International Society and Its Institutions in Refugee Protection during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Revisiting the Solidarism/Pluralism Debate in English School/COVID-19 Pandemi Surecinde Uluslararasi Toplum ve Kurumlarinin Multeci Koruma Politikalari: Ingiliz Okulu Cercevesinde Cogulcu/Dayanismaci Tartismasi.

• Author: Eminoglu, Nihal

Introduction

The Global Refugee Protection Regime (GRPR) (1) presents a framework based on a set of legal instruments and institutions, which are designed to provide international protection for individuals as well as clarify the responsibilities of states and other stakeholders. In recent decades, the 'vulnerability' of this regime has become a matter of academic and political debate as much as the vulnerability of the persons in need of international protection, particularly during times of crisis. In other words, the effectiveness of the regime and whether it 'actually works', particularly during international crises, has been under heavy scrutiny. While the reasons for the delicate and labile nature of this regime are various, structural factors that contribute to this vulnerability are worth analyzing.

Presenting one of the most 'global' crises that the world has faced in recent history, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a unique test of the effectiveness of this seemingly fragile regime of international protection and allows us to examine the determinants of its effectiveness through a close analysis of its institutions. In order to protect the well-being of their populations and slow the spread of the coronavirus, countries have adopted restrictive measures amidst unforeseen challenges posed by the pandemic. One significant issue in this context concerned how the institutions of international society would fare within this perceived 'state of emergency' and respond to states' predictable tendency to prioritize their own security, considering the norms and commitments made by the states to uphold it. International asylum-seekers and refugees, who are supposed to be under international protection as defined by the GRPR, represent groups which are disproportionately affected by these circumstances because of their legal, socio-economic, political, and psychological vulnerabilities. This exposes the need to examine the effectiveness of legal norms and institutions in the GRPR framework during international crises.

In this context, this study aims to discuss this GRPR vulnerability during the current pandemic by using the 'international society' concept from the English School in International Relations theory. Specifically, we analyze the efficiency of the instruments of international society on GRPR during times of global crisis by studying the recent global COVID-19 pandemic. GRPR was selected because providing international protection to vulnerable individuals escaping conditions of human insecurity through widely-accepted international rules and norms as well as dedicated international organizations exemplifies, and perhaps justifies and supports, the English School's notion of an international society that operates through dialogue and mutual commitments in response to perceived common responsibilities and challenges.

While there have been various violent, economic, and political crises on an international scale that could also be considered; the current COVID-19 pandemic is the focus of this paper because, through its rapid impact, it presents one of the most quintessentially global health crises ever experienced. As a result, this paper will focus on the policies and practices of states and international organizations regarding international protection within a period of approximately four months, between 11 March 2020, when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 as a pandemic, and June 2020. Due to the recency of this case study, web-based resources, newspapers, and websites of the relevant international organizations and agencies were used as the primary data sources. By examining these resources, a list of instances, where states and international organizations were involved in actions related to international protection within this time frame, were identified. Then, these cases were discussed within the framework of 'international society's institutions' as defined by the English School.

This article begins with a brief explanation of the English School and its concept of international society and instruments. Then, with a GRPR framework, it analyzes the impact of the pandemic on the instruments individually: international law, balance of power, diplomacy, and great power (management). Finally, it identifies major elements explaining why and how international society becomes ineffective during times of crisis through questioning the institutions of international society and referring to the Solidarism / Pluralism Debate in English School.

International Society, Its Institutions and the Solidarism / Pluralism Debate

Institutions of International Society

International society is one of the central concepts of the English School, and is defined by Bull and Watson as:

"A group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behavior 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." (2) Shared interests and common values are considered the core elements that develop international society within the framework of a common set of rules, which govern the relations between states. (3) According to Bull, if the purpose is to understand order in world politics, one should analyze the international society, also referred to as the 'society of states,' and its institutions together rather than separately. He states that all norms are derived from international society. (4)

Concepts of international society differs from that of the international system and world society by the will of states to obey a set of norms and rules (in Grotian terms), which developed based on their common interests and the institutionalization of those interests. (5) Bull claims that this institutionalization reveals itself through five major institutions (i.e. the 'institutions of English School). He lists these institutions as, international law (i), the balance of power (ii), diplomacy (iii), the great powers management (iv), and war (v). (6)

A good starting point, as it provides a general framework, is international law. Bull considers international law the fundamental institution of international society. (7) While proposing international law as one of the institutions, he does not ignore the role of states, and refers to the "centralized enforcement mechanism in collective security", which highlights that international law might be only implemented due to the 'enforcing institutions'. (8) However, because there is no central authority capable of governing at a global scale, enforcement largely depends upon self-help, which maintains states as the central actors.

The second institution within this categorization, and a well-established International Relations concept, balance of power is discussed by Bull along with how it relates to the other major institutions. (9) Bull breaks down this concept into 'general balance of power' and 'local balance of power' and claims that overall it accounts for the fundamental dynamics of the other four institutions. (10) Accordingly, the interaction between balance of power and international society yields the empowerment of international society based on 'shared understandings'. Since one state cannot dominate the whole system in an order based on the balance of power, finding a shared platform surrounding common interests would likely become a rule within inter-state relations.

The third institution is diplomacy and, according to Bull, it is an arena in which international organizations are as much the active players as states. The diplomatic profession functions as a sort of watchdog for the idea of international society by both protecting and empowering it.

Great powers (management), the fourth institution of the English School, is worth noting in Bull's conceptualization as it considers state leadership potential and dominance when determining the route for international society. Hence, some issues are viewed as only being able to be solved via intervention into these states.

Finally, war is listed as an institution of international society, and it is described by Bull as an 'order protection tool'. Perhaps, war may influence the global order by posing a threat to international society and destroying it. On the other hand, international society might instrumentalize war in order to protect itself along with its common interest, norms, and other institutions. (11)

Solidarism / Pluralism Debate

The functions of international society and its institutions have been the subject of debate in the English School. One debate, which is one of the essential features of the English School, examines two alternate paths when discussing world order in regard to the concept of international society. (12) These paths are approximately presented as the Solidarist/Grotian approach and the Pluralist/Conservative approach to international society.

On the one hand, the Pluralist/Conservative approach is defined as an approach which relies on the "realist side of rationalism" and promotes instrumental characteristics of international society. (13) The sovereignty of states is essential to the interpretation, as there is a comprehensive recognition of the independence of states in their decision-making, particularly for internal affairs. The room to maneuver within international society is limited by the sovereignty and independence of states, while the limits of international society are identified through the shared concerns and wills of states. (14)

On the other hand, within the Solidarist/Grotian approach, the primary assumption is that solidarity is the fundamental element that upholds the "collective will of the international society" and promotes recognition of common objectives. (15) Consequently...