| Summary/Abstract |
English School theorists argue that primary institutions uphold order in international society. However, they disagree about what those primary institutions actually are. Moreover, comparatively little research tackles the links between primary institutions and secondary ones, embodied in international organizations. Yet, these different levels of international institutions contribute in specific ways to change and stability in international affairs. I argue for understanding primary institutions as practice-based and continuously discursively constructed. This allows us to explore how international organizations, although created by states, can themselves shape primary institutions. I illustrate my argument with examples from the United Nations (UN) Security Council. There are manifest tensions in the Security Council between, on the one hand, the evolving primary institution of great-power management and, on the other hand, the “frozen” secondary institution of membership rules. This has produced a lock-in of the primary institution. Indeed, we should recognize that such tension between institutions, rather than stability and harmony among them, reflects the normal state of affairs in international society.
|