Talk:International community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Community WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Community and related subjects on Wikipedia.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

On the issue concerning international community we should start when man inhabited the world. At first life was easy due to vast and plentiful food, but things went wrong when the population increased and there was a need for territories between the different clans. Now the need of interdependence comes in and it was the birth of international community where people want to satisfy their endless wants by using the scarce resources. The question of international community stays as the matters of continents therefore Europe was the dominant continent encouraging the community such that it started with the empire systems e.g. Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire. Up to 19th century the community was good after the idea of liberalism came in under the influence of European writers such as Locke, Bentham. At first it included all the sovereign states and Africa was left due to the issue of colonialism but again it was in after all the countries go their independence. The leading issues in the community now are collective security, trade and political awareness.

[edit] World community

Is the term, World community synonymous with International community. Should both of these stubby articles be merged into Internationalism (politics) and redirected there? I kindof think they should but I would like some input. CQ 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these two concepts are synonymous since they imply diferent geographical views: the one stresses the international - the world consists of nations working together - while the other sees the world as a whole without political borders. Brz7 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This stub presents a highly critical point of view, and rightly so. The term "International community" implies that States have common values. However, it is clearly misused in the political and media discourse, to justify unilateral actions in the context of Western countries' War on Terror. For instance, Canadian prime minister uses it on a daily basis: "our involvement in the Afghan NATO mission has the full backing of the international community", although the last approval of this dangerously escalating mission by the UN dates back to 2001. A more accurate term in French political science circles is "International society" (comprised of sovereign States equal in international law, but not necessarily sharing the same values). I think this article should NOT be merged; moreover, further developments shoud also sum up Immanuel Kant's idealistic views of Eternal Peace and confront them with today's (mis-)use of the term "international community". Paradis pe 18:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I definately agree that the articles both need some work, i'll do my best to pitch in on them soon, but I don't think it should be merged with world community, as per Brz7 --Gregorof 08:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"International Society" is a phrase which was, from my understanding, intially used by the English School of International Relations in the 1950s; it describes sovereign states which share norms and values which are codified through institutions; the general theory on this says that in order to do this they must share some values in order to make this kind of cooperation possible. International Community implies states themselves; world community, as a derivative of world society, again presented by the English School implies the citizens of states seeing themselves as part of a larger community. So no the articles should not be merged, they mean different things.86.138.123.12 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)