By Hawre Hasan Hama
Introduction
This research discusses the English
school in International Relations as an approach to explain the Kurdish
question in the Middle East from a justice vs order perspective. The term
English school was first used in the 1970s to describe a group of British
writers and those whom they influenced. The principal authors in this school of
thought are Hedly Bull, Martin Wight, John Vincent, Adam Watson, Robert Jackson,
Tim Donnelly, Nicholas Wailer and Barry Buzan. The English school standpoint is
a different and systematic vantage point in international relations that is
accepted in modern International relations theory. However, in the 1980s, the
English school was not as influential as the theories of realism and liberalism
were dominant in international relations academic circles. More recently, the
English school has become so prominent and widely-accepted that the majority of
its modern writers are neither British and do not reside in Britain (Burchill
et al, 2013). The central argument of the English school is that its proponents
also accept that the character of the international system is anarchic, in the
sense that there is no global government. However, they also argue for the
existence of an international society. Proponents of the English school argue
that even though the international community lacks an international governing
body, sovereign states were successful in establishing an international society
in which all sovereign states are equal. The school has attracted its students
through its idea that the international system maintains a high level of order
and stability and low levels of violence between states at a time when the
character of the international system is anarchic and lacks an international
government. Furthermore, the school’s followers point to the levels of
violence, fear and uncertainty, and the lack of trust which come about in
genuinely democratic and stable societies when their governments collapse.
Hence, they argue that significant anarchy can result from the collapse of a
government; however, they further argue that this is not a character of the
international system as there is not an international government (Daddow,
2017). While the school is united on the existence of an international society,
they are divided on this subject of justice and order. The first branch of the
school is known as the pluralist school. The pluralists reject the notion of
military interventionism as it impacts global stability negatively. However,
the second branch, known as the Solidarist School, supports justice and
military interventionism over international stability.
Hence, the central questions of this
research are: How does the English school explain the Kurdish question in the
Middle East? Can the English school explain the insecurity and sufferings
experienced by the Kurdish society in the Middle East? Why the Kurds are still stateless and
systematically oppressed by the four nation-states that they reside? The answer
to these questions in the perspective of the English school is that the
international society has supported order over justice to keep the stability of
the Middle East. In other words, this research argues that the international
community only dealt with the Kurdish case through the prism of justice in 1991
by establishing a no-fly-zone over the region. However, this was because, at
the time, such action did not challenge international order and stability. In
all other cases in which the Kurds have needed assistance from the
international community, their needs have always been ignored and have
supported the unity of the states that the Kurds inhabit (Iran, Turkey, Iraq
and Syria).
The English school: Between realism
and liberalism
The neorealist theory of
international relations assumes that the international system is characterized
by anarchy as there is no higher authority that can enforce the rules and
regulations governing the relations between states (Waltz, 2000). As a result,
for realists, this character of the international system enforces states to
engage in a self-help system. They argue that in such a system that lacks a
central authority to guarantee states protection from one another, the only
guarantee of survival is to gain power and being powerful in terms of military
(Mearsheimer, 2007). Hence, for realists, that is the character of the
international system that influences the actions of actors within it, not the
specific characteristics of different states, for example, their individual
political systems or ideologies (Hobson, 2000). Similarly, members of the English
School are agreed with realists that the international system is characterized
by anarchy, in the sense that no higher authority exists to govern relations
between nations. However, they also argue for the existence of an international
community. According to Hedly Bull, one of the founders of the English school,
states exist in an environment which lacks a central or higher authority on the
international level that can govern the actions of actors within it.
Contrasting the realist view are the
liberalists and neoliberals. Both the liberalists and neoliberals also believe
that the international system is defined by anarchy; however, they reached a
different conclusion to that reached by the realist school of thought. The
liberals believed that competition is not a permanent characteristic of
international relations and does not need to be regarded as such. The initial
liberalists, also known as the classical liberals, argued for the need to
spread democracy and good governance as a solution to the problem of war and
competition on the international level. However, liberal theory following the
Second World War focused on the importance of creating international
organisations and international establishments. They argued that such
organisations and establishments could aid the reduction of the negative impact
of anarchy.
The works of Hedley Bull is
influenced by both the realist and the liberal school of thought in
international relations. From the realist school, Bull derived the notion that
states are the main actors in international relations and that they exist in an
anarchic environment. In this respect, to understand international relations,
Bull accepts the importance of anarchy in international relations. However,
Bull is also influenced by the liberal theories of international relations. He
believes that international relations consist of numerous states who are aware
of several mutual interests and values. As such, he argues that these states
have established an international community that follows set customs and norms
in their relations with one another, He also argued that they share several
international institutions. By observing his argument, we are confronted by a
number of terms in Bull’s works that have been borrowed from the liberal schools
of thought. These terms include, mutual interest, shared values, community,
rules and regulations, shared and shared involvement and establishments.
The only difference between Bull and
the liberal schools of thought is the term international community. Bull
believed that modern states had created a state system, which they will
continue to develop. Moreover, he also thought that they had created an
international community. Proponents of the English School believe that states
create an international society that is shaped by shared thinking, values,
identities and norms and that this society belongs to all states .
Bull has the same understanding of
the state as the realists and liberals; however, he does not agree with either
school of thought on understanding state behaviour. Bull places great
importance on the subject of diplomacy and state diplomats. Bull believed that
the world view and understandings of those individuals who make the foreign
policy of respective states play a significant impact on the international
system. In contrast to the neorealist, such as Waltz, Bull does not believe
that it is the structure of the international system that influences state
behaviour in a top-down manner. Instead, he argues for a complex interplay of
relations between the international system and the states within it. Hence, he
argues that just as the international system influences state behaviour,
likewise state behaviour and actions affect the international system (Dunne,
2010).
The English School in International
Relations
The English School’s theory of
international relations is recognised as the “third debate”. Its terms such as
‘international society’, ‘order’, and ‘justice’ provided for the foundations of
this school of thought and distinguished it from the realist and liberal
schools of thought in international relations. Hence, here we will provide a
thorough explanation of these terms. First, we will begin with an explanation
of the term ‘international society’, an element in the English School’ a theory
with universal agreement. Along with their belief that states exist in an
anarchic environment, in the sense that no higher authority governs the
interactions between states, Bull and Watson describes the international
community in the following was:
“we mean a group of states (or, more generally,
a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system,
in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the
calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent
common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognize
their common interest in maintaining these arrangements” (1984, 1).
Tim Dunne has interpreted this
definition as follows: The first key element of international society is the
unique character of the membership that is confined to sovereign states. What
is significant here is that actors both claim sovereignty and recognise one
another’s right to the same prerogatives. Clearly, the act of mutual
recognition indicates the presence of a social practice: recognition is
fundamental to an identity relationship. Recognition is the first step in the
construction of an international society. If we were to doubt for a moment the
social nature of the process of recognition, then this would quickly be
dispelled by those peoples in history who at some time have been or continue to
be denied membership of the society of states. The history of the expansion of
international society is a story of a shifting boundary of inclusion and
exclusion. China was denied sovereign statehood until January 1942, when
Western states finally renounced the unequal treaties. Why was this the case?
Membership became defined, particularly in the nineteenth century, by a
“standard of civilisation” that set conditions for internal governance that
corresponded with European values and beliefs. What we see here is how
important cultural differentiation has been to the European experience of
international society. China was not recognised as a legitimate member of
international society, and, therefore, was denied equal membership. If the West
and China did not recognise each other as equal members, then how should we
characterise their relations? Here we see how the system–society dynamic can
usefully capture historical boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. There was a
great deal of “interaction” between China and the West during the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, but this was driven by strategic and economic
logic. Crucially, neither side believed itself to be part of the same shared
values and institutions: China, for example, long resisted the presence of
European diplomats on its soil along with their claim to extraterritorial
jurisdiction, which has been a long-standing rule among European powers. In the
absence of accepting the rules and institutions of European international
society, it makes sense to argue that from the Treaty of Nanking in 1843 to 1942
China was part of the system of the state but was not a member of international
society. Here, through a number of examples, we will explain the difference
between the international community and the international system (Stivachtis,
2018).
Relations among the European states
reflected the existence of a European international society, while relations
between the European states and the Ottoman Empire reflected the existence of
an international system. Likewise, the interaction among the European Union’s
member states demonstrates the existence of an international society, while the
interaction of the European Union itself with Turkey (a non-member) describes
interaction within a broader European international system. These interactions
represent the existence of an international system because the European Union
is not a member of the European Union (Dunne, 2010).
During the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, international society came to be regarded as a privileged
association of European and ‘civilised’ states, which had visible expression in
certain institutions such as international law, diplomacy and the balance of
power. There was a sense that European powers were bound by a code of conduct
in their dealings with one another and that this code did not apply in their
dealings with other societies. In the Nineteenth-century a cultural duality was
perpetuated between Europeans and non-Europeans and between ‘civilised’ and
‘non- civilised’ peoples. The distinction was that ‘civilised’ states were those
that protected basic human rights and harboured an internal system of legal
codes that would maintain equality among their respective populations. State’s
that did not meet these requirements were described as uncivilised or
‘barbarous’. As the European international society spread over the world, many
non-European states sought to join the international society. Thus, the
European states needed to define the conditions under which non- European
political entities would be admitted. The result was the establishment of a
standard of ‘civilisation’, which reflected the norms of the liberal European
civilisation. In respect to International institutions, Hedley Bull writes:
“States collaborate with one
another, in varying degrees, in what may be called the institutions of
international society: the balance of power, international law, the diplomatic
mechanism, the managerial system of the great powers, and war. By an
institution, we do not necessarily imply an organisation or administrative
machinery, but rather a set of habits and practices shaped towards the
realisation of common goals. These institutions do not deprive states of their
central role in carrying out the political functions of international society
or serve as a surrogate central authority in the international system. They are
rather an expression of the element of collaboration among states in
discharging their political functions–and at the same time a means of
sustaining this collaboration (Bull, 2012, p.71). Generally, it can be argued that the English
School believed international institutions are made up of the following:
diplomacy, war, power balance, superpower agreement, international law,
intervention, the right to self-determination, non-favouritism, human rights
and political lines. According to Barry Buzan, weak modern institutions are
made up of the United Nations General Assembly, conferences, embassies, United
Nations Security Council, international protocols and international agreements (Buzan,
2002). Membership of international society has security implications in and of
itself, not necessarily guaranteeing survival, but giving some protection
against being treated as a terra nullius whose inhabitants can be treated as
non-human (Buzan, 2004).
After rightful membership, the next
consideration involves thinking about what this membership means. The English
School argues that states act through the medium of their representatives or
office-holders. Every state employs officials who act externally on its behalf,
meaning diplomats through to heads of state are the international
representatives of the state. This is the original sense in which the term
“international society” came into existence in the eighteenth century. Hence,
if we are looking for the real agents of international society, then it is to
the diplomatic culture that we must look, that realm of ideas and beliefs
shared by representatives of states (Dunne, 2010).
The Solidarism compared to the
Pluralism - Order vs Justice in the English School.
Proponents of the solidarist branch
of the English School argue that solidarism is a character of international politics
at the point of Westphalia agreements. For this branch of the English School
international order and stability is more important than protecting human
rights. When international society is focused on protecting justice rather than
order, instability and conflict become more likely in the international system.
For proponents of solidarism, the international society came into being based
on the principle of accepting state solidarism in an anarchic environment. All
states establish their own political communities and have the right to choose
their own values and norms. These values and norms change from state to state
as they are the product of the internal politics of states. Moreover,
competition over these values is expected. States may not agree on the meaning
of justice, but they can concur about how to maintain order among themselves.
Most agree that each state should respect the sovereignty of the others and
observe the principle of non-intervention. For proponents of this branch of the
English School, the aim of the international society is to protect the
sovereignty of states in order to preserve international stability and order.
Order is defined as “respecting the sovereignty and independence of states.
Protecting peace between states and non-interference in the affairs of other
states. Furthermore, promoting the needs of the state over humanitarian needs.”
In essence, the requirements and needs of the state must be put before
humanitarian needs (Burchill et al, 2013).
The second perspective in the English
School of international relations is that of its pluralist wing. This
perspective promoted a Kantian/liberal understanding of international
relations. The perspective of the pluralists argues that individuals or humans
are the subject of international relations and are equal members of the
international society (Stivachtis, 2018).
For this understanding, humans must
have basic human rights. Hence, the pluralists argue that a central obligation
of international society is protecting human rights. If a state can not provide
these rights to its citizens, it is an obligation of the international society
to interfere militarily in the affairs of the given state to protect the human
rights in that jurisdiction. This branch promotes justice over order. This
branch defines order as: “the protection of citizens by the state and state
power, respecting human rights, the existence of the right of intervention to
protect the human rights. In contrast to the solidarist approach, the pluralist
approach argues that human needs should be treated as being more important than
the needs of the state.” The central reason for this is that the pluralist
approach viewer humans as members of the international community and the
subject of international politics. Hence, it supports military intervention to
protect human rights internationally. Wailer, one of the founders of the
pluralist approach, argues: “Intervention by force might be the only means of
enforcing the global humanitarian norms that have evolved in the wake of the
Holocaust. But this fundamentally challenges the established principles of
non-intervention and non-use of force.” However, for such intervention to be
suitable and beneficial, it must meet a number of conditions, which are
discussed more robustly in just war theory (Wheeler, 2000).
Order vs Justice
Order is defined as “the nature and
characteristic of the international society that defends the basic objectives
of the community of states (which is mutual respect for sovereignty).” The
international order is mutually protected through international laws and modern
international establishments such as the balance of power, diplomacy,
international treaties and laws. Proponents of the English School, principles
such as sovereignty, interference in the internal affairs of other states, and
not using force are requirements to protect international peace and security (a
form of order). Proponents of the English school believe that attempting to
achieve justice, which is a concept in humanitarian intervention, is a threat
to the preservation of order. Robert Jackson, one of the prominent thinkers
within the English School, argues: “importance to respect the diversity of
state norms and values, in order to safeguard international order. Instead of
attempting to establish justice, which demands the protection of human rights,
which were constructed by the UN and are based on western values. Western
leaders have no right to place themselves above international society, so long
as respect for state sovereignty remains the universal standard of
international conduct. Pluralists further elaborate, that sovereignty bears
more benefits to states and its citizens, than does democracy (precisely,
democratisation process which is imposed or exported from outside).” In short,
we can summarise our understanding of order as follows: the protection of
global peace and security is more important than the protection of human
rights, and humanitarian intervention, the order in itself is a higher objective,
even higher than the protection of human rights. States can easily reach
agreements over order; however, it is difficult for the same states to be
agreed on the issues of justice and the protection of human rights
internationally. Even more than this, it is sovereignty and not the humans that
make states equal members of the international community.
In contrast to the pluralists, the
solidarists emphasize the importance of attempting to protect justice. The
meaning of justice in this context is the opposite of the meaning of order.
Justice emphasises the idea that humans are equal members in the global
community, and that states and state sovereignty are tools to protect humans,
which it deems a higher value. Advocates
of the solidarist branch of the English School believe that when a state “fails
to uphold its obligations to protect and provide security for its citizens”,
that state forgoes its sovereignty. As a result, it becomes an obligation for
the international community to conduct humanitarian intervention to protect the
citizens of that state. Moreover, solidarists argue that the state is the
representative of the people if it can’t uphold this role it loses its
legitimacy and can no longer be considered the representative of the people. As
a result, solidarists believe that in the event of severe abuse of human
rights, it is incumbent on the international community to intervene on the
basis of humanitarianism and put justice before order. (Ukhurgunashvili, 2014)
The Kurdish problem from the
perspective of the English School in International Relations
The international communities
treatment of the Kurds based on the principle of order rather than justice: the
end of the Second World War until the end of the Cold War:
In this section, we will attempt to
analyze the Kurdish question following the end of the First World War until the
end of the Cold War, in the context of the theory of the English School
outlined in the sections above. For proponents of the English School, the end
of the First World War is a clear marking point of when the new international
community was created. In this new international community, the Kurds failed to
achieve membership. The 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, 1920 Severs agreement and
the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne ultimately divided the Kurds between four states,
which were Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. As a result, the Kurds were prevented
from becoming a member of the international community (Delan, 2006). Since the
end of the Second World War until the end of the Cold War, the international
community has continuously dealt with the Kurds through the principle of order
rather than justice. Based on the theory proposed by the English School, the
protection of order required the international community to protect the
sovereignty of its member states and not to intervene in the internal affairs
of one another. In contrast, the protection of justice requires members of the
international community to intervene in the internal affairs of other states
that do not protect the fundamental basic human rights or those that abuse
human rights. In the period between the end of the Second World War until the
end of the Cold War, the international community has been motivated to accept
the international agreements and treaties that divided the Kurdish people when
dealing with the Kurds so that it could protect international order and
regional stability. Therefore, in this period, the international community has
continuously seen fit to follow non-intervention principle and respect for the
sovereignty of Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq when dealing with the Kurds. The
international community has put this as more important than protecting the
Kurds from oppression and grave humanitarian abuses that were committed by each
host state. The international communities rejection of Kurdish dissatisfaction
and failure to support the newly created Kurdish liberation movement, which was
created in opposition to this division of the Kurdish people and in support of
their demand for the right for self-determination and independence is a clear
example of the international community choosing to pursue the principle of
order in the international system when dealing with the Kurds. The Second World
War changed the balance of power in the region; the Soviet Union played an
important role and was a great supporter of the Kurds during this period.
In 1946 the Kurdistan Republic of
Mahabat was established in Eastern Iran under the leadership of Qazi Mohammed,
however, members of the international community, in particular, the Soviet
Union dropped their support for the new fledgeling republic in favour of the
Iranian state, causing it to collapse (Roosevelt, 1947). In the period
following the Second World War, Kurdish liberation movements sprouted in Iran,
Turkey and Iraq to demand the national rights of the Kurds. These movements
came about as a reaction to the oppressive policies of their host states
towards the Kurdish identity more widely. However, once again, the
international community attempted to pursue the protection or intentional order
by continuing its respect for the sovereignty of these states rather than
showing support for the Kurdish case (Gunter, 1992). In the 1980s, the poor
treatment of the Kurds by their host states reached its peak with the Kurds of
Iraq facing a wave of massacre and genocide. The Iraqi government of the
period, led by the former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein carried out the Anfal
Campaign and the Halabja massacre, two campaigns of systematic killings against
the Iraqi Kurds. The Anfal camping saw between 100,000 and 182,000 Kurdish
civilians displaced, while the Halabja campaign saw 5,000 killed in minutes.
However, the international community continued to pursue order rather than
justice when dealing with the case of the Kurds. As a result, in this period,
the Kurdish people became one of the biggest sacrifices to the international
community’s adherence to the principle of order in international relations (CHAK,
eds. 2007).
The post-Cold War period: the
creation of the southern Kurdistan safe zone - a case for justice over order
The defeat of the Iraqi army in
February 1991 at the hands of the international coalition led by the United
States resulted in a popular internal uprising against the Iraqi regime. The
uprising was divided into two camps - the uprising of Iraq’s Shi’a population
in the south and the uprising of the Kurds in the north. At the end of March
1991, the Iraqi forces were able to destry the uprisings in Iraq’s south and
retake control of much of the territory they had lost to the uprisings in the
north. As a result of the Iraqi army’s push into the Kurdish territories, much
of the Kurdish population in those territories were left with no choice but to
flee towards the Iranian and Turkish borders (Al-Jabbar, 1992). In April 1991,
the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 688, which condemned the
Iraqi actions against the civilian Iraqi Shia and Kurdish populations. In early
April, Turkey, France, and Iran made their cases in support of the Kurds at the
United Nations Security Council, leading to the United Nations passing
resolution 688 (Malanczuk, 1991). As a result of the resolution, a safe zone
was established in northern Iraq, allowing for the establishment of the
Kurdistan Region. Hence, according to the English School, it can be argued that
the decision taken against the Iraqi state, which was the single biggest threat
to the Kurds of Iraq, to establish a safe zone over northern Iraq is a case for
justice; however, this case is not necessarily against order. It is a case for
justice in that it was a moral decision by the international community to
protect innocent Kurdish civilians against a barbaric regime. Moreover, it was
an action taking to preserve human rights over the sovereignty of Iraq, a state
that had long failed in its obligations to “provide human security”. Instead,
the Iraqi state itself became the source of insecurity to the Iraqi citizenry,
which included the Kurds.
Nevertheless, it can also be argued
that this was not necessarily a case against order. While it is correct that
the action taken by the international community was in effect interference in
the affairs of another sovereign state and member of the international
community, but the decision ultimately had the support of the international
community and the majority of the states in the Middle East. First, the
decision was taken by the United Nations Security Council; and second, Iraq’s
neighbours, in particular, Iran and Turkey, supported the decision. Therefore,
this decision did not result in the collapse of peace and security in the
region; instead, the decision freed the Kurdish population for Iraqi rule to a
great extent. However, it is also important to note, that Iraqi Kurdistan’s
demand for independence was rejected by the international community at that
point in history. Accepting that demand would have resulted in the collapse of
regional order as Turkey, Syria and Iran were strongly against such action and
met regularly during the period to prevent such an outcome. Therefore, the
international community has no choice but to reject Iraqi Kurdish demands for
independence during that period. This is evident in a speech by Massoud
Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, when he returned from
his trip to Turkey and other European Countries in March 1992, in which he
said: “the state of the world today is such that it will not allow any change
in the region’s borders and is against any division”. He went on to say: “It is
for this reason that the Kurds cannot swim against the tide in the
international community. […] We must accept the current state of the world and
accept that there is a great gap between what we want to achieve and what we
can achieve” (Gunter, 1993, P.300).
The Iraqi Kurdistan Independence
Referendum on 25th September 2017
On 6th June 2017, the leadership of
the Kurdistan Region of Iraq with the presence of fifteen Kurdish political
parties met under the leadership of Massoud Barzani, the then president of the
Kurdistan Region of Iraq and decided on holding an independence referendum in
the Kurdistan Region of Iraq and the Iraqi disputed territories. Not only did
the international community stand against the proposal, but they also actively
met with the Iraqi Kurdish leadership to persuade them to postpone the
referendum. However, the Kurdish leadership was determined to hold the poll on
25th September 2017 without taking into consideration the concerns of the
international community (Hama & Abdullah, 2019). After the poll was
conducted and the Kurds voted overwhelmingly (92.7 percent) for independence
for the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (Sangar,eds. 2017), the international
community rejected the validity of the poll and refused to support the Kurds (Kaplan,
2019). According to the English School, it can be argued that the international
community’s rejection of the poll and its result is a reflection of its deep
determination to maintain the region order. It is evident that Iran, Turkey and
Iraq were strongly opposed to the holding of the referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan.
Turkey and Iran saw the poll as a security threat to their respective states,
while Iraq views the poll as a threat to the territorial integrity and unity of
the Iraqi state. As a result, at this juncture, the internal community believed
the preservation of order (respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the Iraqi state, respecting the concern of Iraq’s neighbours, and assessing
that in respect to the interests of the international community these concerns
outweighed their interests with the Kurds) was more important than respecting
the decision of the referendum and allowing the Kurds to separate from the
Iraqi state. As such, the international community was not prepared to support
the Kurdish referendum and respect its result. In the perspective of the term
order, supporting the Kurds would have led to a destabilisation in the region’s
peace and security. Therefore, the international community was unable to deal
with the Kurdish will for independence based on the principle of justice. The
international communities sidelining of justice, in this case, was expected as
accepting the result of the referendum equates to disrespecting the sovereignty
of Iraq and the three other Middle Eastern nations that host Kurdish
populations. By taking into consideration the deep reservations of Turkey, Iran
and Iraq over the Kurdish referendum, we can argue that had the international
community accepting the result of the Kurdish referendum; then it would have
further destabilised the already fragile Middle East. As a result, the peace and
security of the region would have come under threat as Turkey, Iran and Iraq
were prepared to take any and all measures to prevent the emergence of an
independent Kurdish state in the region. This was evident in the days after the
referendum was held when the three countries agreed on imposing economic
sanctions on the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (Hama, 2020).
The Syrian Kurds: Order over Justice
The Syrian civil war that began in
2011 as a result of the Arab Spring-inspired protests saw the retreat of its
weakened Syrian regime from many of its territories in the country. In the
power vacuum that followed the Syrian Kurds were able, for the first time in
Syrian history, able to express their Kurdish identity through the
establishment of an independent canton in the country. In 2016, the Kurdish
political leadership in Syria, along with other rebel groups in the country,
was able to establish a model for Syrian federalism in the territories that
they controlled. The aim of the Kurds was to create a decentralised power
structure along with the Arabs, Turkmen, Yezidis and Christians in these
territories as a counter-model to the decades’ old regime model of centralised
and authoritarian power in Syria. However, the international community rejected
this press for a federal Kurdish state in Syria (Bengio, 2017). Here, based on
the English School, this stance by the international community is more to
preserve order than justice. Justice would have required the international
community to accept the model of Kurdish self-governance in Syria and not to
respect the sovereignty of Syria. For the international community accepting
order over justice, in this case, was deemed more important than justice as any
attempt to support a just outcome would have resulted in further
destabilisation of order. The international community is well versed on
Turkey’s concerns over the Kurdish desire for self-determination in Syria.
Hence, any steps by the international community to push for a just outcome for
the Kurds in Syria would likely have brought with-it a further degradation of
order in the country and in the wider Middle East. The international
communities dealing of the Kurds through order has resulted in the Syrian Kurds
feeling insecure due to the Turkish attacks on them, since 2016, Turkey has
conducted three separate military operations against the Syrian Kurds. The
first was the Turkish military operation code-named the ‘Euphrates Shield’ in
2016; the second, code-named “Operation Olive Branch” in 2018; and the last
code-named “Operation Peace Spring” in 2019. In short, from the perspective of
the English School, we can argue that the international community dealt with
the issue of the Syrian Kurds through the principle of order and not justice.
For the principle of justice to have been utilised, the international community
would have had to support the Kurdish administration in Syria. Furthermore, the
international community would have had to take action to prevent the Turkish
military operation against the Syrian Kurds, which ultimately caused the death
of thousands of civilians and displaced many more. However, it is clear that in
this case, the international community deemed it more important to deal with
the issue through the principle of order rather than implementing justice. In
the case of the Syrian Kurds, the principle of order demanded that the concerns
of Turkey, Iran and Syria over the regions Kurds be taken into consideration
and for their respective sovereignties to be respected. There is no doubt, had
Turkey and other states in the region not been against the position of the
Syrian Kurds then the international community would have accepted independence
for the Syrian Kurdish administration (Reuters, eds,2019).
Conclusion
The English school of international
relations is lies between the liberal and realists schools of thought. Through
terms such as international community, international institutions, order and
justice, this school has participated significantly in academia’s understanding
of International Relations. This research provided a background into the ideas
and thoughts presented by the English school. It followed this by applying its
ideas to the case of the Kurds in the Middle East and reached the conclusion
that the Kurds are not viewed as a part of members of the international
community as only sovereign states have the privilege of being equal members of
the international community. As a result, Kurdish desires and pushes for
independence have been sacrificed by the international community in favour of
the territorial integrity of the sovereign states which host the regions
Kurdish population. In other words, the international community has always
dealt with the Kurds in a manner that preserves order in the international
community, rather than through justice. To achieve this, the international
community has often turned a blind eye to oppression, massacres and genocide
committed against the regions Kurdish population by Iran, Turkey, Iraq and
Syria, their host states.
While there is an argument to
suggest the creation of a safe haven in northern Iraq in 1991 was an example of
the international community dealing with the Kurds through the principle of
justice, there is a counter-argument, as discussed, that this can also be seen
through the perspective of order.
For over a century the international
community has dealt with the Kurds of the Middle East through the principle of
order by continuing to uphold the original international treaties that divided
the Kurdish people and territory against their will between the nation-states
of Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Hence, for as long as these states maintain
positions against Kurdish independence in the region and for as long as the
international community deals with the Kurdish case through the principle of
order the Kurds will continue to be stateless. Having said this, it is possible
to find a compromise between the principles of order and justice, if the
example of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq is anything to go by. Other Kurdish
populations can follow this model and achieve semi-autonomy while the states
that host them maintain their sovereignty.
References
Al-Jabbar, F.A., 1992. Why the uprisings failed. Middle East
Report, pp.2-14.
Bengio, O., 2017. The Kurds in a Volatile
Middle East. Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.
Bull, H & Watson, A. (eds.) 1984. The Expansion of International
Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Bull, H., 2012. The anarchical
society: a study of order in world politics. Macmillan international Higher
education.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A.,
Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. and True,
J., 2013. Theories of international relations. Macmillan International Higher
Education.
Buzan, B. and Buzan, B.G., 2004.
From international to world society?: English school theory and the social
structure of globalisation (Vol. 95). Cambridge University Press.
Daddow, O., 2017. International
relations theory. Sage.
Delan, H., 2007. The Plight of
Kurdish Nationalism: Critical Analysis of the Kurdish National Movement in
Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria Around the First World War (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Waikato).
Dunne, T., 2010. The English School.
In Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal . The Oxford Handbook of Political
Science.
Giorgi Ukhurgunashvili. 2014. Order
vs Justice: The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the English School
Gunter, M.M., 1992. Foreign Influences on the Kurdish Insurgency in
Iraq. Journal of Conflict Studies, 12(4).
Gunter, M.M., 1993. A de facto
Kurdish state in Northern Iraq. Third World Quarterly, 14(2), pp.295-319.
Hama, H.H., 2020. The Securitization and De-Securitization of
Kurdish Societal Security in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, And Syria. World Affairs,
183(4), pp.291-314.
Hama, Hawre Hasan. "Iraqi Kurdistan’s 2017 independence
referendum: The KDP’s public and private motives." Asian Affairs 51, no. 1
(2020): 109-125.
Harris, I., 1993. Order and Justice
in ‘The anarchical society’. International Affairs, 69(4), pp.725-741.
Hasan Hama, H. and Hassan Abdulla, F., 2019. Kurdistan’s
Referendum: The Withdrawal of the Kurdish Forces in Kirkuk. Asian Affairs, 50(3),
pp.364-383.
Hobson, J.M., 2000. The state and international relations.
Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, M.L., 2019. Foreign support,
miscalculation, and conflict escalation: Iraqi Kurdish self-determination in
perspective. Ethnopolitics, 18(1), pp.29-45.
Malanczuk, P., 1991. The Kurdish
crisis and allied intervention in the aftermath of the Second Gulf War. Eur. J.
Int'l L., 2, p.114.
Mearsheimer, J.J., 2007. Structural realism. International
relations theories: Discipline and diversity, 83, pp.77-94.
Reuters, eds.(2019) Timeline:
Turkey’s military operations in Iraq and Syria. Availbale at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-operations-time/timeline-turkeys-military-operations-in-iraq-and-syria-idUSKBN1WQ274
Roosevelt Jr, A., 1947. The Kurdish
Republic of Mahabad. The Middle East Journal, pp.247-269.
Sangar A. eds. 2017. ‘Yes’ vote wins
by 92.7 percent in Kurdistan Referendum: Initial
resulthttps://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/2b679b2a-29fe-4fa2-abe8-5adf3a0d4af6
Shorsh, S., 2013. Anfal: The Iraqi
State's Genocide Against the Kurds. Margareit Center.
Stivachtis, Y., 2018. Introducing
the English School in International Relations Theory.
Waltz, K.N., 2000. Structural realism after the Cold War.
International security, 25(1), pp.5-41.
Wheeler, N.J., 2000. Saving
strangers: Humanitarian intervention in international society. OUP Oxford.