Fundamental Institutions and International Organizations: Solidarist Architecture

  • Tonny Brems Knudsen
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (PSIR)


This chapter argues that the establishment and development of the UN and the ICC have shaped and changed the constitutive principles and reproducing practices of war (restricted and rationalized for common purposes), great power management (providing for concerted action) and international law (providing for collective enforcement). Furthermore, the UN and the ICC have played an important part in the evolution of a set of fundamental institutions which are constitutive of a solidarist international society as traditionally defined in the Grotian-solidarist theory and thought, namely, humanitarian intervention, international criminal jurisdiction and (various forms of) international trusteeship. These institutions involve practices which are potentially constitutive of international humanitarian government and collective enforcement, but they have also given rise to considerable turbulence as states and other actors try to balance pluralist and solidarist concerns as well as more immediate political interests in complex institutional settings.


  1. Adams, Simon. 2015. Failure to Protect: Syria and the UN Security Council. Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, Occasional Paper Series, No. 5, March, 1–32.Google Scholar
  2. Ayoob, Mohammed. 2004. Third World Perspectives on Humanitarian Intervention and International Administration. Global Governance 10 (1): 99–118.Google Scholar
  3. Bain, William. 2003. Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ban Ki-moon. 2009. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect. Report of the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly, A/63/677, 12 January, 1–33.Google Scholar
  5. Bellamy, Alex J. 2006. Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics and International Affairs 20 (2): 143–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ———. 2014. From Tripoli to Damascus? Lesson Learning and the Implementation of the Responsibility to Protect. International Politics 51 (1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellamy, Alex J., and Paul D. Williams. 2011. The New Politics of protection? Côte d’Ivorie, Libya and the Responsibility to Protect. International Affairs 87 (4): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bull, Hedley. 1966. The Grotian Conception of International Society. In Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, ed. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, 51–73. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2014. An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  12. Caplan, Richard. 2005. International Governance of War-Torn Territories: Rule and Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chopra, Jarat. 2000. The UN’s Kingdom of East Timor. Survival 42 (3): 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, Roger S. 2010. Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Considered at the first Review Conference on the Court, Kampala, 31 May–11 June 2010. Goettingen Journal of International Law 2 (2): 689–711.Google Scholar
  15. Crawford, Emily. 2014. Introductory Note to the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Territorial Integrity of Ukraine. International Legal Material (by the American Society of International Law) 53 (5): 927–932.Google Scholar
  16. Cryer, Robert. 2006. Sudan, Resolution 1593, and International Criminal Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law 19 (1): 195–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Almeida, J.M. 2006. Hedley Bull, Embedded Cosmopolitanism, and the Pluralist-Solidarist Debate. In The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World, ed. Richard Little and John Williams, 51–72. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunne, Tim. 2003. Society and Hierarchy in International Relations. International Relations 17 (3): 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forsythe, David. 2012. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freedman, Lawrence, and David Boren. 1992. Safe havens for Kurds in Post-War Iraq. In To Loose the Bands of Wickedness. International Intervention in Defence of Human Rights, ed. Nigel S. Rodley, 43–92. London: Brassey’s.Google Scholar
  21. Freedman, Lawrence, and Efraim Karsh. 1993. The Gulf Conflict 1990–1991: Diplomacy and War in the New World Order. London/Boston: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  22. Holsti, Kalevi J. 2004. Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kingsbury, Benedict, and Adam Roberts. 1990. Introduction: Grotian Thought in International Relations. In Hugo Grotius and International Relations, ed. Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, 1–64. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Knudsen, Tonny Brems. 1996. Humanitarian Intervention Revisited: Post-Cold War Responses to Classical Problems. International Peacekeeping 3 (4): 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 1997. European Approaches to Humanitarian Intervention: From Just War to Assistance – And Back Again? In European Approaches to Crisis Management, ed. Knud Erik Jørgensen, 171–199. The Hague/London/Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 1999. Humanitarian Intervention and International Society: Contemporary Manifestations of an Explosive Doctrine. PhD dissertation. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2004. Denmark and the War Against Iraq: Losing Sight of Internationalism? Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2004: 49–90.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2013. The Responsibility to Protect: European Contributions in a Changing World Order. In Routledge Handbook on the European Union and International Institutions, ed. Knud Erik Jørgensen and Katie Laatikainen, 157–170. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2014. Danish Contributions in Syria and Mali: Active Internationalism in a Changing World Order. Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2014: 76–108.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2016. Solidarism, Pluralism and Fundamental Institutional Change. Cooperation and Conflict 51 (1): 102–109.Google Scholar
  32. Knudsen, Tonny Brems, and Carsten Bagge Laustsen. 2006. The Politics of International Trusteeship. In Kosovo Between War and Peace: Nationalism, Peacebuilding and International Trusteeship, ed. Tonny Brems Knudsen and Carsten Bagge Laustsen, 1–18. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1975/1946. The Grotian Tradition in International Law. In International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Vol. 2), ed. Elihu Lauterpacht, 307–365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published in British Yearbook of International Law, 1946.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 1975/1950. International Law After the Second World War. In International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Vol. 2), ed. Elihu Lauterpacht, 159–170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paper.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1975/1925. Westlake and Present Day International Law. In International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Vol. 2), ed. Elihu Lauterpacht, 385–403. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. First published in Economica 5, November 1925, 307-325.Google Scholar
  36. Malanczuk, Peter. 1997. Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law. seventh revised ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Murray, James N., Jr. 1957. The United Nations trusteeship system. Urbana: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  38. Navari, Cornelia. 2016. Primary and Secondary Institutions: Quo Vadit? Cooperation and Conflict 51 (1): 121–127.Google Scholar
  39. Pape, Robert A. 2005. Soft Balancing Against the United States. International Security 30 (1): 7–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul, T.V. 2005. Soft Balancing in the Age of US Primacy. International Security 30 (1): 46–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roberts, Adam, and Richard Guelff. 2000. Documents on the Laws of War. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rodley, Nigel S., ed. 1992. To Loose the Bands of Wickedness. International Intervention in Defence of Human Rights. London: Brassey’s.Google Scholar
  43. Roth, Ken. 2004. War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention. Human Rights Watch World Report 2004. New York/Washington DC.Google Scholar
  44. Scheffer, David. 2010. The Complex Crime of Aggression Under the Rome Statute. Leiden Journal of International Law 23 (4): 897–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sørensen, Georg. 1999. Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution. Political Studies XLVII (3): 590–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tams, Christian J. 2009. The Use of Force Against Terrorists. The European Journal of International Law 20 (2): 359–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thakur, Ramesh. 2013. R2P After Libya and Syria: Engaging Emerging Powers. The Washington Quarterly 36 (2): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vincent, Raymond John. 1974. Nonintervention and International Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1990. Grotius, Human Rights and Intervention. In Hugo Grotius and International Relations, ed. Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, and Adam Roberts, 241–256. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Weinert, Matthew S. 2011. Reforming the Pluralist-Solidarist Debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiss, Thomas G. 2004. The Sunset of Humanitarian Intervention? The Responsibility to Protect in a Unipolar Era. Security Dialogue 35 (2): 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weller, Marc. 2002. Undoing the Global Constitution: UN Security Council Action on the International Criminal Court. International Affairs 78 (4): 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wendt, Alexander, and Raymond Duvall. 1989. Institutions and International Order. In Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s, ed. Ernst-Otto Czempiel and James N. Rosenau, 51–73. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  55. Wheeler, Nicholas J. 1992. Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian intervention. Millennium 21 (3): 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. ———. 2000. Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wight, Martin. 1977. Systems of States, ed. with an introduction by Hedley Bull. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
  58. ———. 1978. Power Politics, ed. with an introduction by Hedley Bull and Carsten Holbraad. Leicester: Leicester University Press. First published 1946.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tonny Brems Knudsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations