Arts & International Affairs: Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 2018 | Page 20

THE ENDURING VISION OF A WORLD WITHOUT WAR
ESCO 1845:Preamble). This doctrine, while admirable although gloriously abstract in
nature, paradoxically carries with it the same exact problem it is fighting to solve. More
importantly, the moral solidarity of mankind quite promptly shifts the focus beyond the
confines of the state.
Thus, one might be inclined to inquire whether the concept of an international society
is actually adequate to grasp the nature of the world order UNESCO was aiming to establish.
The English School theory provides another conceptual option for including
non-state actors into the inquiry: that of world society. As Bull (1977:22) noted, the
states system is merely one part of the world political system. According to him, the fundamental
and primordial units of world order are, in fact, individual people, leading him
to conclude that order among mankind as a whole is something wider than and morally
prior to order among states. By a world society, Bull understood a sense of common interests
and values in addition to a degree of interaction linking together all parts of the
human community (ibid. 279). The concept of world society thus is to universal social interaction
what the concept of international society is to the international system of states.
For Bull, the universal society of all mankind only existed as an unrealised idea�although
one to strive for�perhaps to do with a sceptical approach to the existence of
shared values of a truly communal nature. As discussed by Barry Buzan (2004:63), there
is another way of understanding the concept. This is to use world society as an umbrella
term incorporating and ultimately superseding international society, or even as an ontology
opposed to statism, as defined by R.J. Vincent (1978, 1986) and his followers.
Buzan (2004:90–119) notes that one of the most significant underlying conceptual dyads
within the discourse of international society and world society is whether or not the
distinction between the state and non-state levels is what defines the difference between
the two. For Buzan, three types of units are in constant play: states, transnational actors
and individuals. His understanding of the interaction between the three key units or
domains forms the basis of his definition of world society: The concept of world society
labels situations in which none of the three domains is dominant over the other two, but
all are in play together.
For Buzan, the distinction between state and non-state as a feature of analysis must be
maintained. This division cannot be dismantled because the primacy of the state must
not be ignored. This is also the case in the UNESCO context: The third and final actor
distinguishable in the introduction is the National Commissions. The National Commissions
are Member State coordinating and advisory bodies to their national governments,
and form a unique feature in the UN system. Set up by their respective governments
following Article VII of the UNESCO Constitution, the Commissions were initially entrusted
with consultation and liaison tasks. The selection process of the films reflects
UNESCO’s role as essentially an organisation of Member States since the National
Commissions had the final say. As the introduction explains, in some cases “the National
Commission for UNESCO in the Member State concerned has asked for a film to be
19