from one level to the                other(s), and what is the semantic/interpretive renegotiation that occurs during                this  level-of-analysis  switch.  Again,  this brings  us  back  to  the  idea  of  concept                formation and how to avoid concept stretching: while Sartori speaks of concepts                that “travel” across domains, Acharya speaks of how norms “spread”.                   The idea of linking the concept of norm localisation, meaning “a complex process                and  outcome  by  which  norm-takers  build  congruence  between  transnational                norms (including norms previously institutionalized in a region) and local [i.e.                regional] beliefs and practices” (Acharya 2004: 241), is of the utmost importance,                I believe, if we are to understand how regional societies not only operate and are                sustained, but how they are formed. As a matter of fact, in describing the “existential                conditions” for a regional international society to exist, Buzan states that it must                be distinct from the global level in having distinct institutions absent from the                global level, an absence of institutions conversely present at the global level, or                a different interpretation of institutions present at the global level (2009, 2010). In                my opinion, to say “a different interpretation” in a regional context is nothing but                a reference to the concept of norms localisation. Indeed, “regional specificity is                a hallmark of norm diffusion” (Acharya 2004: 207).                   Therefore,  further  theoretical  links  with  social  constructivism  are                          7                explorable  with the regionalisation of international society, especially if we are                to understand how norms, rules and institutions are reinterpreted and adapted                to  distinct,  local  normative  environments  and  how  these  reinterpretations                impact world order. Adopting the concept of norm localisation within regional                ES  theory  would  also  enhance  and  entrench  the  foundational  argument  of                the need of enquiring on regional international societies, i.e. the progressive                communitarisation  of  world  politics  as  a  counterbalance  to  cosmopolitan                pressures, especially normative and cultural. This communitarisation of world                politics is linked to the “society of societies” framework I dealt with above, and                the theoretical instrument of norm localisation can help analyse and discuss                 7   I say “further” because strong relations between the ES and Constructivism have been already                    noticed: see for example Dunne (1995), Suganami (2001) or Reus-Smit (2002). I have recently                    reflected on this, too (Costa-Buranelli 2012).","33                                                                                                                                                                       34                  how norms and institutions that are believed to be universal in character and                meaning are in fact differently adapted to previously existing and established                                                    8                cultural and institutional environments .                   In this respect, the work conducted by Barbara Allen Roberson on how Egypt                adapted  the  Western  model  of  rule  of  law  in  the  years  of  early  independence                (2009) is indicative of how the regional agenda of ES can and should deal with                these  trans-normative  dynamics,  and  with  those  “normative  conjunctions”,  or                “normative turnouts”, which make possible to speak of a regional international                society in light of the different understanding of a norm, or institution, present at                the global level. Needless to say, the adoption of the concept of norm localisation                within the ES analytical toolkit would perpetuate and consolidate the tradition                of  considering  the  ES  as  an  autonomous  but  nonetheless  multifaceted,  open                and  osmotic  theoretical  framework,  capable  of  borrowing  and  using  different                concepts developed by other theories and therefore helpful in providing more                comprehensive  analyses  and  description  of  international  relations  (Suganami                2005), thus configuring itself as plural not only methodologically (Little 2000) but                also theoretically.                   The re-novated, re-invigorated link with constructivism would also reinforce                the  argument  that  institutions,  as  ES  conceptualizes  them,  are  durable  but  by                no means eternal patterns of social behaviour (Buzan 2004), and therefore are                subject to content-based and performative renegotiation not only diachronically,                and  therefore  across  time,  but  also  synchronically,  i.e.  can  assume  different                connotations in different places (regions) in the same time frame. The link with                constructivism is also interestingly connected with the metaphor borrowed from                linguistics I used above: as a matter of fact, institutions in regional international                societies seen through the lenses of norm localisation are, like linguistic elements,                “not mere reflections of the properties of phenomena; rather, they reflect [the]                conceptualization  of  the  phenomena,  and  in  that  sense  they  are  subjective”                (Lichtenberg 1991: 477).                   In  sum,  the  link  between  conceptualisation  of  institutions,  their  regional                interpretations  and  the  intervening  role  of  norm  localisation  constitute  an                inextricable nexus that can help avoid the danger of a “one-size-fits-all” approach                in verifying the presence/adoption of a given institution in some regional contexts,                and in fact allows for investigating its different use and interpretation distinct                from those at the global level.                       8   Here I deal only with the concept of norm localisation; however, one should keep in mind that                    the ES could borrow also the concept of norm subsidiarity, defined as “the process whereby local                    actors develop new rules, offer new understandings of global rules or reaffirm global rules in the                    regional context” (Acharya 2011: 96), especially to deal with those regional international societies                    in which some regional institutions are born out of the substitution/rejection of others present at                    the global level.","34                  Figure 3: how contemporary RIS are formed                           Current ES framework                      ES framework revised                    Global international society              Global international society                                       ?                                  norm localisation                   regional international society            regional international society                    the thIrd Answer                 The third critique to address is what I would call the methodological challenge                that the concept of regional international society poses to the whole ES. It has been                mentioned that the ES has been, historically speaking, quite refractory to definite                and one-for-ever methodological labels. It has been also noted that, more recently,                the very concept of international society can be “positivised”, making it more                visible and more amenable to analytical discernment. However, as stated above,                this position elicits two questions: is this positivism, or another methodological                stance? and secondly, whatever methodology it is, is it the most appropriate to                investigate regional international societies? I would argue that the answer to both                questions is “no”, and I will try to justify this answer by linking this problem with                the two dealt with above.                   To me, the methodology proposed by Buzan and the positivists of the “new ES”                is a form of analyticism, meaning by this the attempt to investigate reality through                the adoption of “a model the worth of which lies not in the correspondence to                the world, but in its pragmatic consequences for ordering the facts of the world”                (Jackson 2011: 115). More than establishing a causal relation between two or more                variables, of which one is called independent and the others dependent linked by                a cause-efficient mechanism, or proposing nomothetic generalisations, analyticism                assumes that the reality is investigated through a set of predetermined analytical                elements that function as a model for what we find in the real world, something                akin  to  a  Weberian  idealtype.  Buzan  is  indeed  aware  of  this  (although  still                speaking of positivism), when he argues that international society can be seen “as                a set of externally imposed concepts that define the material and social structures                of the international system” (2004: 12, italics added). The model, the analytical                blueprint, serves to help us find our way in the complexity of reality, looking for                those features and characteristics that are able to prove our theory as valid and                true.","35                                                                                                                                                                       36                     In my opinion, therefore, the new ES is on the path of analyticism more than                that  of  positivism.  True,  an  analytic  methodology  shares  with  positivism  the                idea of “phenomenalism”, i.e. “the reliance on empirical observation and directly                apprehendable data” (Jackson 2011: 44), and it is exactly the phenomenical, visible                and observable character of international society that leads Buzan to speak of                a  soft-positivisation.  However,  the  two  methodologies  differ  in  two  respects:                the first one is in the nomothetic character of positivism absent in analyticism,                given the latter’s predisposition to describe and elucidate. The second one is the                different relationship between mind and world: for positivists, the reality “out                there”  is  to  be  analysed,  discussed  and  studied  using  intellectual  categories                and concepts detached from it, while an analytical enterprise assumes that the                theoretical instruments we use to investigate the world are informed by the world                itself, and therefore modelled by the reality itself in which we live (Jackson 2011).                   Now, we know that an international society is said to exist when states (or                socially organised communities, reasoning on a diachronic historical perspective)                coexist in a social framework constituted by norms and social institutions that                somehow  regulate,  channel  and  make  their  behaviour  predictable  warranting                a minimal degree of order in their relations (Bull 1977). With this in mind, the                researcher can somehow “spot out” a regional international society by looking at                the practices of states in a given region and comparing them to the institutions he                or she has in the model in his/her mind. This approach is indeed visible in Buzan                and Gonzalez-Pelaez’s book when, while dealing with the primary institutions                                           9                of  the  Middle  Eastern  region ,  they  look  for  those  institutions  present  at  the                regional level and state their presence or absence on the basis of correspondence                with  international  society  at  the  global  level,  i.e.  “the  model”.  The  problem  is                that for those institutions that are interpreted differently, or adopted regionally                but absent at the global level, there can be only a weak account, as an analytical                methodology is based, first of all, on correspondence with the original model .                                                                                      10                The methodological procedure is the following: a global international society, by                definition, constitutes a single social field, in which categories, concepts (such as                institutions), and notions are meaningful and knowledgeable through common                social understanding. But if this global international society is broken down into                several regional domains, it means that the social field has become plural, with                the consequence that meanings and interpretations of the same concept may vary                (and here we come back to what said above about institutional polysemy) and                therefore our analytical concepts used to depict the reality may fail to fully account                for other realities. As it has been rightly said, “the whole procedure of ideal-typical                 9   The whole point made here about the limits of analyticism in dealing with ES institutions is                    concerned  with  “primary  institutions”,  i.e.  those  social  patterns  sustained  by  the  actors  to                    regulate  their  mutual  behaviour,  and  not  with  “secondary  institutions”,  which  are  more                    similar, conceptually, to regime-theory’s institutions (Krasner 1983). This is because the limits of                    analyticism are measured by analyticism’s ability to account for the social dimension of world                    politics. Waltz himself, the champion of analyticism, affirms that states are in relation with one                    another in a process of socialisation, but this socialisation is not accounted for in his book.                10   For a first attempt to link ES international society and Weberian ideal types, see Keene (2009).","36                  analysis is all about the transmutation of cultural values in useful analytical tools”                (Jackson 2011: 144). Therefore, the risk is for the ES to lose complexity and intra-                theoretical dynamism, reducing the analysis of regional international societies to                a matter of correspondence with the global level, merely looking for the presence                or absence of those institutions present at the global level.                   In applying a pure analytical methodology, in my opinion there is also another                risk, a consequence of what was explained above, which is that of applying etic                categories to the research domain, i.e. those deductive categories of analysis that                are meaningful for the researcher but not accessible to the people (or, more in                general,  unit  of  analysis)  that  constitute  the  research  field  as  opposed  to  emic                categories,  that  is  concepts  or  ideas  borrowed  from  the  field  of  investigation,                and therefore reflecting more accurately the domain we are inquiring on (6 and                Bellamy 2012). Both terms come from the discipline of anthropology, and this is                relevant for what will be said in the end of this section.                   Now, the reasoning is the following: if international society is broken down                in several regional international societies (hinging on the same, pluralistic and                communitarian global international society), and each of them is distinct because                of the presence, absence or different interpretation of a global norm, rule or in-                stitution due to a process of norm localisation as described above and because of                its cultural, historical and social uniqueness, then we need a methodology able to                capture and convey the essence of these interpretations, the motivations of choos-                ing a slightly different understanding from the commonly accepted one (usually,                the Western one) and the effects of these interpretive diversions. And if regional                international societies are formed due to a process of norm localisation (albeit                not only due to that), and if norm localisation is based on a different interpreta-                tion, I think that the best methodology to grasp the “societiness” of a regional                international society has not to be invented. It has been already used. It is exactly                an interpretive, reflexive one, based on Weberian Verstehen, one that would be also                capable, by virtue of its interaction with direct protagonists (i.e. diplomats, states-                men) and direct sources (archives, words, treaties), to grasp the etic aspect of the                regional international society, i.e. that which is meaningful for the actors consti-                tuting the suggested regional international society.                   As a consequence of this, I assert that a researcher in the ES domain should                adopt  those  methods  that  are  most  capable  of  revealing  the  perception,  the                acceptance and the “internalisation” of those institutions that are said to constitute                the regional international society: interviews, fieldwork, exploration of archives                and  hermeneutical  analyses  are,  in  my  opinion,  the  most  relevant  techniques                to  discover  the  etic  aspect  of  the  society  under  investigation,  thus  having  the                possibility to account for the different understandings/ interpretations of some                globally  established  institutions  and  the  presence  of  those  rules  and  norms                peculiarly regional that are adopted by states.                   An interpretive methodology can also help to verify and test how norms are                internalised by the regional actors. As a matter of fact, Buzan has reminded us that                norms can be shallowly or deeply internalised, following a descending path (from","37                                                                                                                                                                       38                  the most superficial to the deepest way of internalisation) going from coercion,                then  calculation,  to  belief  (2004).  Whereas  an  analytical  methodology,  based                more  on  the  observance  of  the  phenomenon  in  search  for  the  correspondence                with the model can only account for the presence of the norm, an interpretive                methodology,  being  closer  to  the  “hearts  and  minds”  of  statesmen  can  also                enhance the ES regional agenda by showing not only if norms and institutions                are adopted and respected, but also to what extent, with what meaning, and in                light of what motivations (on this matter, see also Dunne 2005).                   To be sure, the analytical element can be definitely retained and indeed should                be retained if a given regional international society is to be not only sustained by                the normative stance of the actors, but also visible through its practices. However,                what is argued here is that while the researcher can still maintain a phenomenal-                ist component, and therefore consider the regional international society as some-                thing discernible and identifiable in world politics, the inductive, transphenomenal-                ist reflexivity of the diplomat (or statesman, or state representative) should be the                pivotal element in assessing the presence and the “perceptibility” of the regional                international society. The interpretivism argued for here can be therefore a prag-                matic one, i.e. one that accepts the phenomenalism proposed by the analyticists                and Buzan, but not at the expenses of a great and solid interpretive component,                which should act as the compass with which one finds the normative underpin-                ning of the society under investigation, its etic dimension and its institutional                variability. As Dunne says, “[t]here is no a priori reason why an interpretive ap-                proach cannot incorporate the existence of systemic logics such as brute facts and                material capacities, while showing how these impact on the behaviour of indi-                viduals and communities” (Dunne 2005: 170).                   This last point allows us to link this third reflection to the first one made about                a comparative agenda of regional international societies: usually, comparison in                analytical research is done “in the pursuit of what Charles Tilly (1989: 82) calls                “individualising comparisons” that are useful for “grasping the peculiarities of                each case” (Jackson 2011: 153). It has already been noted that one of the fundamental                conditions for the existence of any regional international society is, apart from                a difference from the global level, a difference from other regional international                societies. And if this difference is due to a different interpretation of the same                institution, or to a different meaning of a norm, then interpretivism becomes the                crucial factor that allows us to grasp the peculiarities mentioned by Tilly.                   conclusIon - the three Answers As A nexus                 In the first response, it was explained that one way to differentiate the “new” ES                (the second wave of regional research) from past ES undertakings (the first wave)                was to pursue a diachronic regional agenda, or alternatively a comparative one,                alongside a better conceptualisation of “region”. In the second one, it was noted                that a better conceptualisation of institutions was necessary to better appreciate","38                  their different understandings in different regions, and that the borrowing of the                concept of “norm localisation” was the best way to account for the formation of                regional international societies. In the third one, it was affirmed that a more in-                terpretive methodology was better equipped to investigate the differentiation of                meanings and institutional behaviours in regions in comparison with the global                level,  and  also  to  understand  the  degree  of  internalisation  of  institutions  and                norms. The emic/etic distinction, in my opinion, is of the utmost importance if ES                researchers are to provide careful and substantial analyses of regional interna-                tional societies. As the world is progressively structuring itself on a regional scale                (Hurrel 1995, Ayoob 1999, Hettne and Soderbaum 2000, Fawn 2009) where culture,                diversity and difference are playing the most prominent role, then providing ac-                curate depictions of this incipient second-order pluralism using methodologies                and methods reflecting the thoughts and the intellectual domain of the unit of                analysis, rather than imposing the researcher’s analytical categories, would not                only give more theoretical and empirical solidity to ES works on regional interna-                tional societies, but would also be in line with the ES spirit.                   With regard to the emic/etic distinction made above, it must be stressed that                surprisingly (or maybe not), some 20 years ago Robert Jackson referred to the analysis                of international systems as international anthropology (1995: 113), referring to the                need to use categories of analyses meaningful for the communities under study.                The fact that I am suggesting keeping in mind the emic/etic distinction, indeed                borrowed from anthropology means, then, to be back to the future. The interpretive                variations within the same analytical construct (international society), therefore, make                possible a comparative agenda of regional international society which is spurred                by the regionalisation of international society and the consequential polysemy of                institutions, which in turn is approachable with the application of etic categories and                a more interpretive methodology. And here the circle is closed. With reference to                figure 1, and substituting the three “questions” with the three respective “answers”,                the three aspects are linked in the following way (as shown by figure 4):                 Figure 4: the RIS conundrums revisited                                      diachronic/comparative works on regions                             requires/allows                    requires/allows                                    pragmatic          allows/requires        polysemy                         interpretivism                              and norm","39                                                                                                                                                                       40                     For those who are acquainted with Watson’s pendulum, it can be said that                the world has moved from a community of independent (regional) international                societies (up to the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries), to a unique, global one                based on the European experience (in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries),                to  swing,  once  again,  back  to  incipient  regional  international  societies  (the                Twenty-first  Century),  although  hinging  on  the  same,  global  one.  As  noted                in the introduction, this chapter has tried to show how the recent move of the                ES  towards  the  analysis  of  regional  international  societies  brings  with  itself                important questions, both theoretical and methodological, that should be kept in                mind if the ES agenda on regions is to develop fruitfully. Moreover, the ES and                regions can serve as a venue for a trans-boundary conversation between different                intellectual  domains:  by  using  references  to  international  history,  linguistics                and anthropology, I made an attempt to elucidate those areas in which there is                potential for theoretical innovation within the ES, and I tried to show how this                potential is spurred exactly by the “regionalisation” of international society.                   The critiques, or problems, I dealt with are by no means definitive, nor are they                the only ones; rather, they should function as a springboard for more accurate,                more  precise  and  more  in-  depth  reflections  on  the  analytical  and  theoretical                coherence  of  the  ES  than  those  I  humbly  made  here,  with  more  intellectual                sophistication than I was able to show. However, if the ES, as a research program,                is to contribute to the advancement of the IR field not only by focusing on new                realms such as regional international societies, but also by posing new questions                and proposing new puzzles in perfect conformity with Lakatos’ idea of a progressive                research programme (Lakatos 1970), then I believe that the questions posed above                and the tentative answers provided here are a good starting point to revitalise                and consolidate the ES framework scaled on a regional level, and to entrench                methodological and analytical reflections with a more coherent, stable and at the                same time flexible research framework.                   To conclude, I turn back to where I started from, stating that the analysis of                regional international societies, other than being a good innovation within the ES                per se, is a precious source of reflections, speculation and fresh, new theoretical                thinking. Twenty-two years ago, Roy Jones called for the closure of the ES (1981).                Yet, the regional path newly commenced shows how much there is still to reflect on,                to debate on, to ameliorate, to investigate. By continuing to question and reinvent                itself, the ES is proving to be more alive than ever, and the new regional challenge                is only the latest, and hopefully not the last, proof of its prolific, polyhedral and                constantly developing character.","40                   references                 6, Perri and Bellamy, Christine. 2011. Principles of Methodology. Research Design                in Social Science. London: SAGE Publications.                  Acharya, Amitav. 2004. “How Ideas Spread.” International Organization, vol. 58,                no. 1, pp. 239–275.                  Acharya, Amitav. 2011. “Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders. Sovereignty,                Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World.” International Studies                Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 95–123.                 Adamson, Fiona. 2005. “Global Liberalism Versus Political Islam. Competing                Ideological Frameworks in International Politics.” International Studies Review,                vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 547–569.                 Adler, Emanuel. 2005. “Barry Buzan´s Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct                the English School. ´Not All the Way Down´.” Millennium. Journal of International                Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 171–182.                 Ayoob, Mohamed. 1999. “From Regional System to Regional Society. Exploring                Key Variables in the Construction of Regional Order.” Australian Journal                of International Affairs, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 247–260.                  Bozeman, Adda. 1960. Politics and Culture in International History. Princeton:                Princeton University Press.                 Bull, Hedley. 1966. “International Theory. The Case for a Classical Approach.”                World Politics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 361–377.                 Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics.                London: Macmillan.                 Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society.                Oxford: Clarendon Press.                 Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory                and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Buzan Barry . 2010. “Culture and International Society.” International Affairs,                vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 1–25                 Buzan, Barry. 2012. “How Regions Were Made, and the Legacies for World","41                                                                                                                                                                       42                  Politics. An English School Reconnaissance.” In: International Relations Theory and                Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,                pp. 22-48.                 Buzan, Barry and Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana. 2009. International Society and the Middle                East. English School Theory at the Regional Level. London: Palgrave Macmillan.                 Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard. 2000. International Systems in World History.                Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.                 Buzan, Barry and Wæver, Ole. 2003. Regions and Powers. The Structure of                International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                  Costa-Buranelli, Filippo. 2012. “Is the English School Best Seen as a Form of                Proto-Constructivism?” E-International Relations. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct                2013, available at: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/08/is-the-english-school-a-form-                of-protoconstructivism/.                  Cummings, Sally and Hinnebusch, Raymond, ed. 2011. Sovereignty After Empire.                Comparing the Middle East and Central Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.                  Dunne, Tim. 1995. “The Social Construction of International Society.” European                Journal of International Relations, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 367–389.                  Dunne, Tim. 1998. Inventing International Society. A History of the English School.                Basingstoke UK: Macmillan Press.                 Dunne, Tim. 2005. “System, State and Society. How Does It All Hang Together?”                Millennium. Journal of International Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 157–170.                 Fawn, Rick. 2009. “´Regions´ and Their Study. Wherefrom, What for and Where                to?” Review of International Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 5–35.                 Greener, Ian. 2011. Designing Social Research. A Guide for the Bewildered. London:                SAGE Publications.                 Hameiri, Shahar. 2013. “Theorising Regions through Changes in Statehood.                Rethinking the Theory and Method of Comparative Regionalism.” Review of                International Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 313–336.                 Hashmi, Sohail. 2009. “Islam, the Middle East, and the Pan-Islamic Movement.”                In: International Society and the Middle East. English school Theory at the Regional                Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez. London: Palgrave Macmillan,                pp. 170-200.","42                  Hettne, Björn and Söderbaum, Fredrik. 2000. “Theorising the Rise of                Regionness.” New Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 457–472.                 Hurrell, Andrew. 1995. “Explaining the Resurgence of Regionalism in World                Politics.” Review of International Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 331-358.                 Jackson, Robert. 1995. “The Political Theory of International Society.” In:                International Relations Theory Today. Eds. Ken Booth and Steve Smith. University                Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 110-128.                 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2010. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations.                Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. Abingdon:                Routledge.                 Katzenstein, Peter. 2005. A World of Regions. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.                 Keene, Edward. 2009. “International Society as an Ideal Type.” In: Theorising                International Society. Ed. Cornelia Navari. Basingstokes: Palgrave Macmillan,                pp. 104-124.                 Krasner Stephen, ed. 1983. International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.                 Krasner, Stephen. 1999. Sovereignty. Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton                University Press.                 Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge:                Cambridge University Press.                 Lake, David and Morgan, Patrick, eds. 1997. Regional Orders. Building Security                in a New World. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.                 Lichtenberk, Frantisek. 1991. “Semantic Change and Heterosemy in                Grammaticalization.” Language, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 475–509.                  Linklater, Andrew and Suganami, Hidemi. 2006. The English School. A                Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                  Little, Richard. 2000. “The English School´s Contribution to the Study of                International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations, vol. 6, no. 3,                pp. 395–422.                 Mansfield, Edward D. and Milner, Helen. 1999. “The New Wafe of Regionalism.”                International Organization, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 589–627.","43                                                                                                                                                                       44                  Mansfield, Edward D. and Solingen, Etel. 2010. “Regionalism.” Annual Review                of Political Science, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 145–163.                 Morada, Noel. 2012. “Europe and Southeast Asia. ASEAN-EU Interregionalism                between Pluralist and Solidarist Societies.” Review of European Studies, vol. 4,                no. 3, pp. 89–99.                 Navari, Cornelia, ed. 2009. Theorising International Society. Basingstokes: Palgrave                Macmillan.                 Paasi, Anssi. 2003. “Region and Place. Regional Identity in Question.” Progress                in Human Geography, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 475–485.                  Paul, T.V. 2012. “Regional Transformation in International Relations.”                In: International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul.                Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-21.                 Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.                 Quayle, Linda. 2010. “Bridging the Gap. An ‘English School’ Perspective on                ASEAN and Regional Civil Society.” The Pacific Review, vol. 25, no, 2,                pp. 199–222.                 Reus-Smit, Chris. 2002. “Imagining Society. Constructivism and the English                School.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 4, no. 3,                pp. 487–509.                 Roberson, Barbara  Allen. 2009. “Law, Power and the Expansion of International                Society.” In: Theorising International Society. Ed. Cornelia Navari. Basingstokes:                Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 189-208.                 Sartori, Giovanni. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.”                The American Political Science Review, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1033–1053.                  Suganami, Hidemi. 2001. “Wendt and the English School.” Journal of International                Relations and Development, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 403–423.                  Suganami, Hidemi. 2005. “The English School and International Theory.”                In: International Society and Its Critics. Ed. A. J. Bellamy. Oxford: Oxford                University Press, pp. 29-44.                 Tilly, Charles. 1989. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York:                Russel Sage Foundation Publications.","44                  Valbjørn, Morten. 2009. “Arab Nationalism(s) in Transformation. From Arab                Interstate Societies to an Arab-Islamic World Society.” In: International Society                and the Middle East. English school Theory at the Regional Level. Ed. Barry Buzan                and Ana Gonzale-Pelaez. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 140-169.                  Von Hlatky, Stefanie. 2012. “Strategies and Mechanisms of Regional Change.”                In: International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul.                Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 283-298.                 Watson, Adam. 1992. The Evolution of International Society. London: Routledge.                Wight, Martin. 1977. Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press for                the London School of Economics and Political Science.                  Wilson, Peter. 2009. “The English School´s Approach to International Law.”                In: Theorising International Society. Ed. Cornelia Navari. Basingstokes: Palgrave                Macmillan, pp. 167-188.","45                                                                                                                                                                       46                  3      Towards a Regional International Society: Making Sense                       of Regionalism(s) in East Asia                                                                          Yongjin Zhang                     IntroductIon 1                                      2                Regionalism(s) in Asia  in their various manifestations has been the subject of                a  plethora  of  recent  publications  in  international  political  economy  and  in  se-                curity  studies.  While  the  study  of  regionalism  has  been  back  in  fashion  for                a while, different IR theoretical perspectives have been brought to bear upon the                examination and interpretation of economic and security regionalisation of Asia.                The  favored  empirical  canvas  for  neo-liberal  institutionalism,  rationalists  and                constructivists for example, is regional economic integration and open-regional-                ism (Garnaut and Dyrstyle 1994, Ravenhill 2000, Katzenstein, 2000, Katzenstein                et al. 2000). This body of literature examines the increasing economic integration                of the region, the political process of regionalism, and the institutionalization of                regional economic cooperation. It explores both ideational and material factors                in the making of regionness in the Asia-Pacific. The testing ground for realists                and constructivists alike is the construction of a regional security community in                the prime example of the Association of Southeast East Asian Nations (ASEAN).                Rationalists and regime theorists have also intervened in the debate. The mixed                fortunes of regionalism(s) in Asia have been a subject of intense debate recently,                particular after the Asian financial crisis in 1997.                   The  English  School’s  (ES)  concept  of  International  Society  as  a  theoretical                          3                perspective , or more broadly, the ES in general, seems to have little to say about                the regionalisation of world politics. It has not engaged the empirical purview                of European integration as much as it should have, and it has so far remained                relatively  silent,  if  not  entirely  absent,  in  current  discussions  and  debate  on                                    4                regionalisms  in  Asia.   This  seems  unnatural,  given  that  International  Society                has it as its principal interest and investigation how a society formed by and of                states  develops  common  interests,  rules,  norms,  common  institutions  to  foster                 1   This  paper  (except  for  the  last  section)  was  first  drafted  in  2002  in  preparation  for  a  panel                    presentation at the 2002 International Studies Association Convention at San Francisco. It mainly                    remains as it was except for some editorial changes and the last section. The last section has been                    added to reflect on the thriving discourse on regionalism in the last ten years or so, and the ES’                    engagement or lack thereof in the studies of regions and regionalism in global politics.                2   Asian regionalism, though now an often-used expression, is at best very ambiguous. Throughout                    this paper I use regionalisms in Asia to indicate divergent practices and experience of regional                    integration in Asia as well as different perceptions of such practices.                3   I use International Society with capitalised I and S to refer to the theoretical perspective. This                    should be differentiated from international society with small i and s.                4   Higgot (1998), for example, comes very close to evoke Bull's ideas about international society in                    his study of comparative regionalism.","46                  regional  cooperation  and  to  mitigate  the  anarchic  nature  of  the  international                system. This is precisely the goal that variants of regionalism, in Europe, Asia                and elsewhere, attempt to achieve. Why then such relative silence? Does it have                anything interesting to say about regionalism in general? If it does, what and                how does it differ from other theoretical perspectives? Can it tell us more about                regionalisms in Asia? Equally significantly, how will its engagement with studies                of regionalism help fulfill its theoretical promise?                   This paper draws the two discussions together: International Society and re-                gionalism, more specifically, Asian regionalism(s). The main assertion I make in                the discussions below is that there has been a mutual apathy between Interna-                tional Society studies and studies of regionalism. Such apathy has a great deal                to do with the nature of the regionalisation of the global economy and world                politics. It also owes an equal amount to the embedded weakness of International                Society as a theoretical approach as it stands today to dealing with the emergence                of regionalism. That may explain why it has maintained its relative silence. But                that should not be taken as a denial of the theoretical promise of International                Society in providing significant insights into what the emergence and maturity                of regionalism(s) in Asia means for the construction of a regional international                society.                   This chapter is structured as follows. First, I discuss three faces presented in the                current studies and discourse of regionalism(s) in Asia in international political                economy, security studies, and, most recently, in the arguments of legalization                of world politics. This is followed by an examination of what I believe is the case                of apathy between international society and regionalism, asking how and why                this has happened and arguing that overcoming such apathy holds promise to                make  the  perspective  of  International  Society  theoretically  more  robust,  and                studies of regionalism empirically more revealing. In the third section, I offer                tentative interpretations of the deepening, strengthening, and maturity of Asian                regionalism(s) within the analytical framework of International Society. While the                first three sections are derived from the original version of the text (see footnote                1 of this chapter), the last section of the chapter provides an up-to-date postscript                which allows a certain level of understanding of regional dynamics during the                last decade and comparative reading between East Asia then and now.                    regIonAlIsm(s) In eAst AsIA: three dIfferent fAces                 That some manifestations of regionalism exist in Asia, and that they differ in                significant ways from that which has been evolving in Europe, are now widely                acknowledged. It is also generally accepted that states, peoples, and societies of                Asia (particularly the Pacific Asia) have been brought together first and foremost                by  unprecedented  regional  economic  integration  and  increasing  economic                interdependence  between  economies  of  the  region  and  the  global  economy.                The economic regionalism that has emerged in Asia is seen at the same time as","47                                                                                                                                                                       48                  part and parcel of the “new wave of regionalism” that is concurrent with the                globalization of the world economy (Mansfield and Milner 1999). It is perhaps not                surprising that it is in the discourse of regionalisation of the world economy and                in international political economy of the rise of a world of regions (Katzenstein                2000) that the face of evolving economic regionalism in Asia has been presented.                   Economic Regionalism                 The existing literature on economic regionalism in Asia is quite rich. At the first                level, there are more economics-oriented- accounts and explanations. This part of                the literature depicts how foreign direct investment (FDI) has knitted the regional                economies in Asia together and constructed production networks in the region                that are closely bound to the world economy (Frankel 1998, Dobson 2001). Eco-                nomic integration in Asia is therefore said to be market-driven. Preferential trad-                ing arrangements (PTAs) that underlay the emergence of a trading bloc embodied                eventually in Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) are dubbed “open re-                gionalism” (Garnaut and Drysdale 1994, Bergsten 1997). Such an account argues                that “open regionalism” is Asia’s response to the steep reductions in logistical                hurdles and the accelerated pace of international economic transactions and to                economic  globalization.  Concerted  unilateral  trade  liberalization  of  individual                members of APEC is seen as Asia-Pacific’s special contribution to the world trade                system (Garnaut 1996).                   At the second level, the practice of economic regionalism(s) in Asia is seen                as  a  political  process  whereby  states  and  governments  seek  economic  policy                cooperation and coordination. In this light, neo-liberal institutionalists argue that                regime and institutional building is the efficient response to fixed policy problems.                They seek answers to questions such as why it is in the interest of regional actors                in Asia to engage in collective action and what regimes are conducive to overcome                collective action problems. They also examine what domestic and international                political  factors  shape  a  particular  actor’s  approach  to  policy  cooperation  and                coordination (Haggard 1997, Mansfield and Milner 1999). In the interpretations                of  neo-liberal  institutionalists,  Asia’s  approach  to  regionalism,  as  seen  in  the                working  of  Asia-Pacific  Economic  Cooperation  (APEC)  for  example,  is  at  least                ineffective, as institutionalization of such regionalism remains legally weak and                perpetually thin (Katzenstein 2000, Ravenhill 2000).                   Finally, at the third level, what Katzenstein calls “network power” is explored.                This  part  of  literature,  though  comparatively  thin,  looks  at  how  various                transnational  social  and  commercial  networks  in  Asia  bring  about,  facilitate,                or underlie “economic integration without explicit institutional links”. Chinese                family  and  business  networks  in  Asia,  the  so-called  bamboo  network,  and                Japanese kereitsu structures, it is argued, have played special roles in knitting                regional economies together (Weidenbaum and Hughes 1996, Katzenstein 2000a).","48                     What are largely missing in the current discussions and debates on economic                                                     5                regionalism in Asia are ideational factors.  How much, for example, are the region                and its boundaries socially constructed? How is APEC’s identity as a distinctive                regional grouping constructed in contradistinction to the European Union (EU)                and  the  North  American  Free  Trade  Agreement  (NAFTA)?  Is  it  possible  that                economic regionalism and increasing level of political and economic transactions                at the regional level has a transformative effect on a state’s understanding and                identification of its interests? If it is, how and why?  Even when Asian regionalism                is “coming of age” (Katzenstein 2000), these questions remain under-researched                in the existing literature.                   Regional Cooperation in Security                 Economic regionalism in Asia is no doubt the most recognizable face presented                and most widely deliberated on by economists and international political econo-                my specialists alike. The second face of regionalism(s) in Asia concerns the re-                gional approach to security problems that continue to plague the region in the                post-Cold War period. In this regard, ASEAN has become a classical case of re-                gional security cooperation to be examined ever since its inception in 1967. This                is partly because as a regional organization for political and economic coopera-                tion, ASEAN is often regarded as the most successful example in the developing                world. The mixed institutional experience of ASEAN and the ups and downs of                                                                             6                its fortunes are, however, a subject of intense debate and controversy.  At the cen-                ter of the controversy is ASEAN’s distinctive approach to regional cooperation in                general and to security cooperation in particular: the much trumpeted “ASEAN                Way”. As a particular brand of institutionalism, it seeks to avoid formalistic politi-                cal processes and legal procedures and emphasizes inclusiveness, consultation,                                                7                and consensus in conflict resolution.                   What both realists and institutionalists find hard to explain is that this “soft                regionalism”,  which  deliberately  shuns  institutionalization,  does  seem  to  have                succeeded  in  avoiding  war  and  in  managing  intra-regional  conflicts  among                ASEAN members in the last forty-five years, a turbulent period that has seen                a number of fundamental shifts in the regional strategic environment. With the                emergence of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 1994, the distinctive strategic                culture and peculiar approach to institutionalization as embodied in the ASEAN                way became the model for the first and only multilateral security mechanism of                the whole Asia-Pacific region. While many see the virtue of such an approach that                brings together such heterogeneous memberships into one forum, others argue                 5   One exception here is Higgot (1998)                6   See Higgot (2000).                7   As  Acharya  summarizes  succinctly,  “The  ASEAN  way  stresses  informality,  organizational                    minimalism, inclusiveness, intense consultations leading to consensus and peaceful resolution                    of disputes” (Acharya 2001: 63).","49                                                                                                                                                                       50                  that the ASEAN way is but rhetoric and hyperbole, and that the lack of formal                institutionalization  of  the  ARF  will  lead  such  regional  approaches  to  security                cooperation into a cul-de-sac (Foot 1995, Johnston 1999). The ARF is at best a talk                shop. Interestingly, comparisons with the European experience that have been                invariably  made  in  many  studies  highlight  as  much  the  regional  institutional                variations  that  exist  in  their  respective  approaches  to  managing  security                challenges as they show the weak institutionalization of ASEAN and ARF, as                those studies originally intended.                   That ASEAN as a security organization and the ARF as an institutional product                for regional security management embody different forms of institutionalism and                that ASEAN and the ARF’s rejection to formal institutionalization is a deliberate                strategic  choice,  there  is  no  dispute.  The  puzzle  is  why  ASEAN,  and  for  that                matter, the ARF, should have chosen such a peculiar form of institutionalization                and novel approach to national and international security when they have been                repeatedly  warned  of  its  potential  problems  and  inevitable  failure,  and  what                they  try  to  achieve  with  it  beyond  immediate  security  goals.  The  most  recent                constructivist  intervention  in  the  discourse  on  regional  security  order  in  the                ASEAN and the Asia-Pacific, particularly that of Amitav Acharya, takes current                debates  to  another  level.  Acharya  argues,  contra  realist  and  institutionalist                explanations of the institutional “anomaly” in Southeast Asian regional security                cooperation, that this deliberate choice is made because “ASEAN’s founders were                largely inspired by the goal of developing a social community rather than an                institutionally integrated economic or military bloc” (Acharya 2001: 195).                   In his view, the sheer diversity among ASEAN members in cultural, linguistic,                demographic, religious, and political terms and the lack of background conditions                for  a  security  community  building,  such  as  the  shared  political  culture  and                economic interdependence that exist in North America and Europe, predispose                the  Southeast  Asian  nations  to  adopt  a  non-traditional  approach  to  security                cooperation.  Rather  than  looking  at  whether  the  ASEAN  way  is  a  credible                approach to institutionalization, Acharya examines it in the light of its role in                socialization among ASEAN members and in norms and identity construction                within the region. He traces how the awareness of Southeast Asia as a region was                created, and (imagined) boundaries in the process. He argues convincingly about                how the building of a security community has been unfolding in this socially                constructed region (Acharya 2001).                   The Legalization of World Politics                 The third face of regionalism in Asia is presented by Miles Kahler. In his recent                article “Legalization as Strategy: The Asia-Pacific Case” published in International                Organization, Kahler notes that “the density of institutions spanning the region                remains lower than that in Europe or in Americas”, but also concedes that the                institutional differences with other regions have been narrowed with “a modest","50                  wave of institutional building in the 1990s” (Kahler 2000: 549).  Kahler agrees with                most institutionalists that the weak institutionalization prevailing in the Asia-                Pacific is problematic. There is, however, an even deeper problem, he argues. That                is the explicit rejection or aversion to the legalization of regional institutions in                the institutional design and the institutional culture of regionalism in the Asia-                Pacific. The ASEAN way, in his words, is “collaboration without legalization”, and                the APEC simply “resists legalization”. This is in sharp contrast to the EU and                NAFTA. In so doing, Kahler attempts to put a “legal face” on the lack of formal                institutionalization of regionalism(s) in Asia.                   Kahler rejects functionalist, cultural, and domestic political explanations of                low  legalization  of  institutional  designs  in  the  Asia-Pacific  regionalism(s).  The                inexplicable puzzle that contests these explanations, in his view, is why outside                these regional institutions, states and governments of the Asia-Pacific region have                embraced legalization in a large number of issue areas. He notes some recent                instances where legalized institutions are preferred by states of the Asia-Pacific                in regional and extra-regional contexts for strategic considerations. The World                Trade Organization (WTO) is a typical example. Following the true rationalist                logic, Kahler argues that the choice of legalization among states and governments                of the Asia-Pacific is “both instrumental and strategic” (Kahler 2000: 562). Though                Kahler is ambivalent about whether legalized institutions can solve the problems                confronted by the region, particularly after the Asian financial crisis in 1997 and                is skeptical of “a legalized future” for the region, he does imply that legalization                of international institutions, regional and global, is not only a preferred option,                but perhaps also inevitable.                   InternAtIonAl socIety And regIonAlIsm: A cAse of mutuAl ApAthy?                 If  regionalism  has  indeed  been  “brought  back”  into  academic  studies  of                international relations recently in the company of a “new wave of regionalism”                (Mansfield and Milner 1999), it is more than pertinent to ask where is International                Society in current debates? What does it have to say about regionalism and the                regionalisation of world politics? A cursory survey of the existing literature reveals                a  strange  silence  on  the  part  of  International  Society  scholars  on  regionalism.                Deliberations  by  scholars  of  the  ES  on  regional  levels  of  international  society                in  the  Twentieth  Century  have  been  until  very  recently  muted,  if  not  entirely                absent.  Such  silence  is  best  reflected  in  an  important  essay  on  regionalism  in                1995 by Andrew Hurrell. The comprehensive survey of Regionalism in Theoretical                Perspective  conducted  by  Hurrell  contains  no  specific  mentioning  of  either  the                ES or the International Society perspective. It is remarkable that Hedley Bull is                mentioned only once towards the end of his book as “that arch-regional skeptic”                (Fawcett and Hurrell 1995: 327). Even critical International Society as summarized                nicely by Dunne (1995) does not seem to have made much of a dent in the studies                of regionalism.","51                                                                                                                                                                       52                     Such silence is strange on several accounts. First, classical studies of interna-                tional society examine how historically a regional international society (the Eu-                ropean society of states) expanded into a global one, and how in the process, it                overwhelmed, incorporated, and in some cases destroyed other regional interna-                tional societies. The transformation of international society constitutes the core                of that historical inquiry.  Second, for a group of scholars identified with the ES,                international society, not the state, has always been the focal and starting point                of their theorizing of International Relations. This is also how they try to distin-                guish themselves from both neo-realists and neo-liberal institutionalists. Third,                International Society scholars have a keen interest in how a group of states come                to form a society when they develop distinctive norms, common rules and insti-                tutions and when they perceive themselves to have common purpose in inter-                national life and to share the working of common institutions for the conduct of                their relations.  One can hardly find more a prominent example than the evolution                of a regional international society.  Fourth, the strength of International Society                perspective lies in its “recognition of historical peculiarities in the evolution of                different systems of states” (Waever 1992: 97). Such sensitivity to historical and                contemporary peculiarities is what is badly needed in the study of the emergence                and functioning of different regional international societies. Finally, regionalism                has been so far driven largely by intergovernmentalism and neo-functionalism.                This is the area of state cooperation in world politics to which an International                Society perspective should have a lot to add.                   What explains such silence then? Why should the “implicitly constructivist”                ES  remain  silent  when  constructivists  have  made  such  an  impact  on  studies                of  regionalism(s)  in  Asia?  Is  the  International  Society  perspective  inherently                handicapped  to  deal  with  theoretical  issues  related  to  the  regionalisation  of                world politics? Does the world of regions remain beyond the ontology of the ES?                Even if answers to these questions remain elusive and subject to contestation, the                following can be suggested.                   First, the classical literature of the ES on international society does tell the                story  of  how  a  regional  society  of  states  fashioned  in  Europe  expanded  into                a global one. Once that story was told, however, the global international society,                its strengths and weaknesses, its role in mediating anarchy, and concerns about                the erosion of its foundational common culture, became almost the exclusive con-                cerns of the deliberations in the literature. Regional international society simply                fell off the research agenda. It may not be a surprise, therefore, that until recently,                the International Society perspective has had quite narrow confines of debates.                Even if the world of regions is not entirely beyond the ontology of the ES, the                limited discussions of regionalism in the classical literature betrays strong skepti-                cism about the regionalisation of world politics. It is telling that Hedley Bull dis -                cusses regional integration of states in his book section on neo-medievalism and                the decline of the state system (Bull 1977: 264-66).                   Second, given the self-referential nature of the ES in its classical phase, for                those younger scholars and students looking for theoretical inspirations in study-","52                  ing regionalism in its contemporary manifestations, there is not much there to                excavate in the mines of classical masters’ ideas. Rather, any engagement in the                studies of regionalism from the International Society perspective would demand                theoretically more innovative approaches. Third, the central analytical construct                of International Society perspective has been and remains the state. This is equally                true for both classical International Society and critical International Society. Tak-                ing states as the only analytical focus, however, is neither sufficient nor adequate                in dealing with regionalism in world politics. One could argue that International                Society perspective as formulated by its founders is ill-equipped in dealing with                transnational issues and transformations in world politics.                   Fourth,  even  if  we  acknowledge  the  strength  of  world  society  imagery  of                the ES in explaining and understanding transnational changes and issues, the                International  Society  perspective  will  continue  to  be  handicapped  until  and                unless the concept of world society that remains murky so far is clearly defined                and  cleverly  exploited  to  make  it  readily  applicable  to  studying  regionalism                           8                analytically.  Fifth, it has been suggested that the ES in general and the International                Society perspective in particular are particularly weak on international political                economy. Such weakness has not worked in favor of the International Society                perspective’s engagement in studies of regionalism.                   If International Society has until very recently left regionalism largely out of                sight, discussions of regionalisation of international political economy and world                politics have made evident their benign neglect of International Society. There                is clearly apathy between the two. Why then does regionalism/regionalisation                of world politics not engage International Society? One simple and incomplete                explanation is that regionalism and International Society find themselves mutually                unattractive. Such mutual apathy, however, deprives both of mutually enriching                opportunities in terms of developing a better understanding of regionalism and                in enhancing a more robust theoretical perspective of International Society.                   For the International Society perspective, important theoretical openings are                possible in engaging the studies of regionalism in world politics. How much global                international society that is constructed by states is reducible, and to what level?                What kind of tensions or conflicts is the co-existence of global and regional levels                of international society likely to generate? Does the emergence of solidaristic and                pluralist international societies in different regions strengthen or fragment global                international  society?  In  which  way  can  these  regional  international  societies                co-exist upon the common foundation of a global international society? Can we                see the emergence and maturity of regional international societies as a “halfway                house” in the construction and emergence of a world society? How does it mediate                or enable us to understand the difficult relations between international society                and world society? What are the implications of evolving regional international                societies for the transformation of world politics? These theoretically significant                questions can be asked and answered only in the studies of regionalism.                8   In Buzan’s (2001: 482) words, “[p]erhaps the first priority here is to unpack the still rather murky                    concept of world society and make more explicit what it actually contains”.","53                                                                                                                                                                       54                     For the studies of regionalism, engaging the International Society perspective                can yield a clear understanding of the normative basis of variants of regionalism,                and the working of elements of society in different practices in constructing and                preserving  regional  international  societies.  Complementary  to  constructivists,                International Society enables studies of regionalism to examine how and why                ideas matter in the evolution of certain regional international society and in which                way the society of states is also “states of mind” (Morgan 2001). This is helpful for                studies of regionalism to escape from the straitjacket of rationalist explanations                and  neo-liberal  institutionalist  arguments  about  regional  integration  and  the                working of regionalism in world politics. It would in the final analysis help us                make better sense of regionalism(s) in various manifestations, and thus put us in                a better position to think through issues related to transnational governance in                the increasing regionalisation of world politics.                   There exist therefore compelling reasons as well as imperatives to draw together                the two discussions: International Society and regionalism. This promises to be                a mutually rewarding and enriching practice to both fields of studies and should                open up an exciting research agenda. Sheer assertion of theoretical relevance and                even  establishing  theoretical  claims  of  the  ES  on  regionalism  is  not  sufficient.                The  hard  work  is  how  to  sharpen  International  Society  as  an  analytical  tool                imaginatively and apply it to the studies of regionalism in world politics in an                innovative way.                   towArds A regIonAl InternAtIonAl socIety?                 In his recent comments on Asian regionalism, Paul Evans lamented that the Asia-                Pacific:                   has  an  inexhaustible  supply  of  national  rivalries,  unresolved  animosities,  negative  mutual                images, political and ideological conflicts, divided states, incompatible economic systems, crumbling                economies,  and  cultural  and  civilizational  divides.  It  is  a  rough  and  unforgiving  neighborhood                where nationalism repeatedly trumps regionalism (Evans 2001: 246).                   Further,  Asian  regionalism  has  developed  in  a  context  that  is  still  lacking                in  “regional  consciousness,  regional  institutions,  deep  economic  integration,                political community, effective leadership, or vibrant transnational actors” (Evans                2001: 246). If this is a true, though ultimately stark, picture of how diversified and                divided this region is in political, economic, ideological, historical, religious and                civilizational terms, it is remarkable how far regionalism(s) in Asia has come in                such an inhospitable environment, as I have briefly discussed earlier.                   How can we then make sense of regionalism(s) in Asia by using lenses that the                International Society perspective provides us? What insights does it afford us? Is                the emergence and maturity of regionalism(s) in Asia working towards building                up a regional international society? How can we make sense of the emerging                economic, political and security regionalisation of Asia in world politics and in                international political economy? Conversely, in which way can studies of Asian","54                  regionalism(s) throw light on theoretical questions that the International Society                perspective poses above? One of the difficulties in attempting to answer these                questions  is  that  the  existence  of  regional  international  society,  particularly                in  the  instance  of  the  European  Union  (EU),  is  widely  assumed,  but  rarely                analyzed  (Buzan  2001).  However,  even  granting  the  underdeveloped  nature                of  the  International  Society  perspective  as  an  analytical  tool  in  the  studies  of                regionalism, the International Society perspective enables us immediately to ask                a different set of questions about the nature and practices of regionalism(s) in                Asia. In the discussions below, I will adopt the International Society perspective                in addressing following questions, the answers to which lead to interpretations                of exercises and practices of regionalism(s) in Asia that differ significantly from                those  offered  by  the  dominant  neo-liberal  institutionalist  and  rationalist  ones.                Is  the  weak  institutionalization  that  is  widely  acknowledged  and  criticized                of  regionalism(s)  in  Asia  an  insurmountable  obstacle  to  the  construction  of                a regional international society? Are exercises of regionalism(s) in Asia efforts to                construct regional identity, and regional awareness? To what extent does a society                of states exist as states of mind? In what sense can we argue that regionalism(s) in                Asia aims not only at creating a functional community for utilitarian purposes,                but also at introducing elements of society with a normative and ethical basis that                have transformative effects on the nature and character of regional international                politics?                   Institutionalization                 The most noted, and also most controversial, criticisms of regionalism(s) in Asia                are its weak or lack of formal institutionalization. This applies equally to three                important regional institutions: the ASEAN, the ARF and APEC. Far too often,                comparisons are made by juxtaposing the Asian experience with that the European                one. The inevitable, and often simplistic, conclusion is that regionalism(s) in Asia                is far less institutionalized than that in Europe. In spite of all virtues argued by                Higgot, such a comparison is problematic, not in the least because the EU is, in                the words of Barry Buzan, “the most highly developed, thickest, most solidaritist/                progressive international society ever seen” (Buzan 2001: 485). It also obscures our                view of how regional institutional differences in terms of density and complexity                have been narrowed down between Asia and Europe. Further, institutionalization                is certainly not the whole story of practice and exercise of regionalism.                   Regional institutional variations on the other hand should not only concern                themselves with the narrow confines of how weak or strong a regional institution                is  in  terms  of  its  formalization  and  legalization.  They  should  also  concern                themselves  with  how  institutions  are  conceptualized.  As  Tim  Dunne  argues,                from the International Society perspective, international institutions are no more                than  “practices  embedded  in  the  fabric  of  international  society”  (Dunne  1995:","55                                                                                                                                                                       56                      9                141).  War and the balance of power are regarded in this light as fundamental                institutions of the global international society not so much as they are formally                institutionalized, but because they are deeply embedded practices that sustain                the existence of the society of states at the regional as well as at the global level.                This suggests that rather than looking at whether institutionalization of certain                regional arrangements is formal or informal, we should inquire as to whether                practices of regionalism are conducive to introducing elements of society into the                management of regional international relations.                   Such  a  perspective  casts  a  different  light  on  institutional  practices  of                regionalism(s)  in  Asia.  In  the  Southeast  Asian  context,  the  introduction  of  the                code of conduct, the agreement of non-use of force and peaceful settlement of                disputes, the doctrine of non-interference, and the eventual emergence of “the                ASEAN way” – all are practices that encourage rule-governed behavior of states                in  regional  international  relations.  Such  practices  become  institutions  when                they are acknowledged to have become part of the fabric of a society of states. It                would not be an exaggeration today to say that they underlie the very existence                of the ASEAN as a regional security community, even though the practice of non-                interference, for example, is being contested both within and beyond the region.                The fact that the so-called “ASEAN way” has been modeled in the practices of                both the ARF and APEC is testimony not to the weakness of the two forums,                but to the importance and relevance of “the ASEAN way” to foster some basic                practices in the conduct of relations among states in a wider region, which in                due time may (or may not) evolve into common institutions for the emergence of                a regional international society.                   This interpretation of institutionalization and of the practices of regionalism                in Asia contests the assumption that formal institutionalization and legalization                as  in  the  instance  of  the  EU  constitutes  the  only  pathway  to  the  emergence                and establishment of a regional international society. It contends that since the                emergence of regional international society does not necessarily dictate formal                institutionalization,  weak  or  informal  institutional  arrangements  should  not                stand in the way to the construction of a regional society of states. This allows for                different constitutional forms of regional international society.                   Values, Norms, and Identity Construction as States of Mind                 Values,  norms,  and  identity  are  important  considerations  of  the  International                Society perspective. The classical studies of the European society of states and                its  expansion  emphasize  in  particular  that  the  emergence  and  existence  of  an                international society is sustained by common purposes and common values that                 9   Also note Roger Morgan’s recent comments on Wright’s idea of an international institution. “For                    Wight, it meant not only formal institutions like the League of Nations or the UN (let alone the                    distinctively more supranational ones of the European Union), but also—and primarily—the                    customary processes and usages of a society of sovereign states” (Morgan 2001: 561).","56                  states come to share, and laws, rules, and norms that states undertake to respect                and abide by. Identity is crucial in the construction of a regional as well as global                polity of society of states. Studies on the standard of “civilization” and its role                in the expansion of the European international society make a salient statement                of these points (Gong 1984, Bull and Watson 1984). In the deliberations on global                international society, identity seems to have been low on the research agenda. The                keen interest on identity and contentions and debates triggered by constructivists                has  further  obscured  the  concern  of  the  International  Society  perspective  on                identity.                   In the Asia-Pacific, states remain the principal agents in the construction of the                region. In view of the cultural and religious diversity, historical lack of regional                awareness,  and  the  social  and  political  heterogeneity  of  the  region,  identity                construction as well as creation of common values and norms is imperative and                indispensable in the practice of regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. They also set the                limits of their collective identity and norm formation. To what extent, then, do                practices and exercises of regionalism(s) in Asia contribute to generating a new                set of values and norms that are shared by member states in the region? In which                way do they create a distinctive identity for the region?                   Here, it is particularly helpful to look at the so-called “soft regionalism” as                a social process. The informality, inclusiveness, intense consultation, and consen-                sus-seeking that characterize ASEAN, and also consequently the ARF and APEC,                are processes and procedures that cannot be achieved without concurrent social-                ization among member states. Socialization in such instances both generates and                diffuses norms and values. It creates not only a functional basis of international                society, but more importantly, as a normative one. As argued convincingly by                Acharya, in the case of ASEAN and the ARF, socialization among member states                is mostly responsible for creating and diffusing values and norms that come to                be shared by member states and that have a transformative effect on a state’s                behavior in the conduct of regional international relations (Acharya 2001). The so-                called “track two talks”, such as the Council for Security and Cooperation of the                Asia-Pacific (CSCAP) for example, become important sources of new ideas and                play a significant role in the socialization and construction of norms and rules in                regional security cooperation.                   Socialization,  on  the  other  hand,  has  constitutive  effect.  By  bringing  those                states involved together in the socialization process, a sense of belonging together                and of “regionness” is created. “The ASEAN way” therefore can be seen as an as-                sertion of a distinctive regional identity in the construction of a cognitive society                of states – the so-called “states of mind” in the existence of a regional interna-                tional society (Morgan 2000).","57                                                                                                                                                                       58                  cIvItAs or socIetAs?                  What  do  practices  and  exercises  of  regionalism(s)  in  Asia  do  to  the  region  as                a whole and to those states and economies concerned in the region? Do they sim-                ply bring those states together into a functional community so as to realize their                national interests? Or do they also create a normative basis and ethical purposes                for regional institutional arrangements that may not be originally intended by                their founders? Has the increasing intensity of regionalism(s) already had a modi-                fying effect on power politics in the region? If practices of regionalism(s) in Asia                are not creating a regional international society, then what exactly are they creat-                ing or constructing?                   There are neither easy nor simple answers to these difficult questions. But in-                creasingly, regionalism(s) in Asia is going beyond functional community build-                ing. It is true that no transfers of sovereign prerogatives or pooling or delegating                of  sovereignty  to  common  institutions  has  happened  in  the  Asia-Pacific.  Most                Asian states remain hyper-sensitive to the sovereignty costs incurred by formal                and legalized global, transnational, as well as regional organizations. There are                historical and strategic reasons to explain such sensitivity. But a nascent, “proto-”                type of pluralist regional international society does seem to be emerging in Asia.                No one should underestimate the difficulties that an emerging international so-                ciety in Asia has to confront in the regional context. The evolution of a regional                international society is anything but linear. It is a long way off to a full-fledged                regional international society, which may never emerge in the Asia-Pacific region,                and a regional international society in the Asia-Pacific may take a different consti-                tutional form from that of Europe, which we are so familiar with.                   postscrIpt 2013: current reseArch And eAst AsIAn regIonAl InternAtIonAl                socIety                 The draft paper above and the tentative arguments made were presented at the                ISA 2002 convention in New Orleans more than ten years ago. The key question                that inspired the paper was: what, if anything, can the perspective of International                Society tell us about the theory and practices of Asian regionalism(s)? The central                claim I made then was that there was a mutual apathy between International                Society  and  the  studies  of  regionalism.  I  was  also  particularly  interested  in                understanding the practices of Asian regionalism(s) as the purposeful construction                of regional international society in Asia. With 2013 as the new context, what can                we say about the practices of Asian regionalism(s)? To what extent does the claim                of the mutual apathy between International Society and regionalism still hold                true today more than ten years on?                   The first and general point to note is that in contrast to 2002, the study of regions                and the discourse of regionalism and regionalisation of global politics in 2013 no                longer occupy just “a small, if not insignificant place, in international relations","58                  theory and scholarship” (Acharya 2007: 629). Regions are now taken much more                seriously in the studies of international relations than ten years ago. The claim that                regions are important sites for governance, cooperation, and conflict management                in global politics is much less disputed than before. While exactly what makes                regions in global politics and the question of regional autonomy from global level                power play remain contentious, it is generally accepted that regions are more than                geographical and functional constructs and that regional orders, which have their                own dynamics, security and economic, are constitutive of the global order. There                is, in other words, “an emerging regional architecture of world politics” (Acharya                2007). Discourses of regionalism and its divergent practices in different regions                have been greatly enriched by the critical intervention of constructivist and other                theoretical perspectives (see for example, Ikenberry and Mastanduno 2003, Buzan                and Waever 2003, Checkel 2005, Katzenstein 2005, Acharya and Johnston 2007,                Fawn 2009). At the same time, studies of international political economy continue                to  make  notable  contributions  to  the  regionalism  discourse  in  their  own  way                (Breslin et al. 2002, Katzenstein and Shiraishi 2006, De Lombaerde and Schulz,                2009,  Dent  and  Dosch  2012).  Not  surprisingly,  “the  study  of  regions  in  IR”,  in                the words of Rick Fawn (2009: 6), “offers a thriving if immensely heterogeneous                literature”. Comparative regionalism is claimed to be a field whose time has come                (Acharya 2012, see also Solingen 2013).                   Such intense interest in, and increased attention to, regionalism in recent                substantive IR scholarship owes much to the dynamic and changing practices of                Asian regionalism(s) in the last decade, which are in sharp contrast to its tentative                attempts at economic regionalism and security cooperation through to the end of                     th                the 20  century discussed earlier in this paper. These are seen most notably in the                instances of the proliferation of regional institutions with overlapping functions                in a number of so-called “ASEAN-plus” arrangements. Emerging from the Asian                financial crisis of 1997-98, both ASEAN plus One and ASEAN plus Three (APT) have                since come a long way in promoting regional economic and security cooperation in                East Asia. The evolution of the Chiangmai Initiative into the Chiangmai Initiative                Multilateralization Agreement stands as a testimony of the achievement of APT                in  forging  financial  cooperation.  APT  has  indeed  developed  an  extensive  and                ambitious agenda for political-security, financial and economic, and social-cultural                cooperation. One might lament that behind the ASEAN-plus arrangements exists                “institutional  racing”,  as  China  and  Japan  engaged  in  “mutual  social  denial”                through  oversupplying  regionalism.  The  political  logic  and  strategic  rationale                produced by such institution racing are particularly clear in the evolution of the                                                                                       10                East Asia Summit (EAS) first as ASEAN plus Six and now ASEAN plus Eight,                parallel to APT, as a pivotal regional institutional development.                   It  is  worth  noting  that  in  2013,  as  in 2002,  “the ASEAN  Way”  continues  to                dominate in institutional practices and regional institutional variations in Asia                as noted before in terms of lack of formal institutionalization and legalization                10   ASEAN plus Six, i.e. ASEAN members plus China, Japan and Korea as well as Australia, India,                    and New Zealand, was joined by Russia and the United States in 2011, hence ASEAN plus Eight.","59                                                                                                                                                                       60                  persist. There is certainly a power-political logic in the expansion from ASEAN                plus Three to the East Asia Summit (EAS, the ASEAN plus Six) (Terada 2006,                Zhang 2013). Even if the cold logic of power and interest may come to dominate                the  future  vision  and  evolution  of  the  EAS,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  EAS                was  conceived  as  a  normatively  ambitious  regionalist  project  and  was  a  clear                articulation  of  the  aspiration  to  construct  a  regional  community,  not  just  for                utilitarian and functional purposes, but as an attempt at a creative normative and                ethical basis for a regional international society. 11                   What has further instigated the interest in regionalism in Asia is the accelerated                global power shift towards Asia in the last decade. With the rise of China, regional                order in East Asia increasingly assumes global importance both in terms of power                politics and in regard to its normative dimension and the question of legitimacy                of the emerging global order (Ikenberry 2008, Mahbubani 2008). With the recent                American  rebalancing  to  Asia,  how  will  power  politics  further  contest  and                complicate the practices of regionalism in East Asia and its normative ambitions?                Do the penetration and the pervasiveness of the sole global superpower negate the                emergence of a distinctive regional international society in East Asia, or simply                complicate its configurations?                   It is unsurprising that amidst the thriving discourses of regionalism in the                last decade or so, practices of regionalism(s) in Asia have continued to be “(re)                discovered” as rich empirical sites for new experiments of regional cooperation                and governance to be explored. Such practices and experiments have been subject                to  increasingly  contentious  interpretations  and  critical  scrutiny  from  different                theoretical perspectives. Regionalism in its various manifestations in East Asia has                been labeled, for example, as “reactionary” (Beeson 2003), “regulatory” (Jayasuriya                2009), “normal” (Terada 2011) and “as disguised multilateralism” (Camroux 2012).                Intensive negotiations for tighter regional economic integration after the Asian                Financial Crisis in 1997-98 are said to be “much ado about nothing” (Ravenhill                2009). On the question of norms and institutionalization of regional cooperation in                Asia, important claims are made in regard to local agency, in that Asian regional                institutions are shaped by contestations and compromises between global norms                and the preexisting beliefs and practices of local actors, and that global norm                diffusion is conditioned by local beliefs as part of a legitimate normative order                (Acharya 2004, 2011). There is also an important shift from looking at practices of                Asian regionalism(s) through the lens of the EU model to recognizing that these                practices represent distinctive approaches to regional cooperation and should be                examined on their own merits (Breslin 2010). The creation of ARF, it is argued:                 11   The centrality of APT in the practices of constructing East Asian regional community is affirmed                    in the following statement: “The APT countries reaffirmed at the 14th APT Summit in November                    2011 in Bali that the APT process would continue as a main vehicle towards the long-term goal of                    building an East Asian community with ASEAN as the driving force. The meeting also reaffirmed                    their support for ASEAN centrality in the evolving regional architecture and recognised the                    mutually reinforcing and complementary roles of the APT process and such regional fora as                    ASEAN Plus One, East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in the East                    Asian community building process” (ASEAN 2012).","60                     was an initiative of the weaker states of the region aimed at engaging and socializing both                the U.S. and China into a system of regional order and thereby dampening not only their mutual                rivalry but also their dominance over the weaker states of the region (Acharya 2007: 648).                   Arguably,  what  has  not  changed  is  that  East  Asia  remains  characterized                by  “an  overarching  ambiguity”  (Pempel  2005:  1)  with  “multiple  ethnicities                and  overlapping  but  no  coterminous  religious,  political,  economic,  and  ethnic                histories” (Johnston 2012: 64). It is still “a mosaic of divergent cultures and political                regime  types,  historical  estrangements,  shifting  power  balances,  and  rapid                economic change” and “the heterogeneity of political types is most striking”. It is                a region enveloped by “security dilemmas, prestige contests, territorial disputes,                nationalist  resentments,  and  economic  conflicts”  (Ikenberry  and  Mastanduno                2003:  2,  15).  Against  these  structural  impediments  to  regional  integration  and                cooperation, East Asia has clearly embarked on regionally distinctive attempts                to achieve order, security, and prosperity, and it has developed “an increasingly                dense network of cross-border cooperation, collaboration, interdependence, and                even formalized institutional integration” (Pempel 2005: 2).   East Asia, in other                words, has become increasingly cohesive as a region on four levels, i.e. social,                political,  economic,  and  organizational  (Hurrell  2007:  241),  notwithstanding                the  persistent  fracture.  The  claim  of  “a  tale  of  two  Asias,”  i.e.  economic  Asia                and security Asia (Feigenbaum and Manning 2012), tells us as much about the                contradictions of Asian transformation as it does about the fractured nature of the                emerging regional international society in East Asia.                   It  is  therefore  puzzling,  and  almost  exasperating,  that  the  mutual  apathy                between International Society and regionalism I identified and discussed more                than  ten  years  ago  seems  to  have  persisted,  notwithstanding  the  considerable                sharpening of International Society as an analytical tool in the last decade, and                in spite of the thriving discourse on regionalism and the intervention of various                theoretical  perspectives  in  such  a  discourse.  More  than  ten  years  on,  English                School scholars have remained largely disengaged in the study of regionalism(s)                in Asia, and their contributions to the subject are at best marginal, if not negligible.                That “the English School was not especially attentive to regional and area studies”                (Hurrell 2007b: 135) remains broadly true, although it is no longer entirely silent                on regionalism. Three recent engagements from the perspective of International                Society  with  the  study  of  regionalism  are,  however,  worth  mentioning.  First,                in On Global Order: Power. Values, and the Constitution of International Society, his                magnum  opus,  Andrew  Hurrell  (2007a:  239-261)  devoted  a  whole  chapter  to                consider the place of regions in understanding the constitution of contemporary                global international society.                   Second are two collaborative projects that Barry Buzan and his collaborators                have completed: International Society and the Middle East: English School Theory at                the Regional Level (Buzan and Gonzalez-Pelaez 2009) and International Society and                the Contest over “East Asia” (Buzan and Zhang 2014). Both projects interrogate two                key questions from the perspective of International Society. One asks: if the world                of regions is emerging, then what qualitative change the emergence of regional","61                                                                                                                                                                       62                  order is likely to bring about to global politics? And the other asks: how have                regional  international  society  of  various  forms  and  depths  been  constructed                alongside the global international society? Third, there are encouraging signs that                studies of regions and regional level international society in global politics are                now starting to be explored by a group of young English School scholars (let’s                mention panels at the 2013 International Studies Association Convention and at                    th                the 8 Pan European International Studies Conference in 2013 as recent examples).                   In contrast to 2002, in 2013, “regions and the regional level of practice and                of analysis have become more firmly established as important elements of the                architecture of global political order” (Hurrell 2007a: 239). More than a decade                after  the  study  of  regionalism  was  brought  back  in  fashion  in  International                Relations scholarship, various IR theoretical perspectives continue to be engaged                in the critical examination of regionalism in theory and practice, contributing to                a thriving discourse of regionalism. Over the last decade, the practices of Asian                regionalism(s) have clearly moved on, with dynamic changes and more ambitious                normative goals. As much as in 2002, such practices continue to be a subject of                intense  debate  and  they  continue  to  be  contested.  Although  the  International                Society perspective, and for that matter the English School, has not engaged in                the study of regionalism in 2013 as much as I would have hoped for and expected                back  in  2002,  it  is  encouraging  and  promising  to  see  a  range  of  converging                efforts by both established and young English School scholars to study regions                employing an explicit International Society perspective. As much as in 2002, such                engagement with the studies of regionalism helps fulfill the theoretical promise of                International Society. In 2013, there are more compelling reasons and intellectual                justifications for adopting a regional approach to international society, and for the                English School to go regional.","62                   references                 Acharya, Amitav. 2000. The Quest for Identity. International Relations of Southeast                Asia. Singapore, Oxford: Oxford University Press.                  Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia.                ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.                  Acharya, Amitav. 2004. “How Ideas Spread. Whose Norms Matter? Norm                Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International                Organization, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 239–275.                 Acharya, Amitav. 2007. “The Emerging Regional Architecture of World Politics.”                World Politics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 629-652.                 Acharya, Amitav. 2009. Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian                Regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.                  Acharya, Amitav. 2011. “Norm Subsidiarity and Regional Orders. Sovereignty,                Regionalism, and Rule-Making in the Third World.” International Studies                Quarterly, vol. 55,  no. 1, pp. 95–123.                 Acharya, Amitav. 2012. “Comparative Regionalism. A Field Whose Time Has                Come?” International Spectator, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 3-15.                 Acharya, Amitav and Johnston, Alastair Iain, eds. 2007. Crafting Cooperation.                Regional International Institutions in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge:                Cambridge University Press.                  Aggarwal, Vinod K. and Min Gyo Koo. 2007. “The Evolution of Regionalism                in East Asia.” Journal of East Asian Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 360–9.                 ASEAN 2012. ASEAN Plus Three Cooperation. Association of Southeast Asian                Nations, 23 Oct 2012. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at: http://                www.asean.org/asean/external-relations/asean-3/item/asean-plus-three-                cooperation.                  Ba, Alice. 2009. (Re)Negotiating East and Southeast Asia. Region, Regionalism, and                the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.                  Beeson, Mark. 2003. “ASEAN Plus Three and the Rise of Reactionary                Regionalism.” Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 251–68.","63                                                                                                                                                                       64                  Bergsten, Fred. 1997. Open Regionalism. Washington, DC: Institute for                International Economics.                 Breslin, Shaun. 2007. “Supplying Demand or Demanding Supply. An Alternative                Look at the Forces Driving East Asian Community Building.” Policy Analysis                Brief. Stanley Foundation. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at: http://                www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/pab/Breslin_07_PAB.pdf.                  Breslin, Shaun. 2010. “Comparative Theory, China, and the Future of East Asian                Regionalism(s).” Review of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 709-729.                 Breslin, Shaun, Hughes Christopher W., Phillips, Nicola and Rosamond, Ben,                eds. 2002. New Regionalisms in the Global Political Economy. New York: Routledge.                 Bull, Hedley. 1977. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics.                Basingstoke: Macmillan.                 Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society.                Oxford: Clarendon Press.                 Buzan, Barry. 2001. “The English School. An Underexploited Resource in IR.”                Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 471-489.                 Buzan, Barry and Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana, eds. 2009. International Society and the                Middle East: English School Theory at the Regional Level. Basingstoke and New                York: Palgrave.                 Buzan, Barry and Waever, Ole. 2003. Regions as Powers. The Structure                of International Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Buzan, Barry and Zhang Yongjin, eds. 2014. International Society and the Contest                over “East Asia”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Calder, Kent and Ye Min. 2010. The Making of Northeast Asia. Stanford: Stanford                University Press.                 Camroux, David. 2012. “Regionalism in Asia as Disguised Multilateralism.                A Critical Analysis of the East Asia Summit and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.”                International Spectator, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 97-115.                  Checkel, Jeffrey. 2005. “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe.                Introduction and Framework.” International Organization, vol. 59, no. 4,                pp. 801-826.","64                  Coleman, William D. and Underhill, Geoffrey D. 1998. Regionalism and Global                Economic Integration. Europe, Asia, and the Americas. London and New York:                Routledge.                 De Lombaerde, Philippe and Schulz, Michael. 2009. The EU and World                Regionalism. The Makability of Regions in the 21st Century. London: Ashgate.                 Dent, Christopher and Dosch, Jorn, eds. 2012. The Asia-Pacific Regionalism and                the Global System. Cheltenham, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.                 Dobson, Wendy. 2001. “Deeper Integration in East Asia. Regional Institutions                and the International Economic System.” World Economy, vol. 24, no. 8,                pp. 995-1018.                 Dunne, Tim. 1995. “International Society. Theoretical Promises Fulfilled?”                Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 125-154.                 Elliott, Lorrain. 2012. “ASEAN and Environmental Governance. Strategies of                Regionalism in Southeast Asia.” Global Environmental Politics, vol. 12,  no. 3,                pp. 38-57.                  Evans, Paul. 2001. “Nationalism and Regionalism in Contention.” Pacific Affairs,                vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 243-246.                  Evans, Paul. 2005. “Between Regionalism and Regionalisation. Policy Networks                and the Nascent East Asian Institutional Identity.” In: Remapping East Asia. The                Construction of a Region. Ed. Pemple, T. J., Ithaca, London: Cornell University                Press, pp. 195-215.                  Fawcett, Louis L. and Hurrell, Andrew, eds. 1995. Regionalism in World Politics.                Regional Organization and International Order. Oxford, New York: Oxford                University Press.                 Fawn, Rick, ed. 2009. Globalising the Regional, Regionalising the Global. Cambridge:                Cambridge University Press.                 Feigenbaum, Evan and Manning, Robert. 2012 “A Tale of Two Asias.” Foreign                Policy, 31 Oct 2012. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at:                http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/10/30/a_tale_of_two_asias.                  Fioramonti, Lorenzo, ed. 2012. Regionalism in a Changing World. Comparative                Perspectives in the New Global order. London, New York: Routledge.","65                                                                                                                                                                       66                  Foot, Rosemary.1995. “Pacific Asia. The Development of Regional Dialogue.” In:                Regionalism in World Politics. Regional Organization and International Order. Louis                L. Fawcett and Andrew Hurrell, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press,                pp. 228-249.                  Frankel, J. A. 1998. The Regionalization of the World Economy. Chicago: University                of Chicago Press.                Garnaut, Ross. 1996. Open Regionalism and Trade Liberalization. An Asia-Pacific                Contribution to the World trade System. Sydney: Allen \& Unwin.                 Garnaut, Ross and Drysdale, Peter. 1994. Asia Pacific Regionalism. Readings                in International Economic Relations. Pymble, N.S.W.: HarperEducational in                association with the Australia-Japan Research Centre.                 Hettne, Björn and Soderbaum, Frederik. 2000. “Theorising the Rise of                Regionness.” New Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 457-473.                 Hettne, Björn. 2005. “Beyond the ´New´ Regionalism.” New Political Economy,                vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 543–71.                 Higgot, Richard. 1998. “The International Political Economy of Regionalism.                The Asia-Pacific and Europe Compared.” In: Regionalism and Global Economic                Integration. Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Eds. William D. Coleman and Geoffrey                D. Underhill, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 42-67.                 Higgot, Richard. 2000. “Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Two Steps Forward,                One Step Back?” In: Political Economy and the Changing Global Order. Eds. Richard                Stubbs and Geoffrey Underhill, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press,                pp. 254-263.                 Hsiung, James C. 2001. Twenty-first Century World Order and the Asia Pacific.                Value Change, Exigencies, and Power Realignment. New York: Palgrave.                 Hund, Markus. 2003. “ASEAN Plus Three. Towards a New Age of Pan-East                Asian Regionalism? A Sceptic’s Appraisal.” Pacific Review, vol. 16, no. 3,                pp. 383-417.                  Hurrell, Andrew. 2007 a. On Global Order. Power, Values, and the Constitution of                International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.                  Hurrell, Andrew. 2007b. “One World, Many Worlds? The Place of Region in the                Study of International Society.” International Affairs, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 127-146.","66                  Ikenberry, G. John. 2008. “The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can                the Liberal System Survive?” Foreign Affairs, vo. 87,  no. 1, pp. 23-37.                 Ikenberry, G. John and Mastanduno, Michael, eds. 2003. International Relations                Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press.                 Jayasuriya, Kanishka. 2009. “Regulatory Regionalism in the Asia-Pacific. Drivers,                Instruments and Actors.” Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 63, no. 3,                pp. 335–47.                 Kahler, Miles. 2000. “Legalization as Strategy. The Asia-Pacific Case.”                International Organization, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 549-571.                  Katzenstein, Peter. 2000. “Regionalism and Asia.” New Political Economy, vol. 5,                no. 3, pp. 353-368.                 Katzenstein, Peter et al. 2000. Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, New York: Cornell                University East Asia Program.                 Katzenstein, Peter. 2005. A World of Regions. Asia and Europe in the American                Imperium. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.                 Katzenstein, Peter and Shiraishi, Takashi, eds. 2006. Beyond Japan. Dynamics                of East Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.                 Mahbubani, Kishore. 2008. The New Asian Hemisphere. The Irresistible Shift                of Global Power to the East. New York, NY: Public Affairs.                 Mansfield, Edward D. and Milner, Helen V. (1999). “The New Wave                of Regionalism.” International Organization, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 589-627.                 Morgan, Robert. 2001. “A European ‘Society of States’—But Only States                of Mind?” International Affairs, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 559-574.                  Neumann, Iver B. 2001. “The English School and the Practices of World Society.”                Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 503-508.                  Pempel, T. J., ed. 2005. Remapping East Asia. The Construction of a Region. Ithaca,                NY: Cornell University Press.                  Pempel, T. J. 2010. “Soft Balancing, Hedging, and Institutional Darwinism.                The Economic-Security Nexus and East Asian Regionalism.” Journal of East Asian                Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 209-238.","67                                                                                                                                                                       68                  Poon, Jessie. 2001. “Regionalism in the Asia Pacific. Is Geography Destiny?”                Area, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 252-260.                 Ravenhill, John. 2000. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). The Construction                of Pacific Rim Regionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Ravenhill, John. 2009. “East Asian Regionalism. Much Ado about Nothing.”                In: Globalising the Regional, Regionalising the Global. Ed. Rick Fawn, Cambridge:                Cambridge University Press, pp. 215-235.                 Solingen, Etel. 1998 . Regional Orders at Century’s Dawn. Global and Domestic                Influences on Grand Strategy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.                  Solingen, Etel. 2013. Comparative Regionalism. Economics and Security. New York,                London: Routledge.                 Stubbs, Richard and Underhill, Geoffrey, eds. 2000. Political Economy and the                Changing Global Order. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.                 Terada, Takashi. 2006. “Forming an East Asian Community. A site for Japan–                China power struggles.” Japanese Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5-17.                 Terada, Takashi. 2011. “ASEAN+3. Becoming More Like a Normal Regionalism?”                GIARI Working Paper, Waseda University.                 Tow, William, Thakur, Ramesh et al. 2000. Asia’s Emerging Regional Order.                Reconciling Traditional and Human Security. Tokyo, New York: United Nations                University Press.                  Waever, Ole. 1992. “International society—Theoretical promises unfulfilled?”                Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 97-128.                 Yoshitatsu, Hidetaka. 2008. The Political Economy of Regionalism in East Asia.                Integrative Explanation for Dynamics and Challenges. Basingstoke: Palgrave                Macmillan.                 Zhang, Yongjin. 2013. “Interrogating East Asian International Society. Historical                Contingency, Contestations and Constitution.” Conference paper at the ISA                annual convention, San Francisco, 3 Apr 2013.","68                  4      Unpacking South American International Society:                       A Historical Sketch                                                                          Federico Merke                    IntroductIon                 The main thrust of this chapter is to uncover the nature and function of the South                American international society and to briefly sketch its history and development.                It poses three main questions. First, to what extent can South America be regarded                as a regional interstate society per se? Second, how can the English School (ES)                help to understand the main dynamics of the South American regional society?                Third, what can we learn from South America that is useful for the ES studies of                regional societies?                   This  paper  aims  to  flesh  out  the  historical  contours,  or  the  longue  durée,  of                the South American international society. Given space consideration I will only                briefly examine the region’s primary institutions, interspersing some historical                evidence  throughout  the  text  to  illustrate  conceptual  developments.  In  other                words, my larger purpose is not to confirm the superiority of the ES over other                theoretical  traditions,  but  rather  to  lay  out  the  main  contours  of  the  South                American international society. Therefore, it is more of a taxonomical analysis                than an explanatory research.                   The rest of the chapter will proceed as follows. First, I briefly elaborate on                the conceptual toolbox of the ES. Second, I look more closely at the working of                the primary institutions that make up the South American international society.                Third, I conclude by summarizing the arguments and evaluating contributions of                the ES to the examination of the South American international society.                    the englIsh school And the regIonAl level                 This  chapter  explores  South  American  regional  society  using  Barry  Buzan’s                recent elaboration on the ES that – as one of the things – achieves accuracy and                terminology improvements. Briefly put, Buzan’s proposal basically departs from                the classical ES in four ways. First, he drops the system/society dichotomy and                locates the systemic logic as a realist extreme of interstate society. It, hence, follows                the  possibility  of  conceiving  a  spectrum  of  interstate  societies  that  goes  from                Hobbes to Kant, from power politics to domestic convergence, and from pluralist                to solidarist societies.                   Second, Buzan makes a substantial reworking of the “world society” concept.                He proposes to split this category into two clear dimensions containing different                units of analysis. Interhuman society has to do with small and large patterns of                shared identity among individual human beings, from small fragmented groups","69                  through “imagined communities” to universal identities. Transnational society re-                lates to non-state collective actors, such as firms and NGOs, but it also includes                illegal or “uncivil” groups, such as terrorist organizations.                   Third,  Buzan  considers  pluralism  and  solidarism,  two  central  concepts  to                understand  the  normative  structure  of  international  society,  as  “positions  on                a spectrum representing, respectively, thin and thick sets of shared norms, rules                and institutions” (Buzan 2004: 139). Pluralism has a sceptical view on progress                on  the  global  level.  It  is  based  on  a  communitarian  standpoint  that  supports                plurality of self-contained values along Westphalian lines. Solidarism has a more                positive view on the capacity for progress on the global level. It is based more on                a cosmopolitan spirit and its aim is targeted on progress and domestic convergence.                   Fourth, Buzan re-emphasizes a distinction between primary and secondary                institutions. Primary institutions such as sovereignty, diplomacy of international                law  are  “evolved  rather  than  designed,  constitutive  rather  than  instrumental”                (Buzan  2009:  27).  These  institutions  allow  for  the  creation  of  “secondary                institutions”  which  are  concrete  intergovernmental  regimes  such  as  the  UN,                NATO, World Bank or the International Criminal Court.                   Although this understanding serves to appreciate different regional configu-                rations, regions are not isolated clusters of states playing with unique rules of                interaction. If this were the case, the global level would simply collapse and there                would be no international society with which to compare regional patterns.  It                                                                                     1                therefore follows that regional societies do share institutions with the global level,                the difference being in how developed they are or how they are interpreted re-                gionally which will be a main focus for this paper. It is also clear that the glob-                al level is actually a Western-dominated international society and thus regions                should be compared with this Western pattern.                   Barry  Buzan  suggests  two  ways  to  distinguish  between  the  current  Western/                global international society and regional ones (Buzan 2012: 11). The first has to do                with primary institutions. One could track and see whether regional societies contain                primary institutions not present at the global level, or, vice versa, see global primary                institutions not present at a regional scale. Further, it could also be possible to observe                the same institutions on both levels but with regional societies interpreting them in                a rather distinct way resulting also in distinct practices. The second way is to look at                what type of state dominates the region. The assumption behind is that “the type of                state dominant within a region tells us a lot about what the dynamics of the region will                be like” (Buzan 2012: 14) and therefore different states can produce different societies.                Buzan offers as useful typologies Robert Cooper’s differentiation among pre-modern,                modern and post-modern states, and a distinction by North and his colleagues between                                                                        2                natural states and open access orders (Cooper 1996, North et al. 2009).                1   As  Buzan  observes,  regional  societies  “lose  their  point  if  there  are  no  significant  differences                   between them and either their neighbors or the global level. But if the differences become too                   great then the global level disappears” (Buzan  2012: 34).                2   Simply put, pre-modern states are weak or failed states with a low degree of a “we feeling” and                   precarious institutions to deliver basic public goods such as order, justice, health or education.                   Modern states possess control over public order and rely on a strong adherence to Westphalian,","70                     In sum, Buzan proposes to redesign the triad of the ES (system, society and                world society) by forming a new scheme (interstate society, interhuman society                and transnational society) in which the move from one domain to the other one                does not constitute a continuum but is made up of separate constitutive units:                states  (from  enemies  to  friends)  individuals  (from  tribes  to  humanity)  and                organizations  (from  legal  associations  to  organized  crime).  Buzan’s  toolbox                includes  also  a  spectrum  of  values  as  the  key  to  defining  types  of  interstate                societies (from pluralists to solidarists) and two types of institutions (primary                and secondary). Last, Buzan’s analysis of regional societies considers how regions                depart from, or converge on, the global western-dominated international society.                   Building on some of these points, the next section aims to unpack the idea                of South (and Latin) America and it does so by exploring how South American                regional society is in part the result of the interaction between the interhuman                and interstate domains.                  mAkIng the cAse: InternAtIonAl socIety In south AmerIcA or lAtIn AmerIcA?                  The  idea  of  something  distinct  called  “Latin  America”  was  coined  by  French                intellectuals  and  statesmen  willing  to  reorganize  the  American  space  along                language and culture, dividing an Anglophone protestant North from a Latin                Catholic South. Although this externally imposed division did not do much of                an impact, it eventually came to signal what would later be a growing social and                                                                                       th                cultural distance between North and South America. At least until the mid-19                Century, it would not have been genuine to identify a strictly Latin American                society which differed much from the American one. This is the argument of                Charles Jones in American Civilization wherein he put emphasis on the fact that                America  (the  continent)  sought  to  bring  about,  with  varied  levels  of  success,                a program similar to that of the political and economic liberalism seen in the                context of highly racist societies (Jones 2007).                   Yet geography, power asymmetries (i.e. the military and economic rising of                the U.S.) and diverging paths in the construction of modernity eventually led                    pluralist concepts of sovereignty, balance of power, and non-intervention. They have sophisticated                   institutional  machineries  to  deliver  public  goods  and  enjoy  stronger  national  identities  than                   pre-modern states. Some of them are rich, stable countries (like United States or Canada) while                   others are developing economies pushing for greater international recognition (like Brazil, Russia                   or China). Post-modern states rely less on balance of power and non-intervention and more on                   governance and domestic convergence upon a liberal order. Sovereignty is no longer seen as an                   absolute and intrusive verification becomes a daily business. Division between “natural states”                   and “open access orders” presented by Douglas North et al. echoes Cooper’s triad but heads into                   a different standpoint. Natural states are “natural” because power, government and privileges                   are  based  on  personal  exchanges.  Elites  control  both  political  and  economic  system  and  are                   hardly subject to the rule of law. Dominant coalitions create property rights that favor constituent                   economic groups. Violence is limited mainly through rent-creation and political arrangements                   between  dominant  coalitions.  Open  access  orders  are  instead  subject  to  open  political  and                   economic competition. Impersonal exchanges and rules govern open orders and thus elites are                   also subject to the rule of law. Violence is limited through legitimate institutions.","71                  to  distinctive  regional  trajectories.  As  a  post-colonial  region,  Latin  America                inherited  much  of  the  vanguard  ideas  brought  by  Europe.  Buzan  refers  to  an                initial  “cultural  compatibility”  between  vanguard  elites  in  Latin  America  and                Europe, something that smoothed the path to fit the new states into the European                international society (Buzan 2012). This compatibility, however, was not sufficient                to fully embed the region in the West, as it happened with the U.S., and therefore                Latin America remained a kind of peripheral region of the West. Buzan’s tentative                explanation is that Latin America “failed to follow the revolution in the West from                natural states to open access orders” and so it “became differentiated from an                increasingly modernist Western core” (Buzan 2012: 7). At the beginning of the                  th                20  Century the divisions between an English-speaking and a “Latin” America                would be fully functioning.                   Once we accept the idea of a Latin American specificity and its potential to                conform  a  regional  society,  however,  some  limitations  come  to  light.  Regions                are social constructions but regions are also venues for continuous interaction                among its members. Barry Buzan defines a region as a “geographically clustered                subsystem of states that is sufficiently distinctive in terms of its internal structure                and process to be meaningfully differentiated from a wider international system                or society of which it is part” (Buzan 2012: 22). This conception calls into question                the idea that Latin America is one region going from Tijuana (México) to Tierra                del Fuego (Argentina). This idea stretches the concept of region beyond breaking                point.  When  examining  a  region  with  a  wide-ranging  geography,  limited                interaction  capabilities  and  low  economic  and  military  interdependence,  the                utility of thinking in terms of a region faces diminishing returns. Central America,                for instance, has been much more connected to North American dynamics than to                South American twists and turns. Indeed, great power management and power                balancing show clear divergent paths when North American (including Central                America) and South American regional societies are compared.                   A more precise analytical move would be to accept that “Latin America” as                a whole is more a cultural region rather than a geographical one and therefore it                is a tight interhuman society yet a loose interstate society. This is not to suggest                that Latin America as a whole lacks shared practices and institutions, yet these                commonalities do not suffice to make the entire region a tight interstate system.                It is thus safe to say that Latin America is more a cognitive, interhuman regional                society based on shared ethnic, religious and social traits. This tight interhuman                society comprises two interstates societies, a Central American interstate society                acting as a sub-complex within North America, and a South American interstate                society.  As  a  result,  Central  America  clearly  belongs  to  the  Latin  American                interhuman society, yet its interstate dynamics are more attached to Central and                North America than to South America.                   Alternatively,  South  America  seems  to  be  a  more  self-contained  region.                Because of its geopolitical location and its degree of insulation from extra-regional                influences,  South  America  developed  its  own  relatively  autonomous  regional                balances of power. Charles Jones refers to South America as a “microcosm” with","72                  its memories, institutions and habitus (Jones 2008). “South American republics”,                he  affirms,  “provide  an  almost  unique  example  of  a  society  of  states  readily                comparable to Europe because of shared history and culture” (Jones 2008: 6-7).                From  a  similar  standpoint,  Buzan  observed  that  South  America  “does  not  so                obviously become seen as a part of the West, and therefore carries a much stronger                sense of being a region than does North America” (Buzan 2012: 7).                   Given space consideration, this chapter will examine only the South American                international society. The primary focus will be placed upon interstate society                and, secondly, upon interhuman society, leaving aside the transnational society                dimension.  The  next  section  introduces  the  primary  institutions  of  South                America’s interstate society and the underlying logic that supports them.                   south AmerIcA’s prImAry InstItutIons                 The concept of primary international institutions has been a central idea in the                ES’  tradition.  The  number  and  identity  of  these  institutions,  however,  is  still                a contested terrain. For reasons of space, I will not revise alternative proposals                for organizing primary institutions. Instead I will work with the five institutions                listed  by  Hedley  Bull  in  The  Anarchical  Society  which  should  enable  us  to  see                a basic, but sufficient, picture of the South American international society. These                institutions are balance of power, international law, war, diplomacy, and great                power management. These primary institutions are part of the South American                international society as they have been accepted as the Western standard model of                international politics/society. However, I argue that other related institutions are                present in South America in a way not seen in other regions, namely concertación                and regionalism.                   wAr In south AmerIcA                 War in South America followed an alternative path to the one which developed                in the Western part. Different international (regional) and domestic conditions                help  to  explain  this  distinct  pattern,  which  Miguel  Angel  Centeno  dubbed                “blood and debt” as opposite to the “blood and iron” path unfolded in Europe                (Centeno 2012: 23). Whereas the European regional context was marked by an                intense geopolitical competition and by the absence of external guarantors, the                South  American  scenario  was  characterized  by  general  acceptance  of  colonial                administrative borders.                   Moreover, while the European domestic context was marked by the progressive                unification of the elites under a coherent concept of nation and administrative                centres  which  expanded  territorially,  the  domestic  context  in  South  American                witnessed presence of factions, regionalisms, deep class and race divisions and                post-colonial chaos which took several decades to overcome.","73                     The outcome in Europe was an intense organization and breakout of massive                wars, while the consequence in South America was a weak organisation and the                breakout of limited wars which affected limited states. Incentives to go to war were                more concrete and had to do with settlement in uninhabited territories (because of                post-colonial juridical confusion) and with seizure of rich uninhabited territories                (strategic information). This means that “uncertainty in borders only translated into                fighting when there was something to fight about” (Centeno 2002: 75).                   There is abundant evidence about the relatively peaceful character of South                America. Literature depicts South America as a “zone of peace” or as “no war                zone”.  South  American  states  have  only  rarely  fought  one  another  and  this                observation becomes more accurate over time. Wars were mainly “land grabs by                more powerful neighbors seeking to increase their access to resources” (Centeno                2002: 44). “None of the international wars experienced by Latin America”, says                Centeno, “featured the intensity of ideological, nationalistic, or ethnic hatreds so                much a part of the history of other parts of the globe” (Centeno 2002: 44).                   This relatively peaceful trend very much contrasts with the virulent internal                conflicts experienced by South American states. Civil wars occurred under the                form of regional rebellions, ideological battles, caudillo wars, and revolutions. “As                far as states elites are concerned, the greatest threat to their power has not come                from a competing elite across a border, but from the masses below.” (Centeno                2002: 90) Simply put, violence occurred within states, not between them. Centeno’s                lists sixty five civil wars, which contrast with fifteen international wars. “There                were simply too many conflicts occurring within each Latin American state for                these countries to have much energy to fight one another.” (Centeno 2002: 263)                Further, the military gaze was more frequently directed inwards than outwards,                protecting  an  “ill-defined  sense  of  nation  from  internal  enemies”.  Centeno                observes that the development of states was more linked to the relationship with                metropolitan centers than among Latin American countries and concludes that                “the Latin American peace is in many ways the ultimate expression of dependencia”                (Centeno 2002: 25).                   Benjamin Miller reverses Centeno’s thesis and suggests that “a major expla-                nation  for  the  emergence  of  normal  peace  in  South  America  is  growing  state                strength and coherence during the twentieth century in this region” (Miller 2007:                7). Miller sees the workings of a “state-nation balance” as a driver for peace. Sim-                ply put, this balance has to do with the level of congruency which exists between                the division of the region into territorial states and the national aspirations of                their respective population. Miller’s central argument is that “state-to-nation im-                balance is the underlying cause of regional war proneness” (Miller 2007: 18). This                state-nation imbalance makes the balance of power and security dilemmas more                important. On the contrary, when the state-nation balance prevails in a region, de-                mocracy and institutionalized conflict resolution become more important. (Miller                2007) Miller’s central finding is that “South America was better disposed than Eu-                rope to enjoy peace relatively early because it entered the twentieth century with                a higher level of state-to-nation balance than Europe did” (Miller 2007: 328).","74                     This balance took place for two reasons. Firstly, both the Spanish Empire and                the  independent  republics  progressively  eliminated  the  original  population,                with  the  exception  of  Peru,  Bolivia  and  Ecuador.  Secondly,  because  the  mass                flow of European immigrants that arrived in the region did not feel any type                of  identification  with  the  land  or  with  its  pre-Hispanic  identity.  These  two                circumstances  significantly  reduced  the  irredentist  or  revisionist  claims  based                on historical or nationalist arguments that come with ancestral memory. (Miller                2007:  329)  Put  in  the  language  of  the  ES,  what  Miller  suggests  is  a  sound  fit                between  interhuman  and  interstate  societies  that  worked  against  nationalist,                revisionist and separatist forces. In his words, the “combined effect of national                congruence and state consolidation makes it easier for states to resolve territorial                and other conflicts peacefully”. Also, “[t]he record of South America”, says Miller,                “is impressive in this respect, and the outcome has been normal regional peace                during most of the twentieth century” (Miller 2007: 336).                   InternAtIonAl lAw In south AmerIcA                 If war evolved more or less as an “arrested institution” judging by the Western                standard, international law run parallel to the Western legal evolution and even                went beyond normal acceptance. Adaptation and innovation have been constant                features in how South American elites conceived international law. Part of the                explanation  has  to  do  with  the  timing  and  character  of  the  process  by  which                decolonization took place in South America and how the region related to the                West. South America became independent well before the transformation to open                access orders in Europe and the United Sates took hold. Thus, South American                elites did not see themselves as radically different or inferior but rather as an                arrested version of the transformation that was only starting to take place in the                West. The discourse and practice of international law was fundamental in the                construction of South America as a regional society because it came to represent                the very idea and practice of the Western civilization. This civilizing discourse,                according  to  Liliana  Obregón,  “was  appropriated  by  Creole  (or  Criollos  in                Spanish) élites to avoid being excluded from the rights and entitlements assigned                (by Europe) to other members of the “community of civilized nations” (Obregón                2006: 248).                   Yet there is more than this. Obregón claims that “a close reading of the precur-                sors of Latin American international law shows that they were not simply follow-                ing or copying” Europe and the United States, “but rather were also participants                and producers of a transnational legal consciousness that they re-created and                transformed with their regional interests in mind and directed back as accept-                able to the metropolitan center” (Obregón 2006: 157). Obregón actually makes                the case for the existence of a Latin (and similarly South) American international                law (LAIL) as “a regionalist approach to the international law” (Obregón 2009:                154).","75                     This legal regionalism was already apparent in the colonial period, when local                elites, (the letrados) adapted the meaning and use of Spanish laws to the changing                                                                  th                realities  of  the  colonies.  Later,  during  much  of  the  19   century,  international                law  in  South  America  was  central  to  nation  building,  sovereignty  recognition                and peaceful conflict resolution. The revolutionary spirit, the ideas of freedom                and justice, together with a shared cultural heritage, put forward an ambitious                solidarist program based on a regional system of law and working principles.                José de San Martín and Simón Bolívar, the leaders of South American revolutions,                did not pursue fragmentation along national states but rather sought to (re)unite                the new republics into a scheme of a loose political integration. This pattern is far                from being one of conflict formation and it is somehow closer to a convergence                interstate society based on a common identity and a transnational solidarity.                   And  yet  the  dream  of  a  confederation  of  republics  was  to  be  dissolved  as                soon as Spain was no longer a threat to the independence of the new states. For                a number of reasons, nation and state building followed another, more complex                pattern  and  therefore  as  states  progressed  towards  national  unification  and                stability the discourse and practice of solidarism lost momentum and gave place                to a more pluralist interstate society.                                      th                   By the end of the 19  Century, the U.S. ascendance was already clear. This                relative ascent made the alarm bells go off regarding the U.S. interventionism                and  shaped  a  relations  pattern  based  on  offensive  solidarism  on  the  part  of                Washington and on a defensive pluralism on the part of the region. It is in this                sense  that  “Latin  America  can  be  placed  firmly  within  a  traditional  pluralist                conception of the international law and international society” (Hurrell 2007: 255).                Andrew Hurrell pins down the most salient, pluralist norms, namely “sovereign                equality, strict non-intervention, increasingly tight restrictions on the use of force;                territoriality and the pragmatic use of uti possidetis to stabilize borders” (Hurrell                2007: 255).                   The evolution of international law in South America, however, was shaped                not only by the European and American standpoints but also by high doses of                domestic instability. State weakness encouraged Latin/South American doctrines,                namely the Tobar Doctrine (1907), the Guaní Doctrine (1943) and the Betancourt                Doctrine (1961) to prevent regime change.                   The  last  point  to  make  has  to  do  with  democracy  and  human  rights.  The                return to democracy in the 80s and the end of the Cold War in the 90s helped to                increase the gamut of institutions, mechanism and commitments to consolidate                and  strengthen  democracy  and  human  rights.  Human  rights  instruments                and  democratic  charters  where  signed  both  on  the  Organization  of  American                States (OAS) level and at more regional bodies. Moreover, the interests of states                in South America seemed to coincide with the interests of the global economy                and the promotion of global governance. Unilateral liberalization, state reforms,                integration  initiatives  and  participation  in  the  global  economy  went  hand  in                hand and reinforced each other. A movement from a classical, pluralist society to                a  solidarist  one  was  underway.  Hurrell  (2007)  observes,  however,  that  twenty","76                  years on, the picture is significantly different. The unilateral turn of the U.S, the                rise of Brazil as a regional power, the crisis of the Washington consensus plus                the rise of left wing governments across the continent worked more in favour of                returning to an already known pluralist, nationalist regional society.                   In  sum,  international  law  has  been  a  fundamental  institution  in  South                American regional interstate society. Arie Kacowicz aptly captures this feature                when he says that:                   [the] core of the Latin American international society has been its common values, norms,                and institutions characterized by its legalistic tradition, with a very formalistic and sophisticated                corpus of legal norms enhancing the principle of sovereignty and nonintervention (Kacowicz 2005:                70).                In a similar vein, Arnulf Becker Lorca affirms that international law “played an                important  role  […]  in  laying  down  one  of  the  languages  through  which  Latin                Americans have discussed and contested their identity, politics, and place in the                international world” (Lorca 2006: 284).                   Some  of  today’s  international  norms  are  South  American  contributions:                uti possidetis; the ban of conquest as a valid mode of territorial possession; the                limitation to the exercise of diplomatic protection in favour of foreigners (Calvo                Doctrine);  the  prohibition  of  foreign  intervention  for  collecting  debts  (Drago                Doctrine); diplomatic asylum, the ruling out of colonialism, and the extension of                sovereign rights for coastal states. The possibilities, however, for a move towards                more solidarist principles are still a contested terrain. The point here is simply to                note the difficulty of translating the normative evolution (such as commitment                to  democracy  and  human  rights)  into  operational  and  fully  institutionalized                patterns of behaviour.                   BAlAnce of power And greAt power mAnAgement In south AmerIcA                 There  are  empirical  grounds  for  arguing  that  the  North  American  regional                society has been subject to the great power management (namely on the side of                the U.S.) and that almost no balance of power has existed in the two hundred                years of existence of independent North America. This region exhibits high levels                of unipolarism, unilateralism, intervention and offensive solidarism on the side                of the U.S. It also exhibits some degree of concessions, cooperation and dialogue                among its members and thus the picture is more complex than a single “the one                against the many” dimension.                   Conversely,  South  America  displays  an  even  combination  of  great  power                management  and  balance  of  power  in  a  way  that  both  institutions  overlap                each  other  in  sometimes  unrecognizable  ways.  Yes,  the  U.S.  has  many  times                attempted to intervene in the domestic affairs of the region, and yet the type and                aggressiveness of its maneuvers has no comparison with the level of intervention                in Central America. The obvious example here is Richard Nixon’s intervention                in  Chile  to  avoid  the  country  becoming  “another  Cuba”.  Yet  this  intervention","77                  involved  not  a  single  marine,  several  CIA  officers  and  a  Nixon’s  command:                “make the economy scream” (CIA 2000). Another and more recent example is                the U.S. intervention in Colombia’s fight against guerrilla and drug production,                but this has been more of an “invited intervention” rather than a unilateral one                (Tickner 2007). There are surely more cases to include and a definite list is out of                the reach of this chapter. But rough figures indicate that between 1798 and 2007,                the U.S. intervened militarily in Latin America in 101 occasions of which only ten                interventions took place in South America (Russell and Calle 2009: 34).                   The focal point of power politics in South America has been the shifting relations                between Argentina and Brazil. For most part of their history, these two countries                combined a good dose of rivalry and competition with formal diplomatic ties and                even mutual neglect. Robert Burr observed that “the theme of Argentine-Brazilian                rivalry and struggle for influence in South America is the oldest of all the Latin                American  conflicts”  (Burr  1955:  98).  Although  war  was  avoided,  both  countries                understood  politics  pretty  much  through  the  grammar  and  practice  of  power                balancing. This picture becomes clearer when we include the U.S. inroads in the                Southern Cone. From the years of Rio Branco (Brazil’s Foreign Minister between                1902 and 1912) to the 70s, “Brazil looked to the United States as a prime means                of balancing the power of Argentina, a tactic which only served to reinforce the                distance and difference between Brazil and its neighbors” (Hurrell 1998: 391).                   This scenario, however, dramatically shifted by the 80s only to be deepened                by  the  90s.  The  return  to  democracy  in  Argentina  and  Brazil,  the  signing  of                bilateral  economic  agreements,  the  implementation  of  confidence  building                measures and the definition of defensive military postures made a huge impact                on how Argentina and Brazil saw each other. The end of the Cold War brought                a momentum in the Southern Cone to shift politics and economics towards the                liberal side of the ideological spectrum. A free trade area, the Southern Common                Market (MERCOSUR) included Paraguay and Uruguay and served as a focal point                to ensure institutionalized cooperation. A similar pattern was followed by the                members of the Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela)                renamed as the Andean Community (AC) in 1996. These two groupings, together                with  Chile  and  Venezuela,  formed  the  Union  of  South  American  Nations                (UNASUR) in May 2008. This bloc is far from replicating MERCOSUR and AC                neoliberal orientations. It is based on a consensus seeking political body with                intergovernmental  commissions  working  across  the  board  –  defence,  energy,                health and infrastructure to name a few.                   While  power  politics  still  does  much  of  its  work  in  the  region,  particularly                through still problematic dyads (i.e. Chile-Bolivia, Chile-Peru, Colombia-Venezuela,                Peru-Ecuador  and  Peru-Bolivia)  the  point  to  make  is  that  balance  of  power  has                notably  receded  since  the  80s  and  great  power  management  (in  the  hands  of                Argentina,  Brazil,  Chile,  Colombia  and  Venezuela)  became  apparent.  There  is                thus much more than relative power in South America’s leaders’ way of thinking.                Diplomacy, international law and political identities have done a lot to alter what a                hundred years ago seemed to be a typically European way of playing the game. This","78                                                                                 th                distinction between a more conflictive balance of power game of the 19  Century                                                                      th                and  a  more  cooperative  great  power  management  of  the  20   Century  suggests                that  South  American  regional  interstate  society  has  evolved  beyond  the  typical                dynamics of power balancing and it is thus placed closer to a security regime.                   dIplomAcy In south AmerIcA                  Diplomacy has been a central discourse and practice in the historical evolution                of South American international relations. It has provided a complex repertoire                of formal and informal mechanisms to channel conflict within a framework of                agreed norms and rules, namely non-intervention, uti possidetis, and peaceful con-                flict resolution. These and other rules have been fundamental in crafting regional,                multilateral schemes of dialogue and cooperation. In this sense, South Ameri-                ca’s international organisation served to escape from the destructive dynamics                between state-building and war-making which took place in Europe. Yet South                America, together with the U.S., was a venue for experimentation, designing an                “intercontinental  system  of  conferences  and  treaties  long  before  these  became                standard  international  practice”  (Centeno  2002:  70).  Next  paragraphs  explore                three  particular  derivative  institutions  from  diplomacy,  namely  concertación,                hemispheric organization, and regionalism.                   Concertación                 Concertación (literally concertation) can be presented as a unique institution of                South America. It can be defined as a loose form of international organization                based on consensus-seeking and peaceful settlement of disputes. Its normative                instrumental  followed  predictable  lines,  namely  uti  possidetis,  non-aggression,                non-intervention and arbitration. As a practice, concertación is embedded in a deep-                seated imaginary of South America as a Patria Grande, namely a nation (inter-                human society) split into twenty two republics (an interstate society). This idea                has been a source of inspiration for many intellectuals and statesmen who have                put forward countless initiatives of integration (below), however it may be de-                fined.                   Concertación  depicts  South  America  as  Gemainschaft,  a  community  sharing                a  language,  a  religion  and  a  homogeneous  cultural  trait.  It  is  therefore  an                institution  that  belongs  to  interstate  society  but  with  a  firm  connection  with                interhuman  society.  Concertación  does  not  advocate  the  need  for  transcending                sovereignty and the nation-state, nor relies on a strong individual nationalism.                Concertación, according to Arie Kacowicz, has limited the recourse to interstate war                and explains “the relatively peaceful settlement of disputes that has characterized                the international relations of the region, especially in South America, since 1883”                (Kacowicz 2005: 63).","79                     Concertación therefore is a key practice that forms the core of diplomatic cul -                ture in South America. Historian Greg Grandin advances the hypothesis that this                unique pattern of concertación is the result of a tension between two competing                values, namely an ideal of territorial fundamentalism and a normative notion of                justice. The surrounding question making this tension apparent was: “what right                did an unjust ruler or aggressive nation have to sovereignty?” “As an answer”,                says Grandin, “they held up multilateral arbitration as a solution” (Grandin 2012:                83). It follows therefore that concertación as an institution comes close to the plu -                ralist end of the normative spectrum in that it advocates peaceful coexistence, yet                avoids intervention in domestic affairs. In this sense, concertación was also a dip-                lomatic practice to avoid U.S. intervention in South America and was very much                reinforced  by  intellectual  traditions  militating  against  hemispherism,  namely                South-Americanism, Europeanism, internalism, territorialism, and Yankeepho-                bia (Corrales and Feinberg 1999: 19).                   Although each of the above tradition points to a particular combination of ideas,                texts, and intellectuals, a common ground was forged among them, namely the                idea that the U.S. was unreliable, militarist, and interventionist. While during the                19  century Yankeephobia and South Americanism were prevalent mainly among                  th                intellectuals, the 20  century saw these ideas being absorbed by diplomats, state                                 th                officials,  the  military,  and  the  ruling  elites.  U.S.  hegemony  served  somehow  to                put together left and right wing parties under the influence of nationalism. The                consequence was that these intellectual traditions reinforced the idea of sovereignty                and  non-intervention.  They  also  reinforced  the  idea  and  practice  of  a  defensive                multilateralism  to  contain  the  U.S.  Javier  Corrales  and  Richard  Feinberg  affirm                that  this  preference  “proved  devastating  for  hemispherism  because  it  ruled  out                collective actions on behalf of basic tenets of the Western Hemisphere Idea, namely                democracy, free trade, and collective security” (Corrales and Feinberg 1999: 21).                   Hemispheric organization                 At certain points in time, however, partly because of alternative ideas growing                in attention, partly due to anti-hemispherism failing in delivering public goods,                a  favorable  intellectual  climate  arose.  The  ascendance  of  liberalism  in  each  of                the period is part of the explanation and points to a convergence with the U.S.                along more solidarist lines, namely democracy, market capitalism, human rights,                collective security and limited sovereignty.                   Departing from a different historical perspective, Greg Grandin comes to similar                conclusions. He suggests that the 20  century American-led multilateralism can be                                               th                seen in part as a result of how the United States and South America constrained each                other’s normative complexes (Grandin 2012). The U.S. claimed for itself, at least until                1933, the right to intervene in Latin America when security and commercial interests                dictated so. Latin/South America, instead, claimed the right to non-intervention                and took every necessary step to be heard and respected in Washington.","80                     The  rest  of  the  history  is  very  much  known.  As  a  result,  “Latin  America’s                containment  of  the  United  Sates’  intervention-individual  rights  complex  was                historically  consequential,  leading  to  the  creation  of  a  multilateral  order  that                allowed Washington to accumulate unprecedented global power” (Grandin 2012:                88). Historical evidence highlights how Woodrow Wilson’s vision of the League                was very much shaped by his understanding of how Pan American conferences                organized the Hemisphere (Gilderhus 1986, de Lima 1921). Said otherwise, the                concept and practice of international organization as opposed to the concept and                practice  of  balance  of  power  was  initially  incepted  in  the  U.S.-South  America                interaction and institutionalized, albeit in a loose form, through the Pan-American                conferences held between 1889 and 1938.                   Firstly, there was the institutionalisation of hemispheric cooperation in 1910                with the formation of a General Secretariat of the Pan-American Union. Secondly,                there was the codification of an emerging international law in the hemisphere.                Thirdly,  there  was  the  development  of  the  principle  of  non-intervention,                through the Calvo and Drago Doctrines, accepted by the United States in 1936.                Fourthly, there was the juridical equality of states, accepted in 1933 as part of                the  Convention  on  the  Rights  and  Duties  of  States.  Fifthly,  there  was  the  call                for a peaceful resolution of disputes, formulated in 1902; in 1923 in the Gondra                Treaty; in 1933 in the Saavedra Lamas Pact; in 1936 by the strengthened collective                security system, subsequently in 1948 by the Inter-American Treaty for the Pacific                Resolution of Disputes, and in 1947 by the Rio Pact. These agreements created the                basis of the Pan-American system which would later be institutionalised through                the Organization of American States.                   Although  today  the  “Western  Hemisphere”  idea  is  pretty  much  contested                in  a  number  of  South  American  countries,  such  as  Argentina,  Bolivia,  Brazil,                Ecuador and Venezuela, other countries are still very much engaged with the                United States and rely on Washington in enhanced cooperation in a number of                policies, including trade, security, and aid. This cleavage between pro-U.S. and                anti-U.S. standpoints has been a recurrent pattern in South America and has been                a function of the shifting political identities governing these countries.                   Regionalism                 Another  important  variant  of  concertación  has  been  regionalism.  Simply  put,                regionalism “is a political process marked by cooperation and policy coordina-                tion” (Mansfield and Solingen 2010: 146). It entails a top-down view on how re-                gions are constructed.  Efforts in South America to advance some idea/practice                of regionalism and regional integration have been abundant and the number and                repetition of regional integration initiatives tell us a number of things. First, re-                gional integration in South America evolved in a manner distinct to the evolution                of the European Union. Whereas Europe could manage to form a concentric re-                gionalism with a center symbolically and institutionally located in Brussels, the","81                  South American experience shows a succession of decentralized regionalisms in                which previous agreements survive new schemes in a manner resembling geo-                logical layers (Malamud and Gardini 2012: 121).                   Second, Gian Luca Gardini and Andrés Malamud refer to South America’s                “inflated regionalism” (Malamud and Gardini 2012: 122). This “region inflation”                allows  states  to  actively  seek  membership  in  different  regional  projects,  such                as Bolivia being a member of the Andean Group, the Union of South American                Nations  (UNASUR),  the  Bolivarian  Alliance  for  the  Americas  (ALBA)  plus  an                associated status with the Common Market of the South (MERCSOUR). In the                economic domain, each bloc supports alternative visions ranging from free trade,                to inclusive development to plain barter. In the strategic sector the U.S. is treated                alternatively as an enemy, a competitor, or a distant neighbor.                   Third,  South  America,  as  is  surely  the  case  in  other  post-colonial  regions,                exhibits  a  structural  decoupling  between  interstate  and  interhuman  regional                societies on one hand and transnational society on the other. Said otherwise, while                politics, security and identity are to a large extent regionally driven dynamics,                trade, investment and finance still follow a core-periphery pattern which inhibits                the formation of deeper level of regionalization, i.e. trade integration.                   Fourth,  regionalism  arose  from  a  regional  interstate  society  designed  to                strengthen states (not markets), sovereignty (not its surrender) and non-interven-                tion (not transnational governance). Here, as in so many more aspects, the differ-                ence with Europe is striking as regional integration projects in South America                ended up strengthening sovereignty instead of diminishing it. In other words,                South American regional integration has been a means to project national con-                cerns and ambitions and not an alternative to the existing state-centred system.                   If the observations made above are sound then concertación in the economic                domain exhibits a substantial gap between ideas of unity and limited achievements.                As  Gardini  asserts,  “Latin  America  is  divided  between  a  rhetorical,  almost                theatrical, support for continental solidarity and integration and a strong, practical                preference  for  national  sovereignty  and  interest,  accompanied  by  a  traditional                aversion to supranationality” (Gardini 2011: 250). The challenge therefore is not to                answer  the question of why South America regional integration is so fragile but                to explain its inextinguishable strength or, as Andrés Malamud aptly framed it, it                is “neither failure nor success: inconsequential endurance is what theory ought to                explain” (Malamud 2010: 643).                   The ES has been reluctant to examine the economic domain of international                societies.  In  presenting  the  main  institutions  of  international  society  Hedley                Bull did not consider global market for its inclusion. And yet the simultaneous                interplay of political, economic and social forces should be taken more seriously                while examining the development of international society in post-colonial regions.                Buzan’s intellectual reworking of the ES included the market as a master institution                and placed trade liberalization as its derivative institution, together with financial                liberalization and hegemonic stability (Buzan 2004: 187). This inclusion is crucial                to understand the development of South American interstate society, located at the","82                  periphery of global capitalism and thus placing development as a key diplomatic                concern.  This  may  explain  why  South  America’s  early  multilateral  initiatives                have  been  related  to  economic  integration,  development  and  industrialization                via import-substitution and how the uneven spread of modernity between South                America  and  the  West  continues  to  be  a  central,  external  driver  that  shapes                interstate relations in and out of the region.                   Conclusion                 This chapter presented an ES interpretation of the South American international                society. It fleshed out historical contours of South American primary institutions                and  offered  a  historical  sketch  of  how  they  evolved.  There  are  three  general                observations to point out. First, Latin America, of which South America is a main                part, as a whole is more of a cultural region rather than a geographical one and                therefore it is a tight interhuman society yet a loose interstate society. Second,                and  related,  the  South  American  case  reveals  a  fascinating  dynamic  between                regional interhuman and interstate societies. On the one hand, it supports Martin                Wight’s thesis that “a states-system will not come into being without a degree of                cultural unity among its members” (Wight 1977: 33). On the other hand, however,                interhuman  society  is  more  than  a  background  condition  in  that  it  shapes                interstates society in many significant ways. Third, primary institutions in the                South American interstate society exhibit an important degree of convergence                with the global international society yet they also show unique regional patterns,                namely concertación and regionalism.                   Upon examining South America’s primary institutions with some detail, five                conclusions follow. First, compared with the European experience (and also with                the U.S.), war in South America has been an arrested institution and therefore it                did not work in favor of stable, centralized states. The “blood and debt” pattern                made war an expensive, unpredictable alternative. The other side of the equation                is that the social construction of the “Other” has been domestically driven and                civil wars therefore proved to be much more devastating than international wars.                Moreover,  while  the  West  could  move  beyond  warfare  and  formed  a  security                community, South America is still a zone of negative peace.                   Second,  international  legalism  was  not  only  instrumental  for  enhanced                cooperation  but  also  it  was  constitutive  of  the  very  sovereignty  that  South                American  states  claimed  to  uphold.  In  contrast  with  the  more  instrumental                use  of  international  law  in  the  West,  legal  regionalism  in  South  America  was                a  fundamental  practice  of  identity  building.  Compared  also  with  the  West,                international law in South America is still firmly placed in the pluralist side of                the  spectrum.  Democracy  and  human  rights  have  made  important  inroads  in                the juridical edifice of South American international law, yet there is still a long                way to go before solidarist principles can work within a still pluralist diplomatic                culture of non-intervention and concertación.","83                     Third, while power balancing has been an absent practice in the Northern                side of the continent, it has been an important practice in the South. Yet balance                of power has not exhibited the level of confrontation present in Europe or other                post-colonial regions. A possible explanation might highlight the importance of                a dense interhuman society in smoothing power politics.                   Fourth, diplomacy seems to show alternative traits to the ones followed by                the Western core. Concertación shows a continuing preference for organizational                contacts  to  maximize  scarce  resources,  to  convey  the  existence  of  a  regional                identity, to increase the significance and leverage of individual nations within                and outside the group, and to gather and act upon information more effectively.                From the IR perspective, concertación goes beyond power politics yet it stops short                of liberal institutionalized cooperation. Simply put, South America’s diplomatic                culture  contains  much  more  than  realists  would  admit  and  much  less  than                liberals would prefer. Although concertación may be a sound derivative institution                from diplomacy, however, its power to evolve into secondary, institutionalized                arrangements is still weak.                   Regional integration, also, exhibits an alternative pattern. While in the Western                core regional integration has meant sustained regionalisation (namely free trade                and  economic  interdependence)  and  multiple  secondary  institutions,  in  South                America  it  meant  resilient  regionalism  and  almost  no  secondary  institution.                There  is  a  “decentred”,  “decoupled”,  and  “inflated”  regionalism  and  therefore                much of the regional story of South America could be narrated as a case of robust                (interstate) regionalism and weak (transnational) regionalisation.                   And  yet  regions  are  not  only  discernible  by  how  they  relate  to  Western                institutions  but  also  by  the  type  of  state  that  forms  them.  Taking  the  risk  of                simplifying,  historical  evidence  suggests  that  South  American  states  were                “natural” because power, government and privileges were substantially based                on personal exchanges. Politics and economics were under the elite control and                were hardly subject to the rule of law. Government coalitions created property                rights designed to favor constituent economic groups. Violence was a recurrent                phenomenon but it was also limited mainly through rent-creation and political                commitments  between  competing  factions.  John  Coatsworth  captures  this                natural condition well by pointing out that the concentration of wealth “led to                concentration of political power in the hands of narrow elites and thus to the                creation of institutions that served elite interests and failed to protect the property                rights of most citizens” (Coatsworth 2005: 138).                   How  did  this  condition  impact  on  the  international  society?  Natural  states                have been poorly resourced to design and carry out massive, professional wars                and therefore the geopolitical tendency to peace and the arrested process of state                building have been closely related in South America. Furthermore, domestic in-                stability, recurrent coups, local rebellions, and fierce ideological cleavages made                balance of power calculations a grid of intelligibility to examine both domestic                and external political dynamics. Paradoxically, natural states’ poorly internalized                norms found refuge in a more stable, pluralist regional society. The South Ameri-","84                  can case suggests, therefore, that a sound regional interstate society can be a solu-                tion for modern, developing states (Buzan 2001: 482).                   In  sum,  the  South  American  case  suggests  that  regions  may  be  embedded                into primary institutions set forward by the West. Yet regions can also exhibit                distinct patterns of interactions. This paper suggests that these patterns can be the                product of how interhuman and interstate societies develop together. They can                also be the consequence of what type of state evolves in the region. And they can                also be the result of uneven distribution of global power and uneven distribution                of  modernity.  In  this  light,  and  seen  from  the  centre-periphery  standpoint,                the  nature  of  regional  societies  may  be  the  consequence  of  how  anarchy  is                ameliorated through primary institutions, but it may also be the consequence of                how modernity and development take hold in multiple, contradictory ways. Both                dynamics should be central to tell regional stories.","85                   references                 Burr, Robert. 1955. “The Balance of Power in the Nineteenth-Century South                America. An Exploratory Essay.” The Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 35,                no. 1, pp. 37-60.                 Buzan, Barry. 2001. “The English School. An Underexploited Resource in IR.”                Review of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 3, 471-488.                 Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory                and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Buzan, Barry. 2009. “The Middle East through English School Theory.”                In: International Society and the Middle East. English school Theory at the Regional                Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez, London: Palgrave Macmillan,                pp. 24-44.                 Buzan, Barry. 2012. “How Regions Were Made, and the Legacies for World                Politics. An English School Reconnaissance”. In: International Relations Theory                and Regional Transformation. Ed. T.V. Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University                Press, pp. 22-48.                 Centeno, Miguel Angel. 2002. Blood and Debt. War and the Nation-State in Latin                America. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.                 CIA 2000. CIA Activities in Chile. Central Intelligence Agency, 18 Sep 2010.                On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/                reports/general-reports-1/chile/index.html.                  Coatsworth, John H. 2005. “Structures, Endowments, and Institutions in the                Economic History of Latin America.” Latin American Research Review, vol. 40,                no. 3, pp. 126-144.                 Cooper, Robert. 1996. The Postmodern State and the World Order. London: Demos.                 Corrales, Javier and Feinberg, Richard. 1999. “Regimes of Cooperation in the                Western Hemisphere.”  International  Studies Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-36.                 de Lima, Oliveira. 1921. “Pan Americanism and the League of Nations.”                Hispanic American Historical Review, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 239-247.                 Gilderhus, Mark. 1986. Pan American Visions. Woodrow Wilson and the Western                Hemisphere, 1913-1921. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.","86                  Gardini, Gian Luca. 2011. “Unity and Diversity in Latin American Visions of                Regional Integration.” In: Latin American Foreign Policies. Between Ideology and                Pragmatism. Eds. Gian Luca Gardini and Peter Lambert, New York: Palgrave                Macmillan, pp. 235-254.                  Grandin, Greg. 2012. “The Liberal Traditions in the Americas. Rights,                Sovereignty, and the Origins of Liberal Multilateralism.” The American Historical                Review, vol. 117, no. 1, pp. 68-91.                 Hurrel, Andrew. 1998. “An Emerging Security Community in South America?”                In: Security Communities. Eds. Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, Cambrige:                Cambridge University Press, pp. 228-265.                  Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. On Global Order. Power, Values, and the Constitution                of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.                 Jones, Charles. 2007. American Civilization. London: Institute for the Study                of the Americas.                 Jones, Charles. 2008. Foundations of South American International Society.                Paper presented at the Boston APSA Meeting, August 2008.                 Kacowicz, Arnie. 2005. The Impact of Norms in International Society. The Latin                American Experience, 1881-2001. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.                 Lorca, Arnulf Becker. 2006. “International Law in Latin America or Latin                American International Law? Rise, Fall, and Retrieval of a Tradition of Legal                Thinking and Political Imagination.” Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 47,                no. 1, pp. 283-305.                 Malamud, Andrés. 2010. “Latin American Regionalism and EU Studies.” Journal                of European Integration, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 637-657.                 Malamud, Andrés and Gardini, Gian Luca. 2012. “Has Regionalism Peaked?                The Latin American Quagmire and Its Lessons.” International Spectator, vol. 47,                no. 1, pp. 116-133.                  Mansfield, Edward and Solingen, Etel. 2010. “Regionalism.” Annual Review                of Political Science, vol. 13, pp. 145-163.                  Miller, Benjamin. 2007. States, Nations, and the Great Power. The Sources of Regional                War and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.","87                  North, Douglass, Wallis, John Joseph and Weingast, Barry. 2009. Violence                and Social Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                 Obregón, Liliana. 2006. “Completing Civilization. Creole Consciousness and                International Law in Nineteenth-century Latin America.” In: International Law                and Its Others. Ed. Anne Orford, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,                pp. 247-264.                  Obregón, Liliana. 2009. “Latin American International Law.” In: Routledge                Handbook of International Law. Ed. David Armstrong, London, New York:                Routledge, pp. 154-164.                 Russell, Roberto and Calle Fabián. 2009. “La ´Periferia Turbulenta´ Como Factor                de la Expansión de los Intereses de Seguridad de Estados Unidos en América                Latina.” In: Crisis del Estado e Intervención Internacional. Una Mirada desde el Sur.                Ed. Mónica Hisrt, Buenos Aires: Ehdasa.                 Tickner, Arlene. 2007.  “Intervención por Invitación. Claves de la Política Exterior                Colombiana y sus Debilidades Principales.” Colombia Internacional, vol. 65, pp.                90-111.                  Wight, Martin. 1977. Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press for                the London School of Economics and Political Science.                  Wilson, Peter. 2012. “The English School Meets the Chicago School. The Case for                a Grounded Theory of International Society.” International Studies Review, vol. 14,                no. 4, 567-590.","88                                                                                APPENDIX","89                  APPENDIX           Questioning Regional International Society                                   in Central Asia                                                                  Katarzyna Kaczmarska                     IntroductIon                 An important part of the classical English School analysis of world politics has                focused on the process of international society expansion to the point where, in                the post-WWII and the decolonization period, it was said to have become global                (Bull and Watson 1984). As a consequence, the regional dimension – present in                Wight’s states systems (Wight 1977) or in the depiction of the European society                of states – has been neglected. More recent scholarship was compelled to draw                attention to the fact that elements of international society at the global level are                also to be found at the sub-global scale. It has been observed that some societal                aspects  may  be  more  pronounced  regionally  than  globally  (Buzan  2004:  134).                Certain regional states’ groupings may represent “greater normative content” or                increased consciousness of common interests and values and, thus, a propensity                for the joint formulation of specific common rules and institutions (Ayoob 1999:                248). Together with the greater regional integration observed in practice, the need                arose  to  take  sub-global  structures  into  consideration  in  order  to  account  for                the regional dynamics at play in global international society (Dunne 2005: 159).                Arguably this trend may be regarded as a return to the classical “comparative                                                        1                sociology  of  states  systems”  (Wight  1977).   The  question,  “what  is  regional                international society?” – to paraphrase a well-known Wightian query: “What is                international society?” (Wight 1991: 50) – remains, however, an open one.                   The latest studies of the English School (ES) regional perspective have taken,                as their point of departure, the structural version of the ES introduced by Barry                Buzan (2004). Buzan aimed to systematically organize the ES field of study and                construct a framework based on refined concepts proposed by Charles Manning,                                             2                Martin Wight, and Hedley Bull.  The key elements of Buzan’s approach are the                three domains of interstate, transnational, and interhuman societies, as well as                primary and secondary institutions of international society (Buzan 2004, 2009:                25-27).  This  recent  theoretical  contribution  is  said  to  allow  for  a  consideration                of international order globally with a simultaneous appreciation of the regional                perspective and the profound exploration of “sub-global” societies (Buzan 2004).                1   Despite the justified criticism voiced with regard to the confusing and imprecise way in which                    the concept of “region” has been used by scholars (Hameiri 2013: 313), the English School has                    the potential to present a coherent, though not all-encompassing, framework for the discussion                    of regionalism.                2   These are by no means the only representatives of the classical ES. For an elaboration of the ES                    “membership” question see e.g. Dunne (1998, 2005), Linklater and Suganami (2006), Suganami                    (1983, 2003).","90                  The  two  key  analyses  exploring  the  Buzanian  version  of  the  ES  in  a  regional                                                                                       3                context study the Middle East (Buzan 2009) and Scandinavia (Schouenborg 2012).                Since, in the regional domain, the linkages between the interstate and non-state                domains are more visible, e.g. due to the cultural unity among the members, the                Middle East was thought of as a good candidate sharing the Islamic religion and                Arabic heritage. The close application of Buzan’s theoretical advances on primary                institutions resulted with a conclusion that the Middle East can be thought of as                a sub-global interstate society, as the regional features are pronounced and strong                enough  to  distinguish  the  Middle  East  from  the  current  global  international                society  (Gonzalez-Pelaez  2009:  114-15).  An  analysis  of  secondary  institutions,                however, contested this conclusion (Murden 2009). 4                   It  is  important  to  note  that,  in  spite  of  the  application  of  a  sophisticated                theoretical approach, the results of the study were inconclusive. The Buzanian                model relies on primary and secondary institutions, which require time to emerge                and must be preceded by the realisation of common interests and agreement on                common norms of the classical definition of international society. Moreover, there                is no clear differentiation between the notions of transnational and interhuman                domains  in  the  model,  which  creates  obstacles  for  the  discussion  of  regional                groupings with potentially more developed non-state spheres. For these reasons,                the present study of Central Asia refrains from the close application of a structural                framework developed by Barry Buzan. Instead, it suggests going “back to basics”                in  the  attempt  to  analyse  the  “international  society”  character  of  particular                regions and to focus on Hedley Bull’s classical definition of international society.                Although mentioned in the first chapter of the book, it may be useful to repeat                that according to Bull, international society:                   exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values,                form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules                in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions (Bull 2002:                13).                   Since common institutions proposed by Hedley Bull (especially the balance of                power, international law, and diplomacy) refer to the consequences of long-term                processes and interactions between states, the focus will be on common interests                and a common set of rules as the starting point for tackling the question as to                 3   Other  regional  groupings  approached  from  the  ES  perspective,  though  not  necessarily  the                    structural version of it, include: the European Union (Czaputowicz 2003, Diez and Whitman                    2002, Stivachtis and Webber 2011), broader European international society (Sakwa 2011), the                    Association  of  Southwest  Asian  Nations  (Narine  2006),  Southeast  Asia  (Quayle  2013).  An                    analysis of East Asia by Barry Buzan and Yongjin Zhang is forthcoming.                4   The primary institutions have been identified as: “durable and recognised patterns of shared                    practices  rooted  in  values  shared  commonly  by  the  members  of  interstate  societies”  (Buzan                    2004:  181).  The  Middle  East  was  studied  taking  into  consideration  the  “master  institutions”                    of: sovereignty, diplomacy, territoriality, great power management, war, nationalism, equality                    of  people,  market,  and  environmental  stewardship  (Gonzalez-Pelaez  2009).  The  notion  of                    secondary institutions refers to international organizations, being “the products of certain types                    of international society” (Buzan 2009: 27).","91                  whether  international  society  has  been  emerging  in  Central  Asia  in  the  post-                             5                Soviet period.                   In  addition  to  common  interests,  norms  and  rules,  including  those  of  an                unwritten and informal character, are at the core of Ayoob’s characterization of                regional society. Importantly, Ayoob makes a clear reference to the role of domestic                order in the emergence of regional international society (Ayoob 1999: 247-48). This                definition  of  regional  international  society  has  been  further  supplemented  by                the element of states’ self-identification with the region (Czaputowicz 2003) or                regional identity (Ayoob 1999).                   This chapter is motivated by the curiosity as to whether the ES framework                can be helpful to understand a distinct Central Asian context, one which defies                straightforward  conclusions  regarding  regional  cooperation  or  integration                (Allison 2004, 2008, Collins 2009, Libman 2007). It is premised on the assumption                that there is a need to study specific aspects of coexistence or cooperation between                states in order to avoid the elusiveness of “regionalism” which, as Hurrell noted,                is a “blanket term covering a range of very different developments and processes”                (2007: 130). In this endeavor, the paper also postulates a return to the classical, less                structured view of international society.                   The  argumentation  will  develop  in  three  steps.  First,  following  Bull’s                definition, this paper analyses the nature of interstate relations in Central Asia                and the process by which the five states under study intended to join the global                international society after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Second, it will be                demonstrated how differences in the type of statehood posed obstacles to the                building of regional international society. Finally, the chapter will provide a more                detailed analysis of the role of the Russian Federation in the region.                  BecomIng regIonAl InternAtIonAl socIety?                  Nowadays, claiming that all five Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,                Tajikistan,  Turkmenistan,  and  Uzbekistan  –  are  recognized  members  of  the                United Nations is stating the obvious. This was not apparent in the early 1990s,                when the primary preoccupation of regional leaders was to gain international                acknowledgement. They wanted to be admitted, as the classical English School                would put it, to global international society (Fawn and Mayall 1996).  Each state                                                                             6                approached  the  task  differently  and  in  an  individualist  manner.  Kyrgyzstan                intended to build its image of a democratizing state and to enter, at any cost,                the  international  economic  system.  Uzbekistan  refrained  from  introducing                5   This does not mean that certain types of institutions have not been formed already under the                    Soviet rule. Jones Luong points to the specificity of Soviet institutions – both the formal and                    informal ones (Jones Luong 2004). It would be interesting to analyse the role of these institutions                    in the process of the formation of societal relations between the states of Central Asia but this                    would require a much broader research project than this dictated by the scope of this publication.                6   This process was closely related to intrastate politics as international recognition was seen as                    reinforcing domestic regime security (Allison 2008).","92                  both democracy and free market economy. Kazakhstan was balancing between                these  two  options,  gradually  liberalising  the  economy  but  maintaining  strong                authoritarian leadership behind the façade of “democratic” institutions. Uzbekistan                and Kazakhstan, shortly after gaining independence, engaged in a struggle for                regional leadership (Olcott 2005). Tajikistan and Turkmenistan were perhaps less                preoccupied with their international standing, with Tajikistan entangled in civil                war and Turkmenistan having taken a largely isolationist course. Differences in                the strategies embraced in order to adapt to the perceived universal rules of global                IS formed one of the key obstacles to regional international society building.                   Before  proceeding  to  Bull’s  definition  of  international  society,  this  section                starts with the issue of common identity. There has been no agreement among                the ES classical scholars regarding common identity as a necessary component                                      7                of  international  society.   With  regard  to  regional  international  society,  shared                regional identity is considered a necessary building block (Ayoob 1999). In the                Central Asian case, this particular area, at first glance, is an unproblematic one.                All the states are Muslim and share the Soviet cultural and institutional legacy.                Whether  this  aspect  has  strengthened  regional  unity  and  the  creation  of  so-                called  “we-feeling”  is  debatable.   All  the  states  and  its  respective  populations                                              8                have  distinct  attitudes  towards  Islam  (Khalid  2007,  Louw  2007).  The  common                Soviet legacy has doubtful unifying potential. First, after the fall of the Soviet                Union there was an urgent need to create distinct national identities which led                to  the  downplaying  of  commonalities  inherited  from  the  Soviet  period,  and                furthermore, the affirmation of national identities was far higher on the priority                list than efforts to sustain or create a regional one. Second, the dissolution of the                USSR created a shared feeling of disappointment, loss and to some extent shame,                which was not a solid foundation for the re-building of regional ties. The Russian                language might have been a uniting factor, but language policies implemented                as part of the nation-formation effort by regional states have hindered the role of                                                    9                Russian as a lingua franca of Central Asia.  The aspiration to express and maintain                a sphere of regional cultural difference is thus difficult to identify in Central Asia.                 7   Wight, in his historical analysis of states systems, maintained that a degree of “cultural unity”                    was necessary for such a system to come into being. But he also agreed that the states system                    organized in the United Nations was qualitatively different as “diplomatic and technological                    interdependence have today outrun cultural and moral community” (Wight 1977: 33-34). Bull                    focused on commonality of interests and values rather than that of culture (Bull 2002).                8   The differences and changes in the region’s territorial ordering, as implemented by the Tsarist                    and Soviet empires respectively, diminished the potential for regional identity formation (on                    the Soviet border-making see Hirsch 2000). The pre-Soviet political entities of Central Asia have                    a rich history but one which does not point to strong regional ties, especially if one is to transpose                    it onto the contemporary political geography map of Central Asia. The question about the extent                    to which the Tsarist legacy contributed to the nurturing of Central Asian identity among the                    political entities remains debated. Prior to the Russian conquest, the polities of Central Asia                    differed to a large extent. Present day Tajikistan and parts of Uzbekistan were under the cultural                    and political influence of Persia. The territory of present day Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan was                    exposed to nomadic culture and political organisation. These differences are exploited in the                    present day interstate relations often with the aim of masking the unifying Soviet past.                9   On language policies implemented in Central Asia, see e.g. Dave (2007).","93                     More recently, external actors, especially the European Union, have contributed                to the construction of the idea of the five Central Asian states as parts of one                      10                region.  Following the constructivist claim of identity as relational, it is possible                to claim that outside powers, such as the EU, have, to a limited extent, contributed                to regional identity formation not only in that they have used their leverage to                persuade regional leaders to hold joint EU-Central Asia regional summits, but                also in that they frame certain problems as in need of a regional approach. Thus                such areas as the terrorist threat came to be identified by the governments as                “regional” problems.                   Having sketched the identity question, it is important to move to other as-                pects contained in Hedley Bull’s definition of international society. The recogni-                tion of common interests is fundamental to the building of international so -                ciety. Analyses of the region and its numerous interdependencies, mainly but                not exclusively in the water and energy sectors (Laldjebaev 2010, Martin 2009,                Mosello 2008), suggests that a number of interests could be satisfied by means                of cooperation:                   The economies, borders and populations of the Central Asian states are highly intertwined,                largely as a result of seven decades of Soviet policies and the suddenness of the Soviet collapse.                International  actors  […]  have  recommended  regional  cooperation  on  multiple  issues,  ranging                from trade and transit to water policy, the Aral Sea, refugees, labour migration, terrorism, drug                trafficking, border policies, and even human rights and democratisation (Collins 2009).                   Central  Asia  states,  however,  have  experienced  diminishing  levels  of  trust                towards  each  other,  and  consequently  declining  interest  in  cooperation  (CAP                2012: 2). One important example is the prolonged dispute between the upstream                and downstream states of the Syr-Darya and Amu-Darya rivers (Mosello 2008).                Tajikistan  and  Kyrgyzstan,  both  upstream  states,  regard  the  development  of                hydropower as a key path to national wealth. Downstream Uzbekistan, which                depends  on  water  for  its  agriculture,  perceives  the  construction  of  dams  as                a direct threat to its security. The lack of trust is perpetuated by competition in                state-building activities. State-building endeavours pursued by one state, are seen                as undertaken at the expense of another one. Boundary disputes between states                sharing the Ferghana Valley provide but one of the illustrations of this argument.                Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – all sharing the valley – have become                increasingly  sensitive  with  regard  to  the  territorial  aspects  of  their  respective                statehoods.   This,  in  turn,  triggers  initiatives  of  clear  territory  demarcation,                          11                10   The EU’s administrative practices have played a prominent role in how Central Asian states                    are classified. The European External Action Service maintains relations with separate countries                    as well as with regions. “Central Asia” finds itself within the second category. In 2005, the EU                    decided to establish a position of the “EU Special Representative for Central Asia”. Additionally,                    a number of EU documents address the region rather than separate states, e.g. European Union                    and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership; The Regional Strategy Paper for Assistance to                    Central Asia 2007-2013 and the accompanying Central Asia Indicative Programme. While the EU                    maintains that the 2007 strategy has given impetus to both regional and bilateral dialogue, the                    strategy’s stated aim is to address “key regional challenges” (EU 2007).                11   For an ethnographic study of nationalization or, as the author prefers to call it, “étatization” of                    space, see Reeves (2007: 291-96).","94                  and the dividing of formerly common water distribution facilities, grazing and                cultivation lands, despite the fact that an agreement on common management of                these facilities has the potential to benefit all sides. One may see these problems                                                            12                as  rooted  in  Central  Asia’s  post-colonial  legacy.   The  Soviet  period  left  these                states  feeling  insecure  in  terms  of  equal  gains  from  cooperation  or  common                management of resources. Moreover, the Soviet policies of boundary setting were                largely interpreted as an exercise in divide et impera, which has a bearing on how                these states interpret the more recent aspects of their border security.                   The  lack  of  a  single  regional  organisation  demonstrates  the  insufficient                recognition of the existence of common interests and the reluctance to introduce                common  rules,  which  form  an  important  component  of  Bull’s  definition  of                international society. There are a number of inter-state organisations, such as the                Eurasian  Economic  Cooperation,  the  Collective  Security  Treaty  Organization,                and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, but none has been created by and                for the five states. Even one of the strongest regional states, Kazakhstan, has failed                in its initiatives to create a regional organisation independent of powerful extra-                                                     13                regional actors such as Russia and China.  This was the basis for drawing stark                conclusions such as the one suggesting that, “the Central Asian states are incapable                of  organising  themselves”  (CAP  2012:  2).  Secondly,  the  creation  of  numerous                political, economic and security organizations in the post-Soviet space did not                allow for clear regional boundary setting. The Commonwealth of Independent                States (CIS), encompassed – until the exit of Georgia in 2009 – the entire post-Soviet                space with the exception of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Other organisations do                not include all five the Central Asian states – e.g. the Collective Security Treaty                Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Cooperation (EurAsEC). Finally,                membership  in  some  organizations  overlapped,  as  in  the  case  of  CIS  and  the                Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The only organization grouping solely                the five Central Asian states was the Organization of Central Asian Co-operation,                established in January 1993; Russia joined that organization in 2004. Regardless of                the fact that neither Uzbekistan nor Turkmenistan were members of the Eurasian                Economic Cooperation (EurAsEC), it was decided, in 2005, that the Organization                for Central Asian Cooperation would merge with the EurAsEC. This demonstrates                negligence on part of Russia and the Central Asian states of the institution of                international organisations. Most of the organisations created in the post-Soviet                space are hollow. Summits organised under their auspices may end with well-                worded declarations which never become implemented; joint agreements remain                without the necessary ratification of national legislation (CAP 2012: 4). As a result,                a number of interstate agreements have been of an “ephemeral” nature, which                 12   The post-colonial nature of Central Asia states has been discussed in Dave (2007) and Heather-                    shaw (2010). These analyses of the post-colonial legacy combined with statebuilding activities                    are elaborations of Ayoob’s argument (1999: 258) put into the Central Asian context.                13   Regionalism  in  the  post-Soviet  space  has  been  described  as  formal  or  top-down  and  hence                    insignificant or even adversely impacting coordination in political, social, and security issues                    (Libman 2007: 401).","95                  means  that  they  have  only  remained  on  paper.  Kazakhstan,  Kyrgyzstan,  and                Tajikistan may be willing to engage themselves in different regional groupings,                but with no intention of making pragmatic use of this cooperation other than for                their respective domestic audiences (Allison 2008).                   Membership in regional interstate organisations is supposed to be based on                rational assumptions, the calculation of interests and, as a result, agreement on                common rules. None of this has materialised among the Central Asian states.                Potentially, these states had an excellent starting point to establish common rules.                They emerged from a single state system and it would be difficult to imagine                a  more  advanced  level  of  homogenisation.  Nonetheless,  as  soon  as  the  ties                holding the units together broke down, and despite numerous bonds and links                between the states still present after the fall of communism, divergence took the                place  of  uniformity.  The  countries  embarked  upon  different  paths  of  political                and economic development, with Kyrgyzstan occupying the most democratizing                and liberalizing end of the spectrum and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan the most                authoritarian and to some extent even an autarkic one.                   One of the important discussions within the ES is centred on the distinction                                               14                between solidarism and pluralism.  Regional international societies, as the study                of the European Union has shown (Diez and Whitman 2002), should be expected                to exhibit solidarist features. One of the definitions of solidarism places emphasis                on  collective  interests  taking  precedence  over  particular  ones  (Hurrell  2002).                Central Asia states, however, have been focused on securing their own interests,                often at the expense of the neighbours. Despite the potential for the states to build                a  regional  international  society,  its  emergence  is  hindered  by  two  additional                factors: the particular trajectories of establishing statehood, and Russia’s role in                the region.                   estABlIshIng stAtehood                 The ES approach tends to privilege the state as key to international order and                a starting point for the discussion of the society of states. The fact that neither states                                                                15                nor nations were consolidated in Central Asia halted the formation of a regional                international society. Local regimes invested tremendous effort in strengthening                national and state consciousness, which left little time for intraregional initiatives.                The  absence  of  a  longer-term  vision  prevented  state  leaders  from  considering                possible  gains  from  a  regional  approach  to  international  politics.  This  proves                 14   Solidarism  is  an  assessment  of  world  politics  which  suggests  that  “there  is  much  solidarity                    in the world” (Linklater and Suganami 2006: 60), which allows for greater extent as well as                    deeper substance of cooperation between states. Pluralism, in contrast, perceives diversity as the                    fundamental feature of international society, to the extent that states can agree on coexistence but                    not on cooperation.                15   The state-centric view of international society is a legacy of Bull, Manning (1962), James (1986)                    and  more  recently  of  Jackson,  who  identifies  the  state  as  a  citizen  of  international  society,                    similarly to an individual contracting and  forming part of civil society (Jackson 1990: 9).","96                  Hurrell’s  apt  observation  of  the  paradox  of  regionalism:  “a  successful  move                beyond the state depends on the existence of reasonably well-functioning states”                (Hurrell 2007: 143). It also reaffirms the argument that “weak states” do not make                good partnerships (MacFarlane 2004: 447) and feeds into Ayoob’s discussion of the                importance of intrastate dynamics for regional international society construction                (Ayoob 1999: 250-251).                   A  characteristic  feature  of  Central  Asia’s  post-independence  period  was  the                considerable  difference  in  the  strength  or  quality  of  statehood  which  emerged                following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In some cases, particularly in Tajikistan,                the state was not consolidated enough to contain domestic violence. Indeed, the                                                                      16                state suffered a five-year-long civil war between 1992 and 1997.  Kyrgyzstan was a                stage for two revolutions, ending in the overthrowing of presidents Askar Akayev                (in 2005) and Kurmanbek Bakiyev (in 2010). More recent assessments of the capacity                of these states point to serious deficiencies in what has been accepted as desired                characteristics  of  modern  statehood  and,  hence,  descriptions  such  as  “weak”  or                “awkward” proliferate in the academic and policy discourse alike.                   International society relies on a well-functioning, capable state, one which is                not only willing but also able to engage in tightening its relations with its neigh-                bours. The lack of the experience of statehood during the Soviet period under-                standably precluded the development of sustained practice of interstate relations.                As a result, consensual interstate politics have been difficult to build in the period                of independence, and the materially stronger states (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan)                have imposed themselves on the weaker ones with no clear indication nor desire                to create a strong, goal-oriented regional grouping. This also allowed Russia to                play an important part in mediating regional international relations but, again,                without a benevolent idea of the building of regional ties.                   Moreover, Central Asia is an example of how a society of states has not come                about among states. Some of the states have been attempting to democratize while                others have maintained strong authoritarian control over their populations. This                suggests that variance in the ideological underpinning of polities is an important                aspect  to  take  into  account  when  discussing  the  characteristics  of  a  regional                international society. The Central Asian states also vary significantly in terms of                the international aspirations of their elites. Some leaders have had much broader                ambitions than just at the regional level. For instance, in 1991 Kazakh president                Nursultan  Nazarbayev  proposed  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States                going beyond a Slavic union to include Central Asia (Page 1994), and in 1994 he                also suggested the creation of the Eurasian Union. Kyrgyzstan, aspiring to the                role of the champion of transformation processes and in need of securing sources                of income, very early on in its history of an independent statehood decided to join                the World Trade Organization.                16   Lack of state control over violence has manifested itself on several occasions in different parts of                    the region; for an analysis of the issue with reference to Tajikistan, see Dadmehr (2003), Heather-                    shaw (2009).","97                     The emergence of independent statehood influenced the relations among the                former republics to a great extent. The new states engaged in perpetual balancing                between the need to become self-standing, independent, and to conform to the                Western vision of global international society with the reality of being closely tied                to one another and to the previous “master”, which did not cease to be actively                engaged in various aspects of the new states’ political reality.                   BeIng “not QuIte foreIgn”                 Hedley  Bull  stressed  that  states  forming  international  society  should  respect                one  another’s  claims  to  independence  (Bull  2002:  13).  Indeed,  sovereignty  and                reciprocity are two key components of international society. Viewed from this                perspective, Russia’s perception of the five states as “not quite foreign” (Page 1994:                789) exposes how their “near abroad” status was an obstacle for the five new states                to joining global international society.                   The Russian Federation, in the years following the breakup of the Soviet Union,                lacked economic capacities and a constructive vision for the region. This did not,                however, prevent Moscow from declaring ambitious foreign policy goals. Instead                of focusing on affirmative steps which could lead to the formation of regional                international society, in the early 1990s Russia was determined to internationally                legitimize its sphere of influence regarding its vital interests in the post-Soviet                space. In 1992, Evgenii Ambartsumov, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, declared                that as the legal successor to the USSR, Russia had the right to a sphere of influence                where its vital interests were concerned, and it “must seek the world community’s                                                                                   17                understanding and recognition of its interests in this space” (Izviestia 1992).  The                fact that Russia was internationally seeking the status of the guarantor of peace                and stability in the region cannot be fitted easily into the framework of regional                international society, even if one accepts that hegemony may be a feature of such                a society (Clark 2011). The arrangement guaranteeing the recognition of interests                of one state meant that the regional power was interested predominantly with                securing the status quo, understood in this case as preventing other actors from                establishing their political or security presence in the region, and not with the                process of legitimization of its power in the region. While there is no doubt as                to  the  existence  of  common  regional  security  interests,  in  this  case  they  were                articulated mainly by Russia, and were not agreed to through a social process of                interstate relations. 18                  17   Interestingly,  a  similar  argument  was  voiced  in  2008  by  the  Russian  President  at  that  time,                    Dmitry Medvedev (2008).                18   Additionally, a number of practical arrangements secured Russia’s preponderance. The signing                    of the Treaty on Collective Security meant that the High Command of the CIS (in practice Russia)                    coordinated  military  security  in  the  Central  Asian  region.  Russia  was  policing,  directly  or                    indirectly, most of the Central Asian borders and at one point declared the Tajik-Afghan border                    its external border and intervened militarily in the civil conflict in Tajikistan (Page 1994).","98                     The ES approach is tolerant with regard to the exercise of power. It accepts that                great powers have a major role in the preservation of order on the global level.                Regional  powers  have  been  identified  as  playing  a  potentially  positive  role  in                the formation of regional international society (Ayoob 1999). More controversial,                perhaps,  is  the  claim  that  interventionism  need  not  be  seen  as  definitively                                                                               19                obstructing  regional  international  society  formation  (Halliday  2009).   The  ES                “permissiveness” goes even so far as accepting that coercion is but one of the                means by which society can be formed (Buzan 2004). 20                   In this particular case, however, the fact that the Central Asia region was under                the excessive influence of one great power has worked as a serious impediment to                regional international society formation. The inferior position of the five states was                not accompanied by the great power’s sufficient leadership or vision for the region.                Having lost its previous ideological underpinning – Communism – Russia had no                viable ideology on which to build stronger interstate relations. It has not embraced                any worldview apart from the aspirational and overambitious claim to world-power                status. The region, described so often as a power vacuum, was in fact also a “value-                vacuum”. Russia was neither economically viable nor principled enough to inspire.                                                                                      21                It could not provide substantial economic benefits to the states it sought to subdue,                and the overwhelming influence and presence of Russia in the region has not been                accompanied by any viable set of principles and values upon which trust and the                project of closer regional cooperation or integration could be built. On the one hand,                Moscow’s ambitions did not allow focusing on anything less than the CIS; on the                other hand, diminished economic might did not allow for effective action with regard                to e.g. the Tajik-Afghan border. As a result, Russia very often opted for the tactics of                directly influencing the ruling elites rather than working towards rules formation                and  legitimation.  It  acted  as  an  external  patron  for  regional  regimes,  relying  on                strong personal ties and weakening institutions (Collins 2006: 293, Marat 2008: 51).                   A noticeable and, arguably, intentional Moscow’s approach was to build “empty                shell” international organisations leading to “virtual regionalism” (Allison 2008).                In  the  1990s,  Russia  was  the  major  player  orchestrating  regional  institutions,                which meant that they did not arise out of the recognition of common interests                or  values.   Nor  were  they  meant  as  a  forum  for  discussing  possible  future                         22                cooperation  and  easing  regional  tensions  or  solving  local  problems.  On  the                contrary, Russia did not stop short of abusing differences of interests and did                not  refrain  from  playing  the  states  against  each  other.  This  is  but  one  of  the                reasons why Russian-led organisations are seen in the region as vehicles for the                 19   Halliday, analysing distinctive features of the Middle Eastern region, pointed to high levels of                    sustained intervention and interference of regional states into each other’s internal affairs, which                    did not prevent the formation of regional international society.                20   However,  in  comparison Andrew  Hurrell’s  discussion  of  regions  centred  on  powerful  states                    refrains from employing the concept of “regional international society”.                21   This phrase is borrowed from an analysis of the Indian state (Thakur 1997).                22   On the Russocentrism of integration projects in the post-Soviet space, see Libman (2007: 402).","99                  carrying out of its own interests. The second obstacle, which prevents any radical                advancement in cooperative or integrative arrangements, is the wariness of the                Central Asian member states of Russian attempts to impinge on their sovereignty                (Allison  2008:  193).  The  more  recent  Russia-inspired  integration  processes  (the                Customs Union replaced by the Common Economic Space) definitely strengthen                Russia’s bargaining position vis-à-vis particular states but, since it is highly likely                that not all the five states will join in, the potential for deeper and more durable                divisions of the region remains high.                   Against  the  backdrop  of  complex  relations  between  Central  Asian  states,                Russia has not established itself as a provider of collective goods for the region or                as a neutral third party. Instead, Moscow’s engagement in the solution of existing                conflicts and interstate disputes was in the 1990s and continues to be superficial                and led by geopolitical considerations. The case of disputes over water resource                management illustrates the instrumental use of Russia’s preponderance in the                region.  Moscow  uses  its  political  and  economic  support  for  Kyrgyzstan’s  and                Tajikistan’s  hydropower  plant  projects  as  leverage  against  Uzbekistan,  rather                than as a way to demonstrate its strong-term commitment to enhancing regional                stability (Laldjebaev 2010, Spoor and Krutov 2004).                   conclusIon                 The classical English School, largely due to its holistic agenda, has traditionally                focused  on  the  global  level,  neglecting  regional  dimensions.  Nor  has  it  been                attentive  to  area  studies.  An  analysis  of  Central  Asia  through  the  lens  of  the                ES exposes the difficulty of applying the concept of international society to the                relations between newly formed states.                   This chapter challenged the rigidity of Buzan’s approach to the study of re-                gional international society, following instead the characteristics of societal ar-                rangements between states specified by classical ES authors, namely: common                values, interests, and rules. Despite the divergence of approaches, both this analy-                sis and the structural approach proposed by Buzan have shown that a regional                international society is not an easily attainable phenomenon.  Central Asia can be                compared to the Middle East in that states in both regions have emerged follow-                ing the fall of empires, and they have struggled with the post-colonial conditions                affecting the development of national statehood (Cole and Kandiyoti 2002, Cum-                mings and Hinnebusch 2011, Kandiyoti 2002). The difference between the two                lies in the fact that the institution of a modern state is better established in the                Middle East (Gonzalez-Pelaez 2009: 95), while in Central Asia the state still needs                to assert itself.                   This chapter has argued that, while there are certain indications of the poten-                tial for Central Asian states to form a regional international society, three major                elements have prevented the creation of societal arrangements between Kazakh -                stan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. The first is that the","100                  type of intraregional relations, which – while underpinned by a substantial level                of cultural and historic commonalities – have not been dressed in the framework                of interstate relations for a substantial period of time. The region has never ex-                perienced long-term interstate relations, which appear to be more important to                the forming of an international society than bonds between people or cultural                unity. While identity and domestic order are treated as separate characteristics                in the definition of an regional international society, it is necessary to emphasize                how these two are intertwined. Discontinuity in the type of state has been an ad-                ditional obstacle towards the emergence of Central Asian identity. Paradoxically,                while the founding of states and the building of interstate relations may contrib-                ute to the formation of international society, the abrupt transformation from non-                sovereign  Soviet  “republics”  into  sovereign  states  in  Central  Asia  exacerbated                some disputes and hindered recognition of common interests. In this particular                case, the effort to join the global international society remained in contradiction                with the building of regional international society. Secondly, an analysis of any                regional arrangement in Central Asia has to take into account the role of Russia,                which – in this instance – has not taken the role of responsible great power/man-                ager. The aspirations of some of the five Central Asian states to become members                of the global international society was not compatible with the status of being                “not quite foreign” imposed by Russia. Russia, far less interested in constructing                a regional international society, preferred benefiting from its regional position in                ways that would enhance its global standing. Finally, the strength of statehood,                the particular type of regime emerging, and differences in terms of international                aspirations were an additional negative factor impeding the emergence of region-                al international society.                   Although we have come to the conclusion that there is no common vision of                regional international society among the Central Asian states, the very process                of  analyzing  its  aspects  has  been  revealing  with  regard  to  certain  regional                dynamics as well as the very concept of international society. One may conclude                with  a  quotation  from  Hurrell,  who  noted  that  “[r]egional  expertise  provides                the  foundation  for  the  detailed,  case-study  based  knowledge  on  which  the                discipline  [political  science]  depends.  Arriving  at  different  perspectives  of  the                world,  including  international  order,  requires  good  case-studies,  and  these  in                turn require regionally specific knowledge that involves history, language and                culture” (2007: 136). This essay has aspired to enrich the understanding of what                regional  international  society  is  by  pointing  to  the  role  played  by  the  type  of                statehood as well as that exercised by powerful (extra)regional actors.","101                   references                 Allison, Roy. 2004. “Regionalism, Regional Structures and Security Management                in Central Asia.” International Affairs, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 463-483.                  Allison, Roy. 2008. “Virtual regionalism, regional structures and regime security                in Central Asia.” Central Asian Survey, vol. 27, no. 2, 185-202.                  Ayoob, Mohamed. 1999. “From Regional System to Regional Society. Exploring                Key Variables in the Construction of Regional Order.” Australian Journal                of International Affairs, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 247–260.                 Bull, Hedley. 2002. The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics.                London: Macmillan.                 Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory                and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                  Buzan, Barry. 2009. “The Middle East through English School Theory.”                In: International Society and the Middle East. English school Theory at the Regional                Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez, London: Palgrave Macmillan,                pp. 24-44.                 CAP. 2012. The Future of Russia’s involvement in Central Asia. Central Asia                Policy Forum. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at: http://www.                centralasiaprogram.org/images/Policy_Forum_3,_December_2012.pdf.                 Clark, Ian. 2011. Hegemony in International Society. Oxford, New York: Oxford                University Press.                 Cole, Juan R. I and Kandiyoti, Deniz. 2002. “Nationalism and the Colonial                Legacy in the Middle East and Central Asia. Introduction.” International Journal                of Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 189-203.                  Collins, Kathleen. 2006. Clan Politics and Regime Transition in Central Asia.                New York: Cambridge University Press.                  Collins, Kathleen. 2009. “Economic and Security Regionalism among                Patrimonial Authoritarian Regimes. The Case of Central Asia.” Europe-Asia                Studies, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 249-281.                 Cummings, Sally N. and Hinnebusch, Raymond. 2011. Sovereignty after Empire.                Comparing the Middle East and Central Asia. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University                Press.","102                  Czaputowicz, Jacek. 2003. “The English School of International Relations and Its                Approach to European Integration.” Studies \& Analyses, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1-55.                 Dadmehr, Nasrin. 2003. “Tajikistan. Regionalism and Weakness.” In: State Failure                and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. Ed. Rotberg, Robert I., Cambridge, MA,                Washington, D.C.: World Peace Foundation, Brookings Institution Press,                pp. 254-262.                  Dave, Bhavna. 2007. Kazakhstan. Ethnicity, Language and Power. London:                Routledge.                Diez, Thomas and Whitman, Richard. 2002. “Analysing European Integration.                Reflecting on the English School - Scenarios for an Encounter.” JCMS: Journal                of Common Market Studies, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 43-67.                 Dunne, Tim. 1998. Inventing International Society. A History of the English School.                Basingstoke UK: Macmillan Press.                 Dunne, Tim. 2005. “System, State and Society. How Does It All Hang Together?”                Millennium. Journal of International Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 157-170.                 EU 2007. The European Union and Central Asia. Strategy for a New Partnership.                Brussels: Council of the European Union.                 Fawn, Rick and Mayall, James. 1996. “Recognition, Self-determination and                Secession in Post-Cold War International Society.” In: International Society                after the Cold War. Anarchy and Order Reconsidered. Eds. Rick Fawn and Jeremy                Larkins, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 193-220.                 Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana. 2009. “The Primary Institutions of the Middle Eastern                Regional Interstate Society .” In: International Society and the Middle East. English                school Theory at the Regional Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez,                London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 92-116.                 Halliday, Fred. 2009. “The Middle East and Conceptions of ‘International                Society’.” In: International Society and the Middle East. English school Theory at the                Regional Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez, London: Palgrave                Macmillan, pp. 1-24.                 Hameiri, Shahar. 2013. “Theorising Regions through Changes in Statehood.                Rethinking the Theory and Method of Comparative Regionalism.” Review                of International Studies, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 313-335.                 Heathershaw, Jonn. 2009. Post-conflict Tajikistan. The Politics of Peacebuilding and                the Emergence of Legitimate Order. London, New York: Routledge.","103                  Heathershaw, Jonn. 2010. “Central Asian Statehood in Post-Colonial Perspective.”                In: Stable Outside, Fragile Inside? Post-Soviet Statehood in Central Asia. Ed. Emilian                Kavalski, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 87-106.                 Hirsch, Francine. 2000. “Toward an Empire of Nations. Border-Making and the                Formation of Soviet National Identities.” The Russian Review, vol 59, no. 2, pp.                201-226.                  Hurrell, Andrew. 2002. “Society and Anarchy in International Relations.”                In: International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory. Ed.                B. A. Roberson, London: Continuum, pp. 17-42.                 Hurrell, Andrew. 2007. “One World, Many Worlds? The Place of Region in the                Study of International Society.” International Affairs, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 127-146.                 Jackson, Robert. 1992. Quasi-States. Sovereignty, International Relations, and the                Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.                  James, Alan. 1986. Sovereign Statehood. the Basis of International Society. London:                Allen \& Unwin.                  Jones Luong, Pauline. 2004. The Transformation of Central Asia: States and Societies                from Soviet Rule to Independence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.                  Kandiyoti, Deniz. 2002. “Post-Colonialism Compared: Potentials and Limitations                in the Middle East and Central Asia.” International Journal of Middle Eastern                Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 79-297.                 Khalid, Adeeb. 2007. Islam after Communism. Religion and Politics in Central Asia.                Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.                 Laldjebaev, Murodbek. 2010. “The Water-Energy Puzzle in Central Asia. The                Tajikistan Perspective.” Water Resources Development, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23-36.                  Libman, Alexander. 2007. “Regionalisation and Regionalism in the Post-Soviet                Space. Current Status and Implications for Institutional Development.” Europe-                Asia Studies, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 401-430.                 Louw, Maria Elisabeth. 2007. Everyday Islam in Post-Soviet Central Asia. London,                New York: Routledge.                 MacFarlane, Neil S. 2004. “The United States and Regionalism in Central Asia.”                International Affairs, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 447-461.","104                  Manning, Charles A. W. 1962. The Nature of International Society. London:                Macmillan.                 Marat, Erica. 2008. “National Ideology and State-building in Kyrgyzstan and                Tajikistan.” Silk Road Paper. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute \& Silk Road Studies                Program. On-line text, accessed 30 Oct 2013, available at: http://www.isn.ethz.                ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-                a6a8c7060233\&lng=en\&id=105092.                 Martín, Miguel. A. P. 2009. “Geo-Economics in Central Asia and the ´Great                Game´ of Natural Resources. Water, Oil, Gas, Uranium and Transportation                Corridors.” Elcano Royal Institute Working Papers, vol. 59. On-line text, accessed                30 Oct 2013, available at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/                Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233\&lng=en\&id=115237.                 Medvedev, Dmitry. 2008. Interwju rossijskim telekanałam Pierwyj, Rossija, NTW,                31 August 2008.                  Mosello, Beatrice. 2008. “Water in Central Asia. A Prospect of Conflict or                Cooperation?” Journal of Public and International Affairs, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 151-174.                  Murden, Simon W. 2009. “The Secondary Institutions of the Middle Eastern                Regional Interstate Society .” In: International Society and the Middle East. English                school Theory at the Regional Level. Eds. Barry Buzan and Ana Gonzalez-Pelaez,                London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 117-139.                 Olcott, Martha Brill. 2005. Central Asia’s Second Chance. Washington, D.C.:                University Presses Marketing.                  Page, Stephen. 1994. “The Creation of a Sphere of Influence. Russia and Central                Asia.” International Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 788-813.                 Reeves, Madeleine. 2007. “Travels in the Margins of the State. Everyday                Geography in the Ferghana Valley Borderlands.” In: Everyday Life in Central Asia.                Past and Present. Eds. Jeff Sahadeo and Russell Zanca. Bloomington: Indiana                University Press, pp. 281-300.                  Schouenborg, Laust. 2012. The Scandinavian International Society. Primary                Institutions and Binding Forms, 1815-2010. London, New York: Routledge.                  Spoor, Max and Krutov, Anatoly. 2004. “The ‘Power of Water’ in a Divided                Central Asia.” In: Central Eurasia in Global Politics: Conflict, Security and                Development. Eds. Mehdi Parvizi Amihen and Henk Houweling, Leiden: Brill,                pp. 279-300.","105                  Suganami, Hidemi. 1983. “The Structure of Institutionalism. An Anatomy of                British Mainstream International Relations.” International Relations, vol. 7, no. 5,                pp. 2363-2381.                 Suganami, Hidemi. 2003. “British Institutionalists, or the English School,                20 Years on.” International Relations, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 253-272.                 Thakur, Ramesh. 1997. “India in the World – Neither Rich, Powerful, nor                Principled.” Foreign Affairs, vo. 76, no. 4, pp. 15-22.                 Wight, Martin. 1977. Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press for                the London School of Economics and Political Science.                  Wight, Martin. 1991. International Theory. The Three Traditions. London: Leicester                University Press.","106                                                          Soviet influence, 91-92, 94, 96-97, 100                Index                                                        state-building, 93, 95-96, 100                Acharya, Amitav, 32, 48-49, 56          trust, 93                Akayev, Askar, 96                    Chiangmai Initiative, 58                Ambartsumov, Evgenii, 96             Chile, 76-77                Amu-Darya, 93                        China, 58-60, 70, 94                analyticism, 34, 36-37               Christian tradition of politics, 3                Andean Community, 77                 CIA, 77                Andean Pact, see Andean Community    Coatsworth, John, 83                APEC (Asia Pacific Economic          Cold War, 3-4, 6, 22, 28-29                Cooperation), 16, 47-48, 50, 54-56   Collective Security Treaty Organization, 94                ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum), 16, 45,   Colombia, 77                   48-49, 56, 59                     Commonwealth of Independent States, 94,                Argentina, 77, 80                       96, 98                ASEAN (Association of South East Asian   communitarism, 32, 36, 69                   Nations), 16, 29, 45, 48-50, 54, 56  Convention on the Rights and Duties                   ASEAN Way, 48-49, 55-56, 58-59       of States, 80                   ASEAN Plus Three, 58              Cooper, Robert, 69                   ASEAN Plus Six, 58-59             cosmopolitanism, 3, 32, 69                   ASEAN Plus Eight, 58              Corrales, Javier, 79                Asia-Pacific, 45-46, 50, 56-57       Council for Security and Cooperation                Asian financial crisis, 50, 59          of the Asia-Pacific, 56                Ayoob, Mohamed, 5, 7, 30, 91, 94, 96  Cuba, 76                Bakiyev, Kurmanbek, 96               diachronic approach, 27-29, 31, 33, 35, 37-38                Betancourt Doctrine, 75              discourse analysis, 24-25                Bolívar, Simón, 75                   Drago Doctrine, 76, 80                Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, 81  Dunne, Tim, 1, 37, 50, 54                Bolivia, 74, 77, 80-81               East Asia, 15-16                Brazil, 76-77, 80                       economy, 47-48, 60                Bull, Hedley, 13, 15, 23, 28, 45, 50-51, 72, 81,      identity, 55-56                   89-90, 92-94, 97                     and legalization of politics, 49-50                Burr, Robert, 77                        loose integration, 60                Buzan, Barry 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 14, 27, 60, 68-71,      regionalism, 45-46                   89-90, 99                            security, 48-49, 60                Calvo Doctrine, 76, 80                  values, 55-56                Centeno, Miguel Angel, 71, 73        East Asia Summit, 58-59                central Asia, 15-16                  Ecuador, 74, 77                   economic integration, 99          Egypt, 33                   and European Union, 93, 95        emic approach, 10, 14, 36, 38                   identity in the region, 91-92, 100  English School                   and international organizations, 94     and economy, 81-82                   and Russia, 94, 96-100               methodology, 10-11, 24-25, 34-38, 52","107                     and other theoretical perspectives, 1-2,   international law, 3, 12, 14, 24, 29, 31, 69, 72,                   6-8, 23, 32, 45-46, 51, 58           74-77, 80, 82, 90                   previous research on regions, 2, 5-9, 15,   international society                   23, 26-27, 39, 45-46, 56, 68-70, 82, 89-91,      composition (structure), 2, 4, 6, 12-13,                   99                                   26, 51, 68-70, 89-90                   and regionalism, see regionalism     concept, 11, 13, 73, 68-70, 90                   and superpowers, 98                  global, 1, 6, 27, 35, 38, 52, 58, 69, 89, 100                etic approach, 36, 38                   institutions, see institutions of                EU (European Union), 48, 54, 59, 80, 93, 95     international society                EU – Central Asia regional summits, 93     regional, see regional international                Eurasian Economic Cooperation, 94       society                European External Action Service, 93  international system, 4, 23, 52, 68, 70-71, 89,                European international society          92, 95                   contemporary, 1, 45-46, 54-55, 90  interpretative approach, 25, 36, 38                   history and expansion, 6, 28, 51, 55-56,   Jackson, Robert, 1, 38, 95                   89                                Japan, 58                Evans, Paul, 53                      Jones, Charles, 70-71                Fawn, Rick, 58                       Jones, Roy, 39                Feinberg, Richard, 79                Kacowicz, Arie, 76, 78                Ferghana Valley, 93                  Kahler, Miles, 50                free trade agreement, 47, 77         Kazakhstan, 91-92, 94, 99                foreign direct investment, 47        Keene, Edward, 7                Gardini, Gian Luca, 81               Kyrgystan, 90, 93-96, 99                global order, 2, 58-59, 89           Lakatos, Imre, 23, 39                globalization, 6-7, 47               liberal tradition of politics, 3                Gondra Treaty, 80                    Linklater, Andrew, 1                Gonzalez-Pelaez, Ana, 1, 35          Little, Richard, 1                Grandin, Greg, 79                    Lorca, Arnulf Becker, 76                Guaní Doctrine, 75                   Malamud, Andrés, 81                Halliday, Fred, 98                   Manning, Charles, 89                humanitarian intervention, 3         market economy, 31                Hurrell, Andrew, 1, 5, 8, 53, 60, 75, 98, 100  Medvedev, Dmitry, 96                institutions of international society  MERCOSUR, 77, 81                   concept of, 14, 31-33, 37         Meyer, John, 14                   primary, 4, 14, 69, 82, 90        Middle East, 1, 29, 90, 98-99                   regional, 10, 24, 29, 30-34, 59, 71-84  Miller, Benjamin, 73-74                   secondary, 14, 69                 NAFTA (North American Free Trade                Inter-American Treaty for the Pacific   Agreement), 48, 50                Resolution of Disputes, 80           Nazarbayev, Nursultan, 96                interhuman society, 15-16, 23, 68, 70-72, 74,   Nixon, Richard, 76-77                   78, 81-84, 89-90                  OAS (Organization of American States),                                                        75, 80","108                  Obregón, Liliana, 74                 Roberson, Barbara Allen, 33                Organization of Central Asian        Russia, 94, 96-100                   Co-operation, 94                  Saavedra Lamas Pact, 80                Pan-American Union, 80               San Martín, José, 75                Paraguay, 77                         security studies, 7                Peru, 74, 77                         Shanghai Cooperation Organization, 94                pluralism, 3-4, 7, 29, 69            society of states, see international society                positivism, 25, 34-35                solidarism, 3-4, 28-29, 52, 69, 95                post-colonialism, 7                  South America, 15-16                reflexive approach, see interpretative      balance of power 76-78, 83                approach                                and Central America, 71, 76                regions                                 concertación, 78-83                   concept, 13, 26-27, 37, 71           cultural dimension, 70-71, 78                   regional integration (formation), 6,      democracy 75, 79, 82                   14-15, 30, 45-50, 53-56, 58-60, 71-72,      diplomacy, 78-82                   75-76, 80-82, 91-100                 geographical dimension, 70-71                   research by English School, see English      human rights, 75, 79                   School                               and interhuman society, 71, 84                   spatial dimension, 13, 26-27         international law, 74-76                regional international society          and Latin America, 70-71, 82                   comparative analysis, 15-16, 29-30, 37-38     and North America, 70-71, 78                   concept, 13, 23-24, 26, 36, 89-90     and Pan-Americanism, 80                   conceptual connection with regions, 8,      post-colonial legacy, 72-73, 81                   54                                   and regionalism, 80-83                   English School research, see English      Spain, 74-75                   School                               and the USA, 78-80                   institutions, see international society     and war, 72-74, 82                   institutionalization, 54-55       sovereignty, 2, 4, 12, 29, 31, 57, 75                   process of development, 15, 25, 27-33,   Soviet Union, 91, 96-97, 100                   54, 57-60, 70-72, 91-95           state system, see international system                   research, see research on regions  Suganami, Hidemi, 1                   socialization, 6, 15-16, 49, 56   synchronic approach, 8-10, 33                regional security complex, 29, 45    Syr-Darya, 93                regionalism, 6, 7, 45-46             Tajikistan, 91-93, 95, 99                   economic, 47-48, 58               Tobar Doctrine, 75                   and international organizations, 48-50  transnational norms, 32-33                   institutionalization, 49, 54-55, 58-59  transnational society, 69-70, 72, 81, 89-90                   links with international society, 46,   Turkmenistan, 91-96, 99                   50-53                             UNASUR (Union of South American                   security, 48-49                      Nations), 77, 81                Reus-Smit, Christian, 5              Uruguay, 77                Rio Pact, 80                         Uzbekistan, 91-95, 99","109                  Venezuela, 77                        Wilson, Woodrow, 80                verstehen, see interpretative approach  world society, 4-5, 23, 29, 52, 68                Watson, Adam, 23, 28, 39             WTO (World Trade Organization), 50, 96                Wight, Martin, 3, 23-24, 28, 82, 89, 93","The publication was developed by Global Politics journal and published by the                Masaryk University.                 Global Politics is associated with the International Institute of Political Science                and the Department of International Relations and European Studies of Masaryk                University,  Brno.  It  publishes  scholarly  texts  from  International  Relations  and                related disciplines.                                                         Global Politics                                        www.globalpolitics.cz/en"];