Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:29, 24 February 2021

The international community, is a vague and subjective phrase used in geopolitics and international relations to refer to a nebulous group of people and governments of the world. It does not literally refer to all nations or states in the world. Activists, politicians and commentators often use the term in calling for action to be taken; e.g., action against what is in their opinion political repression in a target country. Critics hold that the term asserts the existence of an international consensus on matters such as human rights which may not in fact exist.

The term is commonly used to claim, often without evidence, legitimacy and consensus for a point of view on a disputed issue; e.g., to enhance the credibility of a majority vote in the United Nations General Assembly.

In some contexts the term is implied to mean a specific and concrete body, such as a group of nations or international institution. Examples include the United Nations or its members and the World Bank or its partners. Critics say this usage inflates the standing of UN or World Bank members. NATO often uses the term, which is deemed by some to be troubling, as it can imply that NATO serves or acts on the behalf of the "international community". Such an implication is contentious given NATO members consist entirely of North American and European states. Furthermore, it may be seen as presumptuous that NATO would claim to serve or represent members of the international community on whom it wages war.

Criticism

American scientist Noam Chomsky alleges that the use of the term is used to refer to the United States and its allies and client states, as well as allies in the media of those states.

British scholar and academic Martin Jacques says: "We all know what is meant by the term 'international community', don't we? It's the west, of course, nothing more, nothing less. Using the term 'international community' is a way of dignifying the west, of globalising it, of making it sound more respectable, more neutral and high-faluting."

According to Samuel P. Huntington this term is a euphemistic replacement of the earlier concept of Free world.

More recently, the term has been used politically to promote liberal agendas, largely promoted by Europe, as if these countries constituted an international consensus. Others dismiss the term as polemical and non-substantive.

See also

• Democracy
• Free world
• Global issue
• Global village
• Internationalism (politics)
• NATO
• Sources of international law
• United Nations
• World community

References

1. Byers, Michael; Nolte, Georg (2003-05-29). United States Hegemony and the Foundations of International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 30. ISBN 9781139436632.
2. Danilenko, Gennadiĭ Mikhaĭlovich (1993-01-01). Law-Making in the International Community. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 204. ISBN 0792320395.
3. https://www.un.org/en/observances/decade-people-african-descent/international-community
4. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/12/13/global-community-renews-commitment-to-the-worlds-poorest-countries-with-82-billion
5. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_176875.htm
6. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84336.htm
7. "The Crimes of 'Intcom'".
8. "Israel, US violators of international law, says Noam Chomsky". The News Tribe.
9. "Noam Chomsky on Iran".
10. Martin Jacques. "What the hell is the international community?". the Guardian.
11. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations, 72 Foreign Aff. 22 (1992–1993)

• International relations
• International law
• Political catchphrases
• Types of communities
• World