「国際社会」の正しい使い方

international communityという言葉があります。一般教書演説でオバマ大統領もwe will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fearのように使っていました。



51分20秒当たりから
You see, in a world of complex threats, our security and leadership depends on all elements of our power – including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than fifty countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles. American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated, and we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve – a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear. As we speak, American diplomacy is supporting Israelis and Palestinians as they engage in difficult but necessary talks to end the conflict there; to achieve dignity and an independent state for Palestinians, and lasting peace and security for the State of Israel – a Jewish state that knows America will always be at their side.

international communityという言葉は話者の都合のいいように使われていないかという問題意識でこの言葉の使われ方を分析したレポートをCFRが出したようです。

Making Sense of the “International Community”
An IIGG Working Paper
When discourse on global affairs refers to the international community, it often refers to different groupings of international actors. In this International Institutions and Global Governance program Working Paper, Tod Lindberg explores theoretical underpinnings and the historical development of international institutions to define the concept of "international community." Examining the term through legal, sociological, and critical perspectives, Lindberg argues that the international community represents an intersection of morality and politics in the form of liberal normative ideals played out in global affairs. In practice, the term can and should be used when there is clear consensus on an issue; however, when division exists, the international community risks becoming a polemical phrase.

20ページ以上もあるレポートなので、国連英検などに興味がある方が読めばいいのではないでしょうか。上記の紹介でIn practice, the term can and should be used when there is clear consensus on an issue; however, when division exists, the international community risks becoming a polemical phrase.（実際面では、この用語を用いることができる、用いるべき状況は、ある問題に対して明確なコンセンサスがあるときである。意見が分かれているときには、国際社会という言葉は論争を引き起こす危険がある）と結論を述べてしまっていますが、レポートの最後にあるこの用語を使って良いケースと使ってはいけないケースを確認しておきます。

A Practical Guide
When a tsunami strikes, what emerges nowadays is a single, coordinated effort to provide relief. Alt- hough NGOs working on such problems perceive competition among themselves and jockey for relative influence, we do not generally see a red team/blue team conflict over the provision of aid. Though complete consensus on the propriety of ejecting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait by force if necessary was elusive, no coalition emerged in support of his contention that Kuwait was rightfully Iraq’s nineteenth province. If there is an international coalition in favor of Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal, it seems not to be one that speaks up to that effect. A hallmark of the operation of the inter- national community is unanimity of purpose, or something very close to it.

But when there is significant opposition to a favored course, even if it is favored by many, includ- ing all of those with whom one feels closest, it is surely disingenuous to invoke the international community. Policymakers should take heed. One can and should offer one’s reasons for the course one believes is right without suggesting that all of humankind agrees. It’s a matter of reason and ele- mental respect for others, and it has the practical benefit of warding off self-delusion and the negative consequences that flow from it.

Based on the preceding discussion, it is possible to set out the following recommendations:

USE OF THE TERM “INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY”
Appropriate Use of “International Community”

 To invoke on aspirational matters: For example, “The international community must find a re- sponse to climate change.”

 To refer to in cases of division on normative matters. For example, “The international community has failed to agree on a definition of terrorism.”

 To refer to codified, consensus-based views. For example, “The international community has de- clared its opposition to the use of chemical weapons.”

 To refer to codified or customary procedures. For example, “Trade disputes between members of the international community are settled at the WTO.” Or, “The international community has of- ten had to take measures to deal with piracy.”

 To refer to uncontroversial consensus-based actions. For example, “The international community has rallied to provide relief for victims of the tsunami in Asia.”

 To refer to its member states, institutions, and organizations involved in any of the cases above. For example, “Japan is a leading member of the international community in providing humanitar- ian assistance to victims of natural disasters.” Or, “Médicins sans Frontières has been at the fore- front of the efforts of the international community to deal with the effects of violent conflict.”

 To refer to individuals as representatives of the international community in circumstances in which they act in support of a broad consensus, especially when operating with official interna- tional sanction. For example, “Kofi Annan’s efforts on behalf of the international community to obtain a cease-fire in Syria were unavailing.”
Inappropriate Use of “International Community”

 To attribute views, actions, or procedures to the international community in any case where clear division exists. Here, one must make one’s case on its merits, and not on the presupposition that everyone already agrees with one’s point of view. This is an imperative of factual accuracy. It is al- so a basic expression of respect for others, which is an important principle of classical liberalism. Insistence on speaking in the name of or attributing views to the international community when the international community is divided is in fact a reassertion of the exclusive “we.” It denies the humanity and agency or, in the case of states, the legitimacy of those who disagree by writing them out of the international community tout court, when in many respects they are members in good standing. It also runs the quasi-totalitarian risk of demanding uniformity of opinion within a community on all subjects deemed important by those powerful enough to make such a demand.

The imperative to respect other views has limits. Where genocide is occurring, the genocidaires have no privilege to annul by their defiance the view of the international community that genocide is morally wrong. It is instructive that those engaged in the perpetration of atrocities rarely admit it. They describe what they are doing in euphemistic terms, in what is perhaps tacit acknowledg- ment of the view of the international community that committing atrocities is wrong.

GUIDANCE FOR THE THEORETICALLY MINDED
 Realists should accept the concept of an international community that comes and goes depending on the issue and the competing demands of international politics. When almost all the world lines up one way and not another—for trade, against piracy, for tsunami relief, against territorial ex- pansion by conquest—one could see the result as an expression of common interest. But when almost all the world talks about what may be merely common interest in terms of right and wrong, the notion of an international community constituted thereby is hardly far-fetched.
 Liberal theorists should avoid the temptation to substitute their normative desires regarding the international community for acknowledgment that the universal aspirations of classical liberalism are far from realized.
 Conservatives and neoconservatives should recognize that an important ingredient of American exceptionalism from the beginning was classical liberalism, a sentiment non-Americans nowadays can and do share—forming an international community that perpetuates, defends, and seeks to spread a classically liberal perspective on right and wrong.

Our loose talk of international community comes at a price, in terms of sometimes inflated, some- times diminished expectations about the ability of international politics to be brought into alignment with an evolving yet classically liberal moral order—whose political authority consists in its voluntary acceptance by growing numbers of people, even including governments.

We have to be careful what we are asking for and whom we are asking when we ask something of the international community, lest we be disappointed in its inability to fulfill our expectations— which is actually our own failure to think about the international community clearly. Tightening up a discussion of the international community will improve our ability to conceive and execute policy in a moral framework. This liberal moral framework has found itself embraced and embodied, at least in part, in states, institutions, organizations, offices, and individuals—and in the interactions among them. This is the international community, and its significance in international politics is growing.