The first part of the conclusion summarizes the findings from the historical cases. These fall into four categories. The first is where a strong world society constituency is able to influence the policy of a leading state, or group of leading states, as in the case of the slave trade or social justice in 1919. In the second case, the same holds true, but it is actually the leading states that proactively encourage world society action, as with human rights at San Francisco. In the third case, as at The Hague, there was no specific state ‘norm entrepreneur’. Fourthly, there is the negative case where the state sponsor was not strong enough to have the norm accepted, as with Japan and racial equality in 1919. Theoretically, the argument points to a degree of normative assimilation between international and world society, and a corresponding degree of social integration. The relationship is one of complementariness rather than displacement. This develops English School discussions of the topic. However, there is a warning that past coalitions between world society groups and leading states — that seem to have stimulated humanitarian norms — could in the future promote less attractive norms.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.