1 Such as class instead of nation, like the Bolsheviks proposed.

2 Like Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935–1936. See Lang, Anthony F. Jr., Punishment, Justice, and International Relations: Ethics in the Post-Cold War System (London: Routledge, 2008), pp. 83–85Google Scholar .

3 Lang, , PunishmentGoogle Scholar .

4 Lowenheim, Oded, Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great Power Authority (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006)Google Scholar .

5 Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

6 For exceptions, see Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar and Armstrong, David, Revolution and World Order: The Revolutionary State in International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Others outside of the ES, like Lang (2008), have also written on the topic.

7 The Soviet Union was formed at the end of 1922 out of a series of independent Soviet countries, including Russia. This article will talk about Bolshevik Russia until 1922 and make reference to the Soviet Union after 1922.

8 Lang, , Punishment, p. 495Google Scholar .

9 This definition of socialisation is compatible with Armstrong's (1993) use, who speaks of it in the context of the English School. For a critique of the various definitions of ‘state socialization’ and the need for more conceptual clarity, see Alderson, Kai, ‘Making Sense of State Socialization’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 415–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For a more direct critique of Armstrong's treatment of socialisation, see Halliday, Fred, Revolution and World Politics: The Rise and Fall of the Sixth Great Power (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999), pp. 297–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

10 Germany officially recognised the Bolsheviks in 1922, Japan in 1925, and the US in 1933.

11 Ralph, Jason G., Defending the Society of States: Why America Opposes the International Criminal Court and Its Vision of World Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

12 Hall, Ian, ‘Still the English Patient? Closures and Inventions in the English School’, International Affairs, 77 (2001), p. 941CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and Jones, Roy E., ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies, 7 (1981), pp. 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Dunne, Tim, Inventing International Society: A History of the English School (London: Macmillan, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

14 Finnemore, Martha, ‘Exporting the English School?’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

15 Dunne, Tim, ‘The English School’, in Reus-Smit, C. and Snidal, D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 267–285Google Scholar ; Buzan, Barry, ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 471–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Bellamy, Alex J., ‘The English School’, in Griffiths, M. (ed.), International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction (New York, NY: Routledge, 2007), pp. 75–87Google Scholar .

16 Navari, Cornelia (ed.), Theorizing International Society: English School Methods (London: Macmillan, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

17 See Bull, , Anarchical, pp. 39–40Google Scholar ; and see Mendelsohn, Barak, ‘Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda Network’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), p. 48CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

18 Bull, , Anarchical, p. 13Google Scholar .

19 Ibid., p. 16.

20 Ibid.

21 Ibid., p. 17.

22 Mendelsohn, ‘Sovereignty’, p. 49.

23 Bull, , Anarchical, p. 17Google Scholar .

24 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 7–8Google Scholar .

25 Mendelsohn, ‘Sovereignty’, p. 49. But see Dunne, Tim, ‘Society and Hierarchy in International Relations’, International Relations, 17 (2003), pp. 303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Press-Barnathan, Galia, ‘The War in Iraq and International Order – From Bull to Bush’, International Studies Review, 6 (2004), pp. 195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and Buzan, Barry, ‘Will the “Global War on Terrorism” be the New Cold War?’, International Affairs, 82 (2006), pp. 1101–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Also, for other theoretical approaches to great power management of international society, see Steele, Brent J., ‘Ontological Security and the Power of Self-Identity: British Neutrality and the American Civil War’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 519–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and Lowenheim, Oded, ‘“Do Ourselves Credit and Render a Lasting Service to Mankind”: British Moral Prestige, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Barbary Pirates’, International Studies Quarterly, 47 (2003), pp. 23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar . In addition, Lowenheim, Oded, Predators and Parasites: Persistent Agents of Transnational Harm and Great Power Authority (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006)Google Scholar has a book-length treatment of how great powers manage ‘agents of transnational harm’ like pirates and terrorists. Lang (2008) talks at times about the roles great powers have had in imposing punitive measures on various states and individuals, as well.

26 Clark, Ian, International Legitimacy and World Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar .

27 Armstrong, , RevolutionGoogle Scholar .

28 See Mendelsohn, Barak, ‘Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda Network’, Review of International Studies, 31 (2005), pp. 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar for other examples.

29 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 203Google Scholar .

30 Armstrong, , Revolution, pp. 7–8, 302Google Scholar . The notion of ‘state socialization’ is also used in other International Relations theories. For some earlier treatments of the subject, see Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization, 52 (1998), pp. 887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Ikenberry, G. John and Kupchan, Charles A., ‘Socialization and Hegemonic Power’, International Organization, 44 (1990), pp. 283–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar . A more recent discussion and debate on ‘state socialization’ was hosted by the Review of International Studies between Alderson (2001) And Thies, Cameron G., ‘Sense and Sensibility in the Study of State Socialization: A Reply to Kai Alderson’, Review of International Relations, 29 (2003), pp. 543–550Google Scholar .

31 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 303Google Scholar .

32 Ibid., p. 302.

33 Although not necessarily part of the English School research programme, Schimmelfennig (2000) talks about ‘socialization agencies’ in the West, which were used for the socialisation of Central and Eastern European states. See Schimmelfennig, Frank, ‘International Socialization in the New Europe: Rational Action in an Institutional Environment’, European Journal of International Relations, 6 (2000), pp. 109–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar . This article is similar in the sense that it pays attention to attempts and methods of socialisation.

34 Lang, , Punishment, p. 495Google Scholar .

35 Ibid., pp. 35–39 talks about Hugo Grotius' conceptions a punishment in an international order, but this is a rare theoretical analysis.

36 Suzuki, Shogo, Civilization and Empire: China and Japan's Encounter with European International Society (London: Routledge), p. 17Google Scholar .

37 Gong, Gerrit W., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984)Google Scholar .

38 Although the Allies punished and socialised non-state actors like the Reds and the Whites, these groups still sought to assert sovereignty over a territory. In the case of non-state actors like terrorist organisations that do not seek territorial control, it is entirely possible that states may simply engage in punishment without attempting socialisation.

39 Lang, , PunishmentGoogle Scholar .

40 Kennedy, David, Over Here: The First World War and American Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2004), p. 363Google Scholar .

41 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 113Google Scholar .

42 Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam, Expansion, p. 123Google Scholar .

43 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 114Google Scholar .

44 Gong, , StandardGoogle Scholar .

45 Armstrong, , Revolution, p. 118Google Scholar .

46 Ibid., p. 119.

47 This article will use the notion of ‘Allied’ to refer to countries like France and the United Kingdom, which fought against Germany and Austria-Hungary during World War I.

48 Houghton, N. D., Policy of the US and Other Nations With Respect to the Recognition of the Russian Soviet Government, 1917–1928 (New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1929)Google Scholar .

49 Lincoln, W. Bruce, Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1989), p. 44Google Scholar .

50 It is unclear why most of the opponents to the Bolsheviks in the Civil War were called ‘Whites’. Most anti-Bolshevik forces tended to be led by Tsarist military officials, and it is possible that the name originates from the predominantly white colour of Imperial Russian military garb. However, opposition to the Bolsheviks was very diverse, including leaders whose beliefs ranged from Socialist to reactionary. See Luckett, Richard, The White Generals (New York: Routledge, 1987)Google Scholar . This article will generally use ‘White’ and ‘anti-Bolshevik’ to talk about the opposition to Lenin's regime.

51 Lincoln, , Red, p. 45Google Scholar .

52 Mawdsley, Evan, The Russian Civil War (Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited, 2005), p. 129Google Scholar .

53 Lincoln, , Red, p. 225Google Scholar .

54 Carley, Michael Jabara, ‘Episodes from the Early Cold War: Franco-Soviet Relations, 1917–1927’, Europe-Asia Studies, 52 (2000), p. 1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

55 Championships, Suzanne, ‘The Baltic States as an Aspect of Franco-Soviet Relations 1919–1934. A Policy or Several Policies?’, Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Baltica Stockholmiensia, 8 (1991), p. 405Google Scholar . Mr. Clemenceau also described the Bolsheviks as ‘a colony of lepers’ – see Northedge, F. S. and Wells, Audrey, Britain and Soviet Communism: The Impact of a Revolution (London: Macmillan, 1982), p. 30Google Scholar .

56 Bull, , Anarchical, p. 18Google Scholar .

57 Service, Robert, Comrades!: A History of World Communism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 70)Google Scholar .

58 Bull, , Anarchical, p. 18Google Scholar .

59 Williams, Andrew J., Trading with the Bolsheviks: The Politics of East-West Trade (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992)Google Scholar .

60 Walt (1996) notes that the British and the French feared Bolshevik revolutions or at least the success of Communist subversion in their countries. See Walt, Stephen, Revolution and War (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar .

61 Wesson, Robert G., Soviet Foreign Policy in Perspective (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1969), pp. 29–30Google Scholar .

62 Moyer, George S., Attitude of the US Towards the Recognition of Soviet Russia (PhD. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1926)Google Scholar . This article does not address the somewhat ironic emphasis of the guardians of the society of states on sovereignty and their colonial possessions simultaneously. That is admittedly another under-explored theoretical issue in English School – see Suzuki, Shogo, ‘Japan's Socialization into Janus-Faced European Intenational Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 11 (2005), pp. 137–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

63 Northedge, and Wells, , Britain and Soviet Communism, p. 34Google Scholar .

64 Wesson, , Soviet, p. 31Google Scholar .

65 Ibid.

66 Kennan, George F., Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin (Boston, MA: Little Brown and Co., 1961)Google Scholar .

67 Debo, Richard K., Survival and Consolidation: The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia, 1918–1921 (Quebec: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1992), pp. 36, 151Google Scholar .

68 Granted, the Whites were more often than not former Tsarist generals who wanted the revival of pre-Bolshevik Greater Russia and refused to acknowledge the independence of the countries that formed after the Tsarist regime fell. At the same time, these anti-Bolshevik forces needed Allied assistance, and were more willing to negotiate with France and Britain. They also did not engage in propaganda activities and promised to pay back debts. See Ulam, Adam B., Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–1973 (New York, NY: Praeger), p. 97Google Scholar .

69 Thank you to Ross Carroll for pointing out this very important point at the ISA Conference in New York, 15–18 February 2009.

70 They also flaunted diplomatic convention openly – during the Brest Litovsk negotiations with Germany over the country's withdrawal from World War I, the Bolsheviks were represented ‘by Adolf Joffe, an ascetic revolutionary intellectual, seconded by a worker, a sailor, a woman who had earned fame as an assassin, and a peasant picked up off the street at the last minute when someone noted the lack of a representative of his class’ (Wesson, Soviet, p. 33). Also see Wesson, , Soviet, p. 31Google Scholar .

71 Once again, this does not contradict Armstrong's (1993) contention that the Bolsheviks may have realised that they could not successfully push for world revolution and grudgingly accepted to play by the rules. One of the reasons for this internal change, however, was the presence of Allied attempts at punishment and socialisation.

72 Lang, , Punishment, p. 495Google Scholar .

73 Degras, Jane (ed.), Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy, Volume I: 1917–1924 (New York, NY: Oxford University Press 1951), p. 82Google Scholar .

74 By some accounts, the Allies ‘gave substantial military supplies, mostly leftovers from the war just concluded, to the value of about a billion dollars’ (Wesson, Soviet, p. 42).

75 Lang, , Punishment, p. 61Google Scholar .

76 Isitt, Benjamin, ‘Mutiny From Victoria to Vladivostok, December 1918’, The Canadian Historical Review, 87:2 (2006), pp. 223–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Brinkley, George A., The Volunteer Army and Allied Intervention in South Russia, 1917–1921: A Study in the Politics and Diplomacy of the Russian Civil War (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006), p. 75Google Scholar .

77 Coates, W. P. and Coates, Z. K., Armed Intervention in Russia, 1918–1922 (London: Gollancz, 1935), p. 98Google Scholar .

78 Isitt, ‘Mutiny’, p. 234.

79 Coates, and Coates, , Armed, p. 161Google Scholar .

80 Kotsonis, Yanni, ‘Arkhangelsk, 1918: Regionalism and Populism in the Russian Civil War’, Russian Review, 51:4 (1992), p. 533CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

81 Coates, and Coates, , Armed, p. 86Google Scholar .

82 Strakhovsky, Leonid, ‘The Liquidation of the Murmansk Regional Soviet’, Slavonic and East European Review, 2:2 (1943), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

83 Isitt, ‘Mutiny’, p. 234.

84 Coates, and Coates, , Armed, p. 111Google Scholar .

85 Ibid., p. 124.

86 Brinkley, , Volunteer, p. 74Google Scholar .

87 Ibid., p. 75.

88 Ibid., p. 216.

89 Isitt, ‘Mutiny’, p. 256.

90 Coates, and Coates, , Armed, p. 210Google Scholar ,

91 Ibid., p. 225.

92 Brinkley, , Volunteer, p. 78Google Scholar .

93 Ainsworth, John, ‘The Blackwood Report on the Volunteer Army: A Missing Chapter in the Resumption of Anglo-White Relations in South Russia in November 1918’, The Slavonic and East European Review, 69:4 (1991), p. 638Google Scholar .

94 Coates, and Coates, , Armed, p. 251Google Scholar .

95 Brinkley, , Volunteer, p. 89Google Scholar .

96 Chew, Allen F., Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College, 1981), p. 9Google Scholar .

97 Brinkley, , Volunteer, p. 222Google Scholar .

98 Lang does not talk about this type of punitive practice in his 2008 book.

99 Degras, , Soviet, p. 181Google Scholar .

100 Uldricks, Teddy J., Diplomacy and Ideology: The Origins of Soviet Foreign Relations, 1917–1930 (London: Sage 1979), p. 151Google Scholar .

101 Tongour, Nadia, Diplomats in Exile: Russian Emigres in Paris, 1918–1925 (PhD Dissertation, Stanford University, 1979), p. 39Google Scholar .

102 Tongour, , Diplomats, p. 48Google Scholar .

103 Ibid., p. 6.

104 Implicitly, of course, the Whites guaranteed that they would not engage in revolutionary propaganda activities, which would have eliminated yet another threat the Bolsheviks posed to the society of states. They merely said that they sought to rid Russia of the Bolsheviks.

105 Thompson, John M., Russia, Bolshevism, and the Versailles Peace (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967), p. 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

106 Thompson, , Russia, p. 75Google Scholar .

107 Tongour, , Diplomats, p. 206Google Scholar .

108 The Turks used this island as a refuge for lost dogs (Northedge and Wells, Britain and Soviet Communism, p. 30).

109 Thompson, , Russia, p. 109Google Scholar .

110 Ibid., p. 122.

111 Ibid., p. 308.

112 Wesson, , Soviet, p. 43Google Scholar .

113 When the British and the Bolsheviks signed a trade treaty.

114 Wesson, , Soviet, p. 31Google Scholar .

115 Conroy, Mary Schaeffer, ‘Health Care in Prisons, Labour, and Concentration Camps in Early Soviet Russia, 1918–1921’, Europe-Asia Studies, 52 (2000), pp. 1257, 1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

116 Tongour, , Diplomats, p. 78Google Scholar .

117 Ibid., p. 106.

118 Once, again, the implicit assumption was that revolutionary propaganda activities would cease, since the Whites never claimed to be a revolutionary regime and, in fact, stressed the degree to which they hoped to be a conventional member of the society of states. Also see Tongour, , Diplomats, p. 167Google Scholar .

119 Thompson, , Russia, p. 125.Google Scholar

120 Smele, Jon, Civil War in Siberia: The Anti-Bolshevik Government of Admiral Kolchak (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 109Google Scholar ; Debo, ‘Survival’, p. 262.

121 Debo, , Survival, p. 22Google Scholar .

122 Thompson, , Russia, p. 169Google Scholar .

123 Carley, ‘Episodes’, p. 1276.

124 Kennan, , Russia and the West, p. 184Google Scholar .

125 Carr, E. H., The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917–1923 (London: Macmillan, 1973)Google Scholar .

126 Wesson, , Soviet, p. 7Google Scholar describes this situation well: ‘Soviet foreign policy has had from its beginnings a dual aspect: the overthrow of alien institutions and the establishment of normal relations, the drive to indirect or direct territorial expansion along with peaceful coexistence.’ The Whites were less ambiguous in this regard.

127 Ulam, , Expansion, p. 115Google Scholar .

128 Thompson, , RussiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar .

129 Gorodetsky, Gabriel, The Precarious Truce: Anglo-Soviet Relations 1924–1927 (London: Cambridge University Press), p. 2Google Scholar .

130 Wesson, , Soviet, p. 83Google Scholar ; O'Connor, Timothy Edward, Diplomacy and Revolution: G.V. Chicherin and Soviet Foreign Affairs, 1918–1930 (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1988), pp. 118–119Google Scholar .

131 Glenny, M. V., ‘The Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement, March 1921’, Journal of Contemporary History, 5 (1970), p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar

132 Debo, , Survival, p. 151Google Scholar .

133 Glenny, ‘Anglo-Soviet’.

134 Ibid.

135 Williams, , Trading, p. 61Google Scholar . See also White, Stephen, Britain and the Bolshevik Revolution: A Study in the Politics of Diplomacy, 1920–1924 (New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1980)Google Scholar .

136 White, , Britain, p. 66Google Scholar .

137 Ibid., p. 78.

138 Thompson, , Russia, p. 86Google Scholar .

139 Eudin, Xenia Joukoff and Fisher, Harold Henry, Soviet Russia and the West, 1920–1927: A Documentary Survey (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 189Google Scholar .

140 O'Connor, , Diplomacy, p. 115Google Scholar .

141 These discussions continued into the mid-1920s, and the exchange of the ambassadors was initially postponed pending London and Moscow agreeing on the question of debt (Wesson, Soviet, p. 90). The UK and the Soviet Union did not exchange ambassadors until 1929 (Northedge and Wells, Britain and Soviet Communism, p. 38). The treaty also included some promise of a British loan for the Bolsheviks in exchange for some recognition of debts (Williams, Trading, p. 77).

142 Williams, , Trading, p. 112Google Scholar .

143 Ibid.

144 Ibid., pp. 114–5.

145 Moyer, , Attitude, p. 225Google Scholar ; Carley, ‘Episodes’, p. 1286.

146 Ferguson, Joseph P., Japanese-Russian Relations, 1907–2007 (New York, NY: Routledge, 2008)Google Scholar .

147 Lensen, George Alexander, Japanese Recognition of the U.S.S.R.: Soviet-Japanese Relations, 1921–1930 (Tallahassee, FA: Diplomatic Press, 1970), p. 6Google Scholar .

148 Gaworek, N. H., ‘From Blockade to Trade: Allied Economic Warfare Against Soviet Russia, June 1919 to January 1920’, Jarbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, 23:1 (1975), pp. 36–69Google Scholar .

149 Gaworek, ‘From Blockade’, p. 55; McFadden, D. W., Alternative Paths: Soviets and Americans, 1917–1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 327Google Scholar .

150 McFadden, , Alternative, p. 329Google Scholar .

151 Rhodes, Benjamin D., US Foreign Policy in the Interwar Period, 1918–1941 (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), p. 53Google Scholar .

152 Rhodes, , United, p. 104Google Scholar .

153 Ibid.

154 Cameron, J. D., ‘Carl Graap and the Formation of Weimar Foreign Policy Toward Soviet Russia from 1919 until Rapallo’, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 13:4 (2002), p. 75CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

155 Freund, Gerald, Unholy Alliance: Russian-German Relations From the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk to the Treaty of Berlin (London: Chatto and Windus, 1957), p. 245Google Scholar .

156 Cameron, J. D., ‘To Transform the Revolution into an Evolution: Underlying Assumptions of German Foreign Policy Toward Soviet Russia, 1919–1927’, Journal of Contemporary History, 40:1 (2005), p. 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

157 Kochan, Lionel, ‘The Russian Road to Rapallo’, Soviet Studies, 2:2 (1950), p. 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

158 Maehl, William, ‘The German Socialists and the Foreign Policy of the Reich from the London Conference to Rapallo’, The Journal of Modern History, 19:1 (1947), p. 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

159 Cameron, ‘To Transform’, p. 17.

160 Freund, , Unholy Alliance, p. 85Google Scholar .

161 Lowenheim, , PredatorsGoogle Scholar ; Mendelsohn, ‘Sovereignty’.

162 Lang, , PunishmentGoogle Scholar .

163 Service, , Comrades!Google Scholar

164 Tsarist Russia, and especially the Provisional Government of March 1918, had already made a lot of strides in terms of being a conventional state accepted by the Western powers.

165 Saunders, Elizabeth N., ‘Setting Boundaries: Can International Society Exclude “Rogue States”?’, International Studies Review, 8:1 (2006), pp. 23–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Simpson, Gerry J., Great Powers and Outlaw States: Unequal Sovereigns in the International Legal Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

166 Although not necessarily in the theoretical context of the English School, some authors have been concerned with how great powers handle threats to international society. Lowenheim (2003) has investigated the British humanitarian intervention to stop the Barbary pirates, for example. Steele (2005) has investigated Britain's neutrality during the US Civil War, in a context in which Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation reframed the slavery debate in London. The subject is, therefore, not completely ignored by International Relations scholars. While acknowledging this, the goal of this article is try to make sense of punishment and attempted socialisation in the context of the English School.

167 For example, see the example of sanctions imposed on Cuba, Burma, or North Korea.

168 Thompson, , Russia, p. 39Google Scholar .

169 Lang, (Punishment, p. 82)Google Scholar notes, for example, that ‘the role of sanctions versus other forms of ensuring compliance with international law has not always been shared across the Great Powers or throughout the international system’.

170 Although the article is not concerned with this particular topic, conflicts within the Soviet Union should also be investigated in greater depth. Moreover, recognition was forthcoming in 1924 as Joseph Stalin, the new Soviet leader, was becoming more powerful in Moscow. The significance of this switch deserves some attention in further work, as well. See Lahey, Dale Terence, ‘Soviet Ideological Development of Coexistence: 1917–1927’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, 6 (1964), p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar for a suggestion why.