British pluralism and socialism

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- British pluralism and socialism，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了英国的多元主义与社会连带主义。英国学派中存在着两种主要的概念和研究方法取向，即多元主义与社会连带主义。多元主义强调国际社会中单位国家的功能，将国家主权原则视为国际社会稳定的基础。而社会连带主义的思想渊源是法国孔德的实证主义哲学以及杜尔克姆的社会连带主义理论。多元主义倾向于现实主义，强调国家间的政治和文化差异。而社会连带主义则是一种社会学理论，认为社会是一个有机的整体，因而以社会中的个人为其研究基点，从而具有明显的康德式革命主义倾向。

There are two main concepts and approaches in the English school: pluralism and social connectionism. The concept of pluralism was established after the 1940s by international jurists such as Konius n. Wilhelmhauff and Hose Lauterpacht. They stressed the function of the state as a unit in the international community and regarded the principle of state sovereignty as the basis for international stability. The most obvious feature of pluralism is that it takes the state rather than the individual as the unit of analysis, believing that different countries have different interests and values, and that the international community has the pluralism of the basis of the state and the relativity of values. In the 1950s, Martin white, butterfield and others drew on and absorbed the pluralist subject thought and gradually formed the pluralist concept of the British school. The pluralism of the British school believes that order is the most important factor in the international community, and thus emphasizes the importance of national sovereignty, the practice of moral beliefs, the diversity of cultures and the relativity of values. It believes that the rights and obligations in the international community belong to sovereign states, and individuals only have the rights granted by their own countries. Therefore, the noumenon of the pluralism study of the British school is the unit state, which believes that the scope of the contemporary international community is limited to maintaining the order of international coexistence. In its view, respect for sovereignty and the principle of non-interference always came first, and states had no right to intervene on humanitarian grounds.

The ideological origin of social connectionism is comte's positivism philosophy and durkheim's theory of social connectionism. Starting from the analysis of social division of labor and the relationship between them, kong and durkheim hold that the relationship between them is not a behavior rule, but a fact, the basic fact of all human societies. The state is an organ of human society on the basis of social connectedness. Society is a group of people united by common desires. The importance of individual units is much higher than that of collectivity. This is the classic social organism. Similarly, the social connectionism of the British school inherits the social organism theory of Confucius and durkheim and explains the international society from the perspective of sociology. Social connectionism holds that the international community is a human community composed of individuals, and each individual is an integral part of the international community. That is to say, in the view of the British school of social solidarity, human social justice comes first, human rights are of Paramount importance, and the state exists to protect individual rights. It therefore emphasizes the importance of the individual as the fundamental member of the international community, the consistency of interests and the universality of values. It believes that the scope of the contemporary international community lies not only in maintaining order among states, but also in a broader sense, with states having both the right and the obligation to intervene to avoid humanitarian disasters.

It can be seen that pluralism tends to be realistic, emphasizing political and cultural differences between countries. Social connectionism, on the other hand, is a sociological theory that holds that society is an organic whole, so it takes individuals in society as its research basis and thus has obvious Kantian revolutionary tendency.

It is these differences between the two that have sparked a debate within the British school about the actual size and scope of the contemporary international community, against which the pluralists and the socialistes have become adversaries. Therefore, the debate between pluralism and social connectionism has always been one of the central issues in the study of the British school. The tension within the English school is embodied in this controversy. Since the mid-1960s, the British international political circle began to pay attention to the core issues of the debate between pluralism and social solidarity, such as sovereignty and human rights, order and justice, and humanitarian intervention. In the early days of the British school, butterfield and white paid special attention to the tension between order and justice in the international community. White is a pluralist who emphasizes that order is the basis for maintaining the stability of the international community, but never neglects to show concern for the value and ethics of the individuality of social solidarity. White pointed out that the main reason for the immaturity of the theory of international relations lies in its "ideological and moral poverty". In the 1980s, Boer, Vincent, and Watson, among others, continued to work on the theory of pluralism - associated controversy. "The debate between pluralism and social connectionism is the center of the theoretical research of the British school, and how to construct the debate is of great significance for the content of the theory of this school". After the end of the cold war, it became a new trend to attach importance to the protection of human rights, and a wave of humanitarian intervention arose in the world.

Pluralism -- the associated controversy broke the situation that the previous academic research of the British school was confined to the core concept of "international community", and injected new vitality into the whole school. In academic sense, it is the English school scholars, the realization of the academic reflection, doubt and critical spirit of pluralism and social disputes, to promote the new development of the school itself, and its equal opportunity of dialogue with mainstream theory, leading to its confluence with the dominant theory gradually. The reason why the British school has become a hot topic in the current theoretical study of international relations is, to a large extent, driven by the pluralism -- associated controversy. In particular, social connectionism has incorporated elements such as culture and identity into the study of international relations, applied traditional sociological thoughts and methods to study the changes in the international society, and emphasized that the world society is an inter-subjective community society, which greatly led and promoted the "sociological turn" of the theoretical study of international relations. The United Kingdom is the second center of international relations research in the world. "With their size and internationalisation, UK international relations scholars are today the leading global players."

Pluralism and social connectionism are at odds with each other. Their differences focus on three big questions: whether there is uniformity in the world, how the rules and institutions of the international community are structured and how they have evolved. To be specific, this divergence mainly reflects their differences in the following two aspects.

First, the cognitive differences of subjects of international law. The differences between pluralism and social connectionism focus on the normative content of the international community, which is mainly reflected in the doubts about the foundation of the international community -- international law, especially the different interpretations of the origin of international law, that is, whether the society is based on natural law or positive law. "The interest in international law is not in what it is, but in what it stands for. It provides evidence for the existence of society. "The debate between natural law and positive law is the focus of the British school on the future development of the international community." In other words, whether the individual is the subject of international law has aroused the debate between pluralism and social connectionism.

Pluralists try to find more realistic basis for the international community, and tend to positivism in the cognition of international law, denying that individuals are the subject of international law. The positivist school of law believes that laws are made by a specific sovereign state, and domestic individual units can only enjoy the rights and obligations stipulated by law. Individuals themselves cannot surpass sovereign states and become the subject of laws. Pluralism takes positive law as its theoretical fulcrum and holds that international law can only be based on international consensus. International law itself does not create an order, but only the evidence rather than the reason for the existence of the international community. Boer was against natural law as the basis of the international community, especially against the supremacy of the individual over the state. That is to say, in the view of pluralists, the internal order of a state depends on its internal will. Therefore, other states have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

Social solidarity is based on natural law. It holds that peace, order and justice in the international community depend on the norms of natural law and the norms of international law based on natural law to constrain state behavior. The international law that socialism claims to be effective derives not only from the rules agreed upon by states, but also from the rules by which solidarity and consensus are achieved by the international community as a whole, although some states do not recognize these rules. That is to say, socialism rejects the conflation of natural law as the basis of individual human rights with positive law as the basis of state sovereignty. The social connectionists represented by dunn, wiener and linklater took natural law as the basis for human rights protection. They believed that the international community should unite morally and politically and that there must be consensus on the question of the justice of war, treaties and ACTS of interference. Individuals in the international community have the right to protect their persons and property. Countries in the international community are highly coordinated in sharing common rules, systems and values. In their view, the protagonist of world society is the individual, so positive law can no longer be applied here, only natural law can fully protect the rights of the individual.

Secondly, the inner tension of value ethics. The tension between pluralism and social connectionism is highlighted in the different answers to human rights and humanitarian intervention. Pluralism emphasizes order and state sovereignty. It believes that the international community exists to maintain order among states; Rights and obligations in the international community belong to sovereign states, and individuals have only the rights granted by their home countries. Humanitarian intervention seriously threatens the rules-based international community and violates the principle of sovereignty. Social solidarity emphasizes justice and believes that the purpose of the existence of the international community is not only the maintenance of order, but also the realization of justice. It highlights the importance of the individual as a fundamental member of the international community. It argues that the state must protect the basic human rights of its citizens. In order for international justice to be safeguarded, respected and protected, the use of military force to interfere with sovereignty is necessary on certain occasions. "Over the past decade or so, the debate between pluralism and social solidarity over humanitarian intervention has grown increasingly divisive."

There are also great differences between them on the relationship between the state and the international community. Pluralism starts from reality and regards state sovereignty and order as the foundation of the existing world. It recognises diversity within the country and tries to prevent its coercive weakening. In a society of sovereign states, bull argues, international rules and international law limit the options available to states that seek to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. He found that the international community had never tried humanitarian intervention because it was "unwilling to harm the principles of sovereignty and non-interference just because states had the right". Vincent is categorically say the pluralism of the concept of human rights and humanitarian intervention: "pluralism that admits, it is not due to satisfied with the international community on the moral or no matter which country will as good as others, but because of interference may choose, is worried about the position of harm."

Social connectionism focuses more on the future, emphasizing that individual justice and world society are the fundamental goals of human social development. Social solidarity opposes the view that the legitimacy of a state is the core of international social stability. On the contrary, it believes that a sovereign state is essentially a commonwealth of individuals expressing common interests. Therefore, whether a state is legitimate in the international community depends on whether it respects and protects the rights of its citizens. Humanitarian intervention is legitimate when the state is unable to assume this responsibility and exercise this power well. "The international community and even a specific country have the right to humanitarian intervention in other countries under certain conditions, which is based on universal human rights norms and plays an important role in consolidating the legitimacy of countries in the international community." It can be seen that in the view of social solidarity, the connotation of sovereignty has changed, and international legitimacy is based on the common interests of the world and the collective will of the members of the international community. "When national interests conflict with human rights, they must discard narrow commercial and political advantages.

The intrinsic tension of value ethics between pluralism and social connectionism is essentially the spillover of the internal dilemma of sovereignty and human rights. In the contemporary world, this is mainly manifested as the inconsistency between the international human rights law and the acceptance ability of various members of the international community. In developed countries, due to the early start of democracy construction, its human rights structure has been relatively complete, and the implementation of international human rights law has been relatively in place. In other countries, especially underdeveloped countries, survival comes first, and some basic human rights conditions in other aspects are difficult to meet the standards of international human rights laws. It should be pointed out that the humanitarian interventionism of social solidarity has great influence on the new interventionism in the foreign policy of western countries in recent years. Since the end of the cold war, the arguments of "human rights are higher than sovereignty" and "human rights have no borders" in western countries are closely related to the humanitarian intervention theory of social solidarity.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。