9.3 Primary institutions

Primary institutions are the foundational practices that define what international society is and how it operates. In English School theory, they're distinct from specific organizations like the UN or NATO. Instead, they represent the deep, shared practices and norms that states have developed over centuries to structure their coexistence. Understanding them is central to grasping how the English School explains order in an anarchical system.

Origins of primary institutions

Primary institutions are durable practices that shape the character of international society and provide a framework for how states interact. They didn't appear all at once. They emerged historically as states developed shared norms, values, and expectations, often in response to common challenges like managing war, trade, or territorial disputes.

These institutions have evolved through repeated state interaction over time. The practices that constitute them reflect the dominant ideas of each era. What counted as a legitimate institution in 17th-century European international society (e.g., dynastic succession, colonialism) differs from what's recognized today. This historical evolution is a key feature: primary institutions aren't static rules imposed from above but emergent patterns shaped by practice.

Characteristics of primary institutions

Practices vs. principles

Primary institutions are constituted by both practices (what states actually do) and principles (the shared understandings that justify and guide those actions).

• Practices are regular patterns of behavior: diplomatic exchanges, treaty-making, the conduct of war according to certain conventions.
• Principles are the shared beliefs about what counts as appropriate conduct: sovereignty, non-intervention, the obligation to honor agreements (pacta sunt servanda).

These two dimensions reinforce each other. Diplomatic practice, for instance, both reflects and reproduces the principle that states should resolve disputes through negotiation rather than force. When states repeatedly act on a principle, it becomes more deeply embedded; when a principle is widely accepted, it shapes what states do.

Constitutive vs. regulative rules

Hedley Bull and other English School thinkers distinguish between two types of rules within primary institutions:

• Constitutive rules define the basic entities and structures of international society. They establish what counts as what. For example, the rule that sovereign states are the primary actors, or that territorial boundaries define political authority. These set the "rules of the game" itself.
• Regulative rules prescribe or prohibit specific behaviors within that framework. The prohibition on aggressive war, rules governing diplomatic immunity, or norms about treaty compliance are all regulative. They guide and constrain state behavior within the order that constitutive rules establish.

The distinction matters because constitutive rules are harder to change. Altering them means changing the fundamental nature of international society, not just adjusting behavior within it.

Examples of primary institutions

Sovereignty as a primary institution

Sovereignty is the most foundational primary institution. It defines states as independent, legally equal political entities with exclusive authority over their own territories. From sovereignty flow several key principles:

• Non-intervention: other states should not interfere in a state's internal affairs
• Legal equality: all sovereign states have the same formal standing regardless of size or power
• Territorial integrity: borders are to be respected

Sovereignty shapes nearly everything else in international society. It determines who gets to participate (states), what the basic units of interaction are, and what counts as legitimate authority. Without it, the other primary institutions wouldn't function the way they do.

Diplomacy as a primary institution

Diplomacy is the primary institution through which states communicate, negotiate, and resolve disputes peacefully. It involves the exchange of representatives (ambassadors, envoys) and the maintenance of formal channels for dialogue.

Core principles embedded in diplomacy include:

• Reciprocity: states extend privileges to each other's diplomats on a mutual basis
• Diplomatic immunity: diplomats are protected from prosecution in the host state
• Sanctity of communications: diplomatic correspondence is treated as confidential

Diplomacy enables states to manage their relationships without resorting to force. It's not just a tool that states use; it's a constitutive practice that helps define what it means to be a member of international society in the first place.

Great power management

Great power management refers to the special responsibilities and prerogatives that the most powerful states hold in maintaining international order. This institution recognizes a hierarchical element within an otherwise anarchical system.

Historical examples include the Concert of Europe (1815–1914), where major powers collectively managed European order, and the UN Security Council, where five permanent members hold veto power. Great powers are expected to take the lead in setting agendas, mediating conflicts, and sometimes enforcing norms.

This institution sits in tension with the principle of sovereign equality. All states are formally equal, yet great power management acknowledges that some states have disproportionate influence and responsibility. English School scholars see this tension as a persistent feature of international society, not a contradiction to be resolved.

Colonialism and decolonization

Colonialism was once a recognized primary institution in European international society. It involved the domination and exploitation of non-European peoples and territories, justified by ideas of racial and cultural superiority and the so-called "civilizing mission."

Decolonization emerged as a competing institution in the 20th century, challenging colonialism's legitimacy. It asserted:

• The right of self-determination for colonized peoples
• The equality of all states and peoples regardless of race or culture
• The illegitimacy of foreign territorial domination

This shift illustrates a crucial point about primary institutions: they can rise, decline, and be replaced. The transition from colonialism to decolonization reflected changing power relations (the weakening of European empires after two world wars) and changing norms (the growing influence of anti-colonial movements and ideas about human equality). It's one of the clearest examples of institutional transformation in international society.

Debates on primary institutions

Rationalist vs. constructivist perspectives

Different theoretical traditions within IR explain primary institutions differently:

• Rationalist approaches (realism, liberalism) tend to view primary institutions as products of rational calculation. States create and sustain institutions because doing so serves their interests. From this perspective, institutions reflect the distribution of power and the incentives states face for cooperation or conflict.
• Constructivist approaches emphasize the role of shared ideas, norms, and identities. Institutions aren't just tools for pursuing pre-existing interests; they're socially constructed through interaction and practice. They shape what states want, not just what they do. From this view, institutions reflect dominant beliefs and values, and they help constitute state identities.

The English School itself draws on both traditions but leans constructivist in its emphasis on shared norms and social practices as the foundation of international society.

Stability vs. change

There's an ongoing debate about how stable primary institutions are:

• Some scholars emphasize their durability. Primary institutions are deeply embedded in the structure of international society, resistant to change, and provide continuity across different historical periods. Sovereignty, for instance, has persisted as a core institution for centuries despite enormous changes in the international system.
• Others highlight the potential for transformation. Institutions evolve in response to shifts in power, ideas, and practices. Change can take several forms: new institutions emerge (human rights), existing ones adapt (sovereignty now includes "responsibility to protect" debates), and old ones decline (colonialism).

Both perspectives capture something real. Primary institutions are more stable than specific policies or organizations, but they aren't permanent. The pace and mechanisms of change remain actively debated.

Primary institutions in international society

Role in shaping state behavior

Primary institutions guide state behavior through several mechanisms:

• They establish norms and expectations that define appropriate conduct. States know what's expected of them because these institutions set the standards.
• States are socialized into institutional norms through participation. New states entering the international system learn and internalize existing practices.
• Institutions create incentives for compliance: stability, predictability, and legitimacy for those who follow the rules; reputational costs, isolation, or sanctions for those who deviate.
• They also shape state identities and interests. A state that accepts sovereignty as a primary institution comes to see itself as a sovereign actor with certain rights and obligations. The institution doesn't just constrain behavior; it helps define who the actors are.

Relationship to secondary institutions

The English School distinguishes between primary and secondary institutions:

• Secondary institutions are specific, formal organizations or regimes: the UN, WTO, NATO, the International Criminal Court, climate agreements.
• They're created to manage particular issues (trade, security, environment) within the broader framework that primary institutions provide.
• Their design reflects primary institutional principles. The UN Security Council's structure, for example, reflects both sovereign equality (the General Assembly) and great power management (the veto-holding P5).

The key relationship is that primary institutions are foundational; secondary institutions are built on top of them. You can reform or replace a secondary institution without changing international society's basic character, but altering a primary institution transforms the society itself.

Challenges to primary institutions

Globalization and transnational actors

Globalization has put pressure on the state-centric nature of primary institutions in several ways:

• Non-state actors like multinational corporations, NGOs, and international organizations have gained significant influence, challenging the assumption that states are the only actors that matter.
• Transnational flows of capital, information, people, and goods have eroded states' ability to exercise exclusive control within their borders, testing the practical meaning of sovereignty.
• Global governance mechanisms (international regimes, multilateral agreements) sometimes operate in ways that bypass traditional diplomatic channels.
• Complex, interdependent problems like climate change, pandemics, and terrorism don't respect state boundaries and may require institutional responses that go beyond what existing primary institutions were designed to handle.

Normative critiques and alternatives

Several critical perspectives challenge the legitimacy of existing primary institutions:

• Postcolonial scholars argue that institutions like sovereignty and international law are Eurocentric. They were developed by European states and imposed on the rest of the world, often serving the interests of dominant powers.
• Feminist scholars highlight how institutions like diplomacy and war embed masculine and patriarchal assumptions about who counts as a legitimate actor and what counts as a security concern.
• Critical theorists more broadly argue that primary institutions reproduce global power inequalities rather than serving universal interests.

Alternative visions of world order have been proposed that emphasize human rights, ecological sustainability, cosmopolitan democracy, or non-Western conceptions of order. These critiques don't just call for tweaking existing institutions; they question whether the current set of primary institutions can deliver a just and stable international society.