9.2 Pluralism and solidarism

Pluralism vs Solidarism

Pluralism and solidarism represent two competing perspectives within the English School on how tightly knit international society is, and how tightly knit it should be. Pluralists emphasize the diversity and autonomy of states, while solidarists focus on the potential for shared values and norms to bind states together.

This debate has real consequences. Where you land on the pluralism-solidarism spectrum shapes your position on intervention, human rights enforcement, the authority of international law, and the scope of global governance.

Pluralist View of International Society

Pluralists view international society as a loose association of sovereign states with diverse political systems, cultures, and values. The emphasis is on coexistence and tolerance rather than the pursuit of common goals or universal principles.

• The primary purpose of international society is to maintain order and stability through mutual recognition of sovereignty and non-intervention.
• States don't need to agree on the good life; they just need to agree on the rules that let them live alongside each other.
• Think of it as a neighborhood where everyone respects property lines but doesn't try to tell each other how to decorate their houses.

Key thinkers associated with pluralism include Hedley Bull (in his more cautious moments) and Robert Jackson, who defended the sovereignty-based order in Quasi-States (1990).

Solidarist View of International Society

Solidarists conceive of international society as a more cohesive community bound together by shared values, norms, and interests. States have moral obligations that go beyond mere coexistence.

• States should uphold certain universal principles, such as human rights and justice, even if this means challenging the sovereignty of other states.
• International organizations and global governance should play an expansive role in promoting these shared values and addressing transnational challenges.
• Solidarists argue that a thicker set of shared norms doesn't threaten international society; it strengthens it.

Key solidarist thinkers include Nicholas Wheeler, whose Saving Strangers (2000) made the case for humanitarian intervention, and Andrew Linklater, who pushed for a more cosmopolitan international society.

Core Principles of Pluralism

Pluralism rests on a set of principles that emphasize state diversity and autonomy. These reflect a minimalist, state-centric conception of international relations focused on coexistence rather than deep cooperation.

Diversity and Difference

Pluralists recognize the wide diversity of political systems, cultures, and values among states and argue that this diversity should be respected, not suppressed or homogenized. There is no single universal model of political or social organization that all states should aspire to.

This isn't moral indifference. Pluralists simply believe that trying to force convergence on contested moral questions is more likely to produce conflict than harmony.

Coexistence over Cooperation

For pluralists, the primary goal of international society is enabling states with diverse interests and values to coexist peacefully.

• Tolerance, restraint, and non-interference in internal affairs are paramount.
• Attempts to impose common values on states are seen as a potential threat to international order.
• Cooperation is welcome when it arises naturally from shared interests, but it shouldn't be forced through institutional pressure.

Limited Shared Norms and Rules

Pluralists acknowledge some basic norms in international society, like sovereignty and non-intervention, but they see these as minimal and procedural rather than substantive.

• International law should focus on facilitating coexistence and preventing conflict, not promoting a particular vision of justice.
• Expanding the scope of international norms risks infringing on state autonomy.
• The fewer rules states must agree on, the more stable the system, because there are fewer points of friction.

Core Principles of Solidarism

Solidarism is built on the idea that shared values, norms, and interests can and should bind states into a more cohesive international society. This reflects a more ambitious, cosmopolitan vision focused on cooperation and global governance.

Universal Values and Justice

Solidarists believe certain universal values, particularly human rights and democratic governance, should be upheld by all states.

• Promoting these values is both a moral imperative and essential for the long-term stability and legitimacy of international society.
• International organizations have a role in defining and enforcing universal standards.
• The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a foundational solidarist document, asserting rights that belong to all people regardless of their state's political system.

Cooperation over Coexistence

Solidarists push beyond coexistence toward active cooperation to address shared challenges and pursue common interests.

• Multilateralism, collective action, and strong international institutions are essential tools.
• States have a responsibility to work together on transnational issues like climate change, terrorism, and global poverty.
• Mere coexistence is insufficient in a world where problems cross borders constantly.

Expansive Shared Norms and Rules

Solidarists envision a robust framework of international norms, rules, and institutions governing state behavior.

• International law should go beyond facilitating coexistence to actively promoting human rights and democracy.
• More intrusive forms of global governance, such as international courts (like the ICC, established in 2002) and peacekeeping operations, are necessary to enforce these norms.
• Where pluralists see expanded rules as a threat, solidarists see them as progress.

Pluralist Approach to Intervention

Pluralists take a restrictive view of intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states. They see most forms of intervention as violations of international society's core principles, permissible only in narrow circumstances.

Respect for State Sovereignty

State sovereignty is a fundamental norm that should be respected except in the most extreme cases.

• States have the right to determine their own political, economic, and social systems without external interference.
• A more permissive approach to intervention could be abused by powerful states pursuing their own interests under humanitarian cover.
• Once you start making exceptions to sovereignty, it becomes difficult to draw a clear line.

Non-Intervention Norm

The principle of non-intervention should be the default position in international relations.

• This norm preserves the diversity and autonomy of states and prevents powerful states from imposing their values on weaker ones.
• Even well-intentioned humanitarian intervention can exacerbate conflicts and undermine local institutions. Pluralists often point to the aftermath of the 2011 Libya intervention as a cautionary example.
• The cure, in other words, can be worse than the disease.

Exceptions for Self-Defense and UN Authorization

Pluralists do recognize limited exceptions to non-intervention:

1. Self-defense against armed attack, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This is a right, not a privilege.
2. UN Security Council authorization in response to threats to international peace and security. The 1991 Gulf War, authorized by Resolution 678 to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, is a classic example.

These exceptions are narrow by design. Pluralists want the bar for intervention set high to prevent abuse.

Solidarist Approach to Intervention

Solidarists take a more permissive view, arguing that the international community has a responsibility to act when states commit or fail to prevent severe human rights abuses. Sovereignty is conditional, not absolute.

Humanitarian Intervention

Humanitarian intervention involves the use of military force by external actors to protect civilians from mass atrocities.

• The international community has a moral obligation to intervene in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, or large-scale violence against civilians.
• NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo is frequently cited by solidarists as a case where military action saved lives, even though it lacked explicit UN Security Council authorization.
• Critics counter that Kosovo also illustrates the risks: the intervention bypassed the Security Council, setting a contested precedent.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a solidarist doctrine endorsed at the 2005 UN World Summit. It holds that sovereignty carries responsibilities, not just rights.

R2P rests on three pillars:

1. Pillar I: Each state has the primary responsibility to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
2. Pillar II: The international community should assist states in fulfilling this responsibility through capacity-building, early warning, and diplomatic support.
3. Pillar III: When a state manifestly fails to protect its population, the international community should take timely and decisive action, including (as a last resort) military intervention authorized by the Security Council.

R2P doesn't eliminate sovereignty; it redefines it. Sovereignty becomes a responsibility rather than a shield.

Erosion of State Sovereignty

Solidarists argue that the traditional concept of absolute sovereignty has been steadily eroded by the growing emphasis on human rights and R2P.

• Sovereignty is conditional on a state's willingness and ability to protect its citizens.
• The increasing number of UN-authorized interventions and the development of international criminal law (the ICC, the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda) signal a shift toward a more solidarist international order.
• Pluralists view this erosion with alarm, seeing it as destabilizing. Solidarists see it as moral progress.

Pluralism and the Balance of Power

Pluralists see the balance of power as a key mechanism for maintaining order in international society. They are skeptical of attempts to replace it with solidarist arrangements like collective security.

Pluralist View of Power Politics

Power politics is an inevitable feature of international relations given the absence of a central authority to enforce rules.

• States will always seek to maximize their own power and security.
• The best way to prevent conflict is through a balance of power among competing states, not through ambitious institutional designs.
• Attempts to eliminate power politics through international law or institutions can be destabilizing if they ignore the realities of state behavior.

Acceptance of Great Power Management

Pluralists generally accept that the most powerful states play a special role in maintaining international order.

• Great powers have both the capability and the responsibility to manage relations among states and prevent major wars.
• The Concert of Europe (1815-1914) is a frequently cited example: the major European powers cooperated to manage disputes and maintain stability, even without shared ideological commitments.
• This is a pragmatic arrangement, not an idealistic one. It works precisely because it doesn't require states to agree on values, only on the need for stability.

Skepticism of International Organizations

While pluralists recognize the value of international organizations for facilitating cooperation, they resist giving these organizations too much power.

• International organizations could become vehicles for imposing particular values or interests, undermining state diversity and autonomy.
• Organizations should be limited in scope and subject to the ultimate control of member states.
• The UN Security Council veto, for instance, is something pluralists tend to defend: it ensures that great powers retain control over collective action, preventing the organization from acting against their core interests.

Solidarism and Collective Security

Solidarists see collective security as a more effective and legitimate alternative to the balance of power. States should work together through international institutions to uphold universal values and promote global governance.

Solidarist View of Collective Action

Collective action is essential for addressing transnational challenges that no single state can solve alone.

• States have both a moral and pragmatic imperative to cooperate through multilateral institutions.
• The Montreal Protocol (1987), which successfully addressed ozone depletion through coordinated international action, is a go-to example of what collective action can achieve.
• Solidarists argue that if states can cooperate on ozone, they can cooperate on harder problems too, given the right institutional frameworks.

Faith in International Organizations

Solidarists place strong faith in international organizations as vehicles for cooperation and norm enforcement.

• They support more powerful and autonomous institutions, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Peacebuilding Commission, to enforce international law and promote global justice.
• International organizations should be given the authority and resources to fulfill their mandates, even if this means some loss of state sovereignty.
• For solidarists, effective institutions are the infrastructure of a just international order.

Promotion of Global Governance

The ultimate solidarist goal is a robust system of global governance capable of managing transnational issues effectively.

• States would be bound together by a dense web of international norms, rules, and institutions promoting cooperation and universal values.
• Some solidarists support creating new governance structures, such as a world environment organization or mechanisms for greater global civil society participation.
• Pluralists see this vision as utopian at best and dangerous at worst, fearing it would concentrate power in institutions that lack democratic accountability.

Pluralist vs Solidarist Human Rights

The pluralism-solidarism debate is sharpest in the area of human rights, where competing visions of universal values and cultural diversity collide directly.

Pluralist Cultural Relativism

Pluralists take a more relativist approach to human rights, emphasizing cultural diversity and the need to respect different moral and political traditions.

• Human rights, in this view, are not truly universal but culturally specific. What counts as a "right" varies across societies.
• Attempts to impose a single set of values on all societies risk becoming a form of cultural imperialism.
• A universalist conception of human rights could be used to justify intervention and undermine the autonomy of non-Western states. Pluralists often point to the Bangkok Declaration (1993), in which several Asian governments argued that human rights must be understood in the context of regional particularities.

Solidarist Universalism

Solidarists take a universalist approach, arguing that certain fundamental rights and freedoms belong to all individuals by virtue of their humanity.

• These rights are not culturally relative but derive from a common human nature and moral order.
• The international community has a responsibility to promote and protect human rights everywhere, even if this means challenging state sovereignty.
• Solidarists counter the cultural relativism argument by noting that many claims of "cultural difference" are made by authoritarian governments seeking to deflect criticism, not by the populations whose rights are being violated.

Debate over Human Rights Enforcement

The pluralist-solidarist divide plays out concretely in debates over how to enforce human rights.

• Pluralists favor a limited, consensual approach: dialogue, persuasion, and capacity-building to encourage states to improve their human rights records. Coercion is counterproductive and illegitimate.
• Solidarists are more willing to use coercive measures, including economic sanctions or military intervention, to enforce human rights and punish violators.
• This debate intensified in the 1990s with humanitarian interventions (Kosovo, 1999) and the establishment of international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and Rwanda (1994). These events forced the international community to confront the question: when do human rights violations justify overriding sovereignty?

Pluralism, Solidarism, and International Law

The pluralist-solidarist debate shapes how we understand the nature, scope, and authority of international law.

Pluralist View of International Law

For pluralists, international law is primarily a set of rules facilitating coexistence and cooperation among sovereign states.

• International law derives its authority from the consent of states, not from any higher moral or legal order. Treaties bind because states agree to them.
• International law should be limited in scope and subject to state control, not developing into an autonomous system of global governance.
• This is a positivist conception of international law: law is what states agree it is, nothing more.

Solidarist View of International Law

Solidarists see international law as a key instrument for promoting universal values and upholding a common moral order.

• International law should reflect not only state consent but also the shared norms and principles of the international community, including jus cogens norms (peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted, such as the prohibition on genocide).
• International law should have expansive scope and authority, with the power to bind states and individuals in the name of global justice.
• This is a more natural law influenced conception: some legal principles exist independently of state consent because they reflect fundamental moral truths.

Implications for the Global Legal Order

The pluralist-solidarist debate shapes the future trajectory of international law.

• A pluralist direction would emphasize the consensual and decentralized nature of international law, focused on facilitating cooperation and preventing conflict among sovereign states.
• A solidarist direction would develop a more centralized and hierarchical system, with the power to enforce universal norms and hold states and individuals accountable.
• In practice, the international legal order contains elements of both. The UN Charter enshrines sovereignty and non-intervention (pluralist), while also affirming human rights and authorizing collective action against threats to peace (solidarist). The ongoing challenge is managing the tension between these two impulses.