The Reproduction of International Society

  • Christer Jönsson
  • Martin Hall
Part of the Studies in Diplomacy and International Relations book series (SID)


In Chapter 2 we professed to be partisans of flux. We suggested that stability is no more natural than change, and in equal need of explanation. We also suggested that international societies, and their legitimizing principles, can be conceptualized as being poised between the extremes of universality and particularity. In this chapter we focus on diplomacy as an important factor in explaining the relative stability of international societies. We propose, in other words, that diplomacy is a crucial component in the reproduction of international societies. At the same time as diplomacy helps establish the balance between universalism and particularism, it also reflects this balance. In other words, the institutionalization of diplomacy implies an institutionalization of any given balance between universalism and particularism.


International Society German Democratic Republic Diplomatic Relation Legitimate Polity Western Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See, for example, K. Kristiansen, Europe Before History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 41.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See, for example, B. Buzan, R. Little and C. Jones, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R.R. Williams, Hegel’s Ethics of Recognition (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), p. 349.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House, 1979), p. 74.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), esp. p. 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    See, for example, H. Spruyt, The Sovereign State and Its Competitors (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994);Google Scholar
  7. C. Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European States, ad 990–1992 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Lafont, “International Relations in the Ancient Near East: The Birth of a Complete Diplomatic System,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 12 (2001) 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.D. Mosley, “Envoys and Diplomacy in Ancient Greece,” Historia: Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte, Einzelschriften, Heft 22 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1973), p. 82.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. Pohl, “The Barbarian Successor States,” in L. Webster and M. Brown (eds), The Transformation of the Roman World ad 400–900 (London: British Museum Press, 1997), p. 33.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    A. Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. See also E. Chrysos, “Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 300–800: Means and Ends,” in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds), Byzantine Diplomacy (Aldershot: Variorum, 1992).Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    P.S. Barnwell, “War and Peace: Historiography and Seventh-Century Embassies,” Early Medieval Europe, 6 (1997) 138.Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    B. Jahn, The Cultural Construction of International Relations: The Invention of the State of Nature (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2000), ch. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 23.
    N. Inayatullah and D.L. Blaney, International Relations and the Problem of Difference (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), p. 49.Google Scholar
  16. T. Todorov, The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other (New York: Harper and Row, 1984);Google Scholar
  17. U. Bitterli, Cultures in Conflict: Encounters Between European and Non-European Cultures, 1492–1800 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986);Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    H. Spruyt, “The Origins, Development, and Possible Decline of the Modern State,” Annual Review of Political Science, 5 (2002) 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 28.
    Quoted in S. Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), p. 21.Google Scholar
  20. 29.
    P. Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised edn (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), p. 82.Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    Cf. M.J. Peterson, Recognition of Governments: Legal Doctrine and State Practice, 1815–1995 (London: Macmillan, 1997), p. 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 32.
    A. Cassese, International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 48.Google Scholar
  23. 33.
    M. Doxey, “‘Something Old, Something New’: The Politics of Recognition in Post-Cold-War Europe,” Diplomacy and Statecraft, 6 (1995) 304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 40.
    C. Weber and T.J. Bierstecker, “Reconstructing the Analysis of Sovereignty: Concluding Reflections and Directions for Future Research,” in T.J. Bierstecker and C. Weber (eds), State Sovereignty as a Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 279.Google Scholar
  25. 42.
    K.J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 45.
    G.W. Gong, “China’s Entry Into International Society,” in H. Bull and A. Watson (eds), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984), p. 172.Google Scholar
  27. 47.
    See, for example, D.S. Linton, “Asia and the West in the New World Order—From Trading Companies to Free Trade Imperialism: The British and Their Rivals in Asia, 1700–1850,” in A.T. Embree and C. Gluck (eds), Asia in Western and World History (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1997).Google Scholar
  28. 60.
    Cf. S. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar
  29. S. Pegg, International Sovereignty and the De Facto State (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998), p. 6.Google Scholar
  30. 64.
    G.R. Berridge, Talking to the Enemy: How States without “Diplomatic Relations” Communicate (London: Macmillan and New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 65.
    A. Eban, The New Diplomacy (London: Weidenfeld&Nicolson, 1983), p. 343.Google Scholar
  32. 66.
    R.J. Barnet, Roots of War (New York: Penguin, 1973), p. 25.Google Scholar
  33. 67.
    E. Plischke, Conduct of American Diplomacy, 3rd edn (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1967), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  34. 69.
    V.V. Aspaturian, Process and Power in Soviet Foreign Policy (Boston, MA: Little, Brown: 1971), p. 623.Google Scholar
  35. 71.
    K. Hamilton and R. Langhorne, The Practice of Diplomacy: Its Evolution, Theory and Administration (London and New York: Routledge, 1995), p. 213.Google Scholar
  36. 73.
    J. Kaufmann, Conference Diplomacy, 3rd revised edn (Houndmills: Macmillan, 1996), pp. 112–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 74.
    See, for example, H. Grabbe, “Europeanization Goes East: Power and Uncertainty in the EU Accession Process,” in K. Featherstone and C.M. Radaelli (eds), The Politics of Europeanization (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  38. 76.
    Cf. J. Kelley, “International Actors on the Domestic Scene: Membership Conditionality and Socialization by International Institutions,” International Organization, 58 (2004) 454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 77.
    F. Kratochwil, “Of Systems, Boundaries, and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System,” World Politics, 39 (1986) 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Christer Jönsson and Martin Hall 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christer Jönsson
    • 1
  • Martin Hall
    • 1
  1. 1.Lund UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations