This article investigates whether practitioners argued that general and complete disarmament (GCD) would corrupt international society during the two major debates of this issue in the 20th century, namely in 1927–1928 and 1959. The purpose and value of this analysis is to learn more about the workings of international society. Following Bull and other English School scholars, GCD probably represents the most radical challenge to the traditional conception of international society and its institutions. The only challenge of similar magnitude would appear to be the creation of a universal state or world government, fundamentally removing anarchy from the ‘anarchical society’. The article thus investigates whether those concerns about corruption, raised by scholars, resonate with the expressed public opinion of practitioners – diplomats and statesmen – in the actual deliberation of GCD in international fora: the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, 1927–1928, and the United Nations, 1959. The main finding is that the corruption argument does appear in these public deliberations, and in intriguing and complex ways. The article thus offers a novel analysis of how practitioners publicly deal with a supposedly radical challenge to international society.
AbbenhuisM (2019) The Hague Conferences and International Politics, 1898–1915. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
2.
ArmitageD (2014) The international turn in intellectual history. In: McMahonDMMoynS (eds) Rethinking Modern European Intellectual History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 232–252.
3.
AysonR (2012) Hedley Bull and the Accommodation of Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
AysonR (2017) The anarchical society and the control of global violence. In: SuganamiHCarrMHumphreysA (eds) The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–128.
5.
BartelsonJ (2018) War in International Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BevirMHallI (2020) Interpreting the English school: history, science and philosophy. Journal of International Political Theory16(2): 120–132.
7.
BoltonM (2016) Time for a discursive rehabilitation: a brief history of general and complete disarmament. In: BoltonM (ed.) Rethinking General and Complete Disarmament in the Twenty-First Century (UNODA Occasional Papers No. 28). New York: United Nations, pp. 3–14.
8.
BullH (1959) Disarmament and the international system. Australian Journal of Politics & History5(1): 41–50.
9.
BullH (1965) The Control of the Arms Race: Disarmament and Arms Control in the Missile Age (2nd edn). New York: Praeger.
10.
BullH (1973) War and international order. In: JamesA (ed.) The Bases of International Order: Essays in Honour of C.A.W. Manning. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 116–132.
11.
BullH (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
BullH (1987) Arms control and world order. In: O’NeillRSchwartzDN (eds) Hedley Bull on Arms Control. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 191–206.
13.
BullH (2019 [1966]) Society and anarchy in International Relations. In: ButterfieldHWightM (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 55–70.
14.
BuzanB (2014) An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
15.
CeadelM (1987) Thinking about Peace and War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
CurnowRKaldorMMcLeanM, et al (1976) General and complete disarmament: a systems-analysis approach. Futures8(5): 384–396.
17.
FalkR (2017) Ordering the world: Hedley Bull after forty years. In: SuganamiHCarrMHumphreysA (eds) The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–56.
18.
FloydR (2021) Security cooperation as a primary institution of western international society. Global Change, Peace & Security33(1): 23–44.
19.
Friedner ParratC (2017) On the evolution of primary institutions of international society. International Studies Quarterly61(3): 623–630.
20.
HallI (2006) The International Thought of Martin Wight. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
HallIBevirM (2014) Traditions of British international thought. The International History Review36(5): 823–834.
22.
HolmanB (2010) World police for world peace: British internationalism and the threat of a knock-out blow from the air, 1919–1945. War in History17(3): 313–332.
23.
HolstiKJ (2004) Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
JacksonRH (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
JacobsonJ (1994) When the Soviet Union Entered World Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
26.
JohnsonG (2016) Lord Robert Cecil: Politician and Internationalist. Abingdon: Routledge.
27.
KaplanF (1983) The Wizards of Armageddon. New York: Simon and Schuster.
28.
KeeferSA (2006) Building the palace of peace: the Hague conference of 1899 and arms control in the progressive era. Journal of the History of International Law8(1): 1–17.
29.
KeeneE (2014) Where should we look for modern international thought?Contemporary Political Theory13(4): 397–402.
30.
KeeneE (2017) International intellectual history and International Relations: contexts, canons and mediocrities. International Relations31(3): 341–356.
31.
KnudsenTB (2019) Fundamental institutions and international organizations: theorizing continuity and change. In: KnudsenTBNavariC (eds) International Organization in the Anarchical Society: The Institutional Structure of World Order. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 23–50.
32.
KrauseK (2018) Arms control and disarmament. In: WeissTGDawsS (eds) The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383–395.
33.
KuklickB (2006) Blind Oracles: Intellectuals and War from Kennan to Kissinger. Princeton, NJ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
34.
ManningCAW (1962) The Nature of International Society. London: Bell and Sons.
35.
MorrisAJA (1971) The English radicals’ campaign for disarmament and the Hague conference of 1907. The Journal of Modern History43(3): 367–393.
36.
MunsterRVSylvestC (2016) Nuclear Realism: Global Political Thought during the Thermonuclear Revolution. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.
37.
MyrdalA (1977) The Game of Disarmament: How the United States and Russia Run the Arms Race. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
38.
NavariC (2011) The concept of practice in the English School. European Journal of International Relations17(4): 611–630.
39.
NavariC (2020) Agents versus structures in English School theory: is co-constitution the answer?Journal of International Political Theory16(2): 249–267.
40.
NavariC (ed.) (2009) Theorising International Society: English School Methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
NavariC (ed.) (2021) International Society: The English School. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
42.
Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference (PCDC) (1928a) Minutes of the fourth session, meetings 1–2, Geneva. Publications of the League of Nations, IX. Disarmament, 1928. IX. 2. Available at: https://archives.ungeneva.org/nx23-9dem-mdc6
43.
Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference (PCDC) (1928b) Minutes of the fifth session, meetings 2–10, Geneva. Publications of the League of Nations, IX. Disarmament, 1928, IX. 6. Available at: https://archives.ungeneva.org/0000676664-d0002
44.
SchouenborgL (2011) A new institutionalism? The English School as international sociological theory. International Relations25(1): 26–44.
45.
SchouenborgLTaeuberSF (2021) A quantitative approach to studying hierarchies of primary institutions in international society: the case of United Nations General Assembly disarmament resolutions, 1989–1998. Cooperation and Conflict56(2): 224–241.
46.
SheehanM (1996) The Balance of Power: History & Theory. London; New York: Routledge.
47.
SimsJ (1990) Icarus Restrained: An Intellectual History of Nuclear Arms Control, 1945–1960. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
StevensonD (2006) Britain, France and the origins of German disarmament, 1916–19. Journal of Strategic Studies29(2): 195–224.
49.
SuganamiH (1989) The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
TateM (1942) The Disarmament Illusion: The Movement for a Limitation of Armaments to 1907. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
TrachtenbergM (1989) Strategic thought in America, 1952–1966. Political Science Quarterly104(2): 301–334.
United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2016) Rethinking general and complete disarmament in the twenty-first century. UNODA occasional papers no. 28. New York: United Nations.
55.
WatsonA (1982) Diplomacy: The Dialogue between States. London; New York: Routledge.
56.
WatsonA (1992) The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis. London; New York: Routledge.
57.
WebsterA (2004) Piecing together the interwar disarmament puzzle: trends and possibilities. International Journal59(1): 187–198.
58.
WebsterA (2005) Making disarmament work: the implementation of the international disarmament provisions in the league of nations covenant, 1919–1925. Diplomacy and Statecraft16(3): 551–569.
59.
WebsterA (2006) From Versailles to Geneva: the many forms of interwar disarmament. The Journal of Strategic Studies29(2): 225–246.
60.
WebsterA (2018) The League of Nations at work during the Locarno era: the preparatory commission for the disarmament conference, 1925–30. In: DamousiJO’BrienP (eds) The League of Nations: Histories, Legacies and Impact. Carlton, VIC, Australia: Melbourne University Press, pp. 122–138.
61.
Wheeler-BennettJW (1935) The Pipe Dream of Peace: The Story of the Collapse of Disarmament. New York: W. Morrow.
62.
Wheeler-BennettJW (1973 [1932]) Disarmament and Security since Locarno, 1925–1931. New York: Howard Fertig.
63.
WilsonP (2012) The English school meets the Chicago school: The case for a grounded theory of International Institutions. International Studies Review14(4): 567–590.
