A quantitative approach to studying hierarchies of primary institutions in international society: The case of United Nations General Assembly disarmament resolutions, 1989–1998
| Author | Laust Schouenborg,Simon F Taeuber |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720965998 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836720965998
Cooperation and Conflict
2021, Vol. 56(2) 224 –241
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0010836720965998
journals.sagepub.com/home/cac
A quantitative approach to
studying hierarchies of
primary institutions in
international society: The
case of United Nations
General Assembly
disarmament resolutions,
1989–1998
Laust Schouenborg
and Simon F Taeuber
Abstract
In this article, we aim to contribute to two contemporary debates within the English School. The
debate about how to observe primary institutions and the debate concerning hierarchy between
primary institutions. Specifically, we analyse references to primary institutions in United Nations
General Assembly disarmament resolutions in the decade 1989–1998 and their distribution
using descriptive statistics. In this way, the article offers a novel approach to identifying primary
institutions empirically, and provides some insight into the hierarchy-question in the sense of
documenting the relative numerical presence of references to different primary institutions in a
specific issue area and temporal context. With respect to the latter, the key finding is that great
power management, diplomacy and international law are by far the most prominent primary
institutions in the analysed material. This is an intriguing finding, not least given the importance
attached to them by Hedley Bull in his classic work The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in
World Politics. The main contribution of the article is thus to spell out a new approach to how the
aforementioned debates might proceed empirically.
Keywords
Disarmament, English School, hierarchy, international society, primary institutions, United
Nations
Corresponding author:
Laust Schouenborg, Department of International Politics, City, University of London, Northampton Square,
EC1V 0HB London, UK.
Email: laust.schouenborg@city.ac.uk
965998CAC0010.1177/0010836720965998Cooperation and ConflictSchouenborg and Taeuber
research-article2020
Article
Schouenborg and Taeuber 225
Introduction
Since Buzan’s (2001) call to reconvene the English School (ES), this approach to the
study of international relations has firmly established itself as a contender amongst the
other core approaches in the International Relations (IR) discipline. This is reflected in a
consistently high research output in the form of monographs with distinguished publish-
ers (e.g. Buzan and Schouenborg, 2018; Linklater, 2016; Williams, 2015), articles in
prominent journals (e.g. Falkner and Buzan, 2019; Spandler, 2015; Zala, 2017) and
whole sections at major international conferences (International Studies Association,
European International Studies Association and World International Studies Committee).
Moreover, it is reflected in dedicated chapters in IR textbooks, including some that deal
with more specialised topics such as international organisations (Karns et al., 2015).
Arguably, the so-called ‘primary institutions’ of international society constitute one of
the school’s main distinctive contributions to our understanding of international rela-
tions. These were the conceptual centrepiece of the probably best known ES work, The
Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (Bull, 1977), in which Bull argued
that five such institutions sustained international order: the balance of power; interna-
tional law; diplomacy; war; and the great powers. Primary institutions capture evolved
and enduring social practices between states, and are conceptually distinguished from
so-called ‘secondary institutions’. The latter concept refers to the designed and physical
international organisations that are the main focus of some strands of liberal IR theory.
At root, the concept of primary institutions suggests a deeper, sociological and historical
appreciation of the social forces shaping international relations (Buzan, 2014: 16–17).
However, this is also the point at which agreement on institutions stops within the ES.
Scholars disagree on the number of institutions present in international society, how to
organise them into a typology, whether they change over time and how, what exactly
characterises them or the question of how to observe them, how they influence each
other, whether there is hierarchy between them, and how they relate to the secondary
institutions of international society (Buzan, 2004: 161–204; Costa-Buranelli, 2015;
Friedner Parrat, 2017; Holsti, 2004; Knudsen and Navari, 2019; Schouenborg, 2011,
2017; Terradas, 2018; see also Wilson, 2012 for a critique of some of these efforts).
In this article, we aim to add to two of these debates: the debate on how to observe
primary institutions; and the debate concerning hierarchy between primary institutions.
Specifically, we analyse references to primary institutions in United Nations General
Assembly (UNGA) disarmament resolutions in the first post-Cold War decade 1989–
1998 and their distribution using descriptive statistics. In total, we have analysed 216
resolutions. In this way, the article offers a novel approach to identifying primary institu-
tions empirically. It is thus mainly a proof of concept piece. However, the article also
provides a fascinating insight into the hierarchy-question in the sense of documenting the
relative numerical presence of references to different primary institutions in a specific
issue area and temporal context. With respect to the latter, the key finding is that great
power management (GPM), diplomacy and international law are by far the most promi-
nent primary institutions in the analysed material. This is an intriguing finding that we
did not hypothesise at the outset. It is especially intriguing because all three institutions
feature in Bull’s (1977) list of the institutions of international society, thus provisionally
suggesting that he was right in considering them central or important.
To continue reading
Request your trial