Worlding war as a primary institution of international society
| Author | John Williams |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221111195 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882221111195
Journal of International Political Theory
2023, Vol. 19(1) 87 –107
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17550882221111195
journals.sagepub.com/home/ipt
Worlding war as a primary
institution of international
society
John Williams
Durham University, UK
Abstract
Through interaction with decolonial IR this paper develops a research agenda
extending recent English School (ES) work engaging a Global IR agenda. It argues recent
developments in ES work that look to world history and which substantially improve
ES accounts of “primary institutions” of international society can be further enhanced
by decolonial concepts and methods. By focusing on war as a major primary institution
of international society, and specifically Counterinsurgency and Counter-Terrorism, the
paper shows how “worlding” as a decolonial approach can extend ES theory’s critical
reach. Key benefits include enriching its account of political space and identifying ways
to open research to perspectives and insights from marginalized populations with deep
knowledge and understanding of war through lived experience. Decolonial research
methods and associated distinctive ontological and epistemological claims can open ES
research to additional world histories its present methods close, further invigorating
the principal sociological approach to theorizing international relations.
Keywords
Counter insurgency, counter terrorism, decolonial theory, drones, English school,
primary institutions
Introduction
This paper argues English school (ES) IR theory can and should pursue a theoretically and
methodologically more radical approach to its centerpiece concept of the society of states,
or international society. Specifically, it should extend existing engagement with “Global
IR” (Acharya, 2014) to include decolonial approaches to open new epistemological, onto-
logical, and methodological opportunities for analyzing international society’s origins,
Corresponding author:
John Williams, School of Government and International Affairs, Durham University, al Qasimi Building, Elvet
Hill Road, Durham DH1 3TU, UK.
Email: j.c.williams@durham.ac.uk
1111195 IPT0010.1177/17550882221111195Journal of International Political TheoryWilliams
research-article2022
Article
88 Journal of International Political Theory 19(1)
development, operation, and normativity. Through an initial examination of war as one of
the English school’s most important primary institutions, I suggest how decolonial work
can generate powerful insights into how war has functioned and continues to function in
international society to create distinctive, hierarchical, and deeply colonial forms of politi-
cal space. These spaces, taking diverse forms, including practical, epistemological, and
methodological, can drive reconsideration of international society’s ontological status,
and a sense of how to augment ES theory’s existing strengths creating an analytical frame-
work encompassing plural, and pluriversal, international societ(y/ies). Inevitably, one
paper cannot do complete justice to such an agenda, especially through a focus on a single
primary institution, but I can establish its persuasiveness and importance.
Acharya and Buzan (2017: 352–353) note ES theory’s potential to play a leading role
in Global IR. This fruitful partnership engages world history and historiography in ES
theory, producing substantial discussion of non-Western forms of international society
(e.g. Barry et al., 2015; Buzan, 2014b; Buzan and Schouenborg, 2018; Clark, 2017;
Dunne and Reus-Smit, 2017a; Pella, 2015; Phillips, 2016; Zhang, 2011; Zhang and
Buzan, 2012). Key elements of the Global IR agenda reinforce ES accounts of a histori-
cally contingent and dynamic international society constituted through a shifting pattern
of primary institutions, often demonstrating regional distinctiveness.
The concept of primary institutions is central to 20 years of ES theoretical develop-
ment, clarifying what primary institutions are, how they emerge and decline, their rela-
tionship to secondary institutions, and how to assess strengthening and weakening
dynamics within international society (e.g. Buzan, 2004; Buzan and Schouenborg, 2018;
Falkner and Buzan, 2019; Knudsen and Navari, 2019; Navari, 2020; Spandler, 2015). An
important part of this conceptual refinement has been empirical analysis of international
political practices overturning previously dominant “diffusionist” accounts of interna-
tional society’s globalization (e.g. Dunne and Reus-Smit, 2017a). Briefly, in this account,
primary institutions developed in Europe, pristine and uninfluenced by the outside world,
between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, except those recovered from classical
European civilizations. They were exported to non-European societies, replacing what
had previously existed to such an extent there is little worth knowing about pre-European
regional international societies. The post-1945 process of decolonization completed the
long transition to a single, global international society. New work acknowledges the role
of violence, racism, and colonialism in the “diffusion,” and the extent to which European
institutions borrowed from non-European systems and how pre- and post-colonial pat-
terns, institutions, and practices create regional distinctiveness (e.g. Keene, 2002;
O’Hagan, 2017; Pella, 2015; Phillips, 2016, 2017; Rae, 2017). The first part of this paper
looks at this work, drawing out theoretical conclusions about primary institutions, that, I
argue, are neglected in the current ES-Global IR engagement. This explains why political
space is an important, if neglected, topic in ES theory and how, as noted by Blaney and
Tickner (2017: 294–295) following Acharya’s Global IR approach perpetuates a uni-
verse, or “one-world world” account.
Part two addresses the primary institution of war as emblematic of limitations and
opportunities for ES theory in engaging decolonial approaches. War is a good choice for
two reasons, one general, the other specific to my argument. The general reason is war’s
ubiquity in lists of primary institutions and its centrality to the concept of international
To continue reading
Request your trial