TheEnglish School ofinternational relations theory (sometimes also referred to asliberal realism, theinternational society school or theBritish institutionalists) maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition ofanarchy (that is, the lack of a global ruler or world state). The English school stands for the conviction that ideas, rather than simply material capabilities, shape the conduct of international politics, and therefore deserve analysis and critique. In this sense it is similar toconstructivism, though the English School has its roots more in world history, international law and political theory, and is more open to normative approaches than is generally the case with constructivism.
English School scholars distinguish betweeninternational system andinternational society. The former is a quasi-physical realm, as proximate actors interact with one another.[1] The latter is an intersubjective realm where actors are bound together through rules, norms and institutions.[1]
The classical English School starts with the realist assumption of an internationalsystem that forms as soon as two or more states have a sufficient amount of interaction. It underlines the English school tradition of realism andMachtpolitik (power politics) and putsinternational anarchy at the center of international relations theory.[2]Hedley Bull defined the international system as being formed "when two or more have sufficient contact between them, and has sufficient impact on one another's decisions to cause them to behave as part of a whole."
Hedley Bull, however, argued that states share a certain common interest (usually the "fear of unrestricted violence")[3] that lead to the development of a certain set of "rules". He thus defined an international society as existent when:
…a group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements.[4]
In Bull's view, any type of society needed to have rules about restraints on the use of force, about the sanctity of agreements, and about property rights.[5] Without elements of these three there would be no society.
Theserules are expressed in a set of institutions that capture the normative structure of any international society. In the classical English School these were:war, thegreat powers,diplomacy, thebalance of power, andinternational law, especially in the mutual recognition ofsovereignty by states. To these could be added: territoriality, nationalism, the market, and human equality. Since these rules are not legally binding and there is no ordering institutions, speaking ofnorms would probably be more appropriate. States that respect these basic rules form an international society. Brown and Ainley therefore define the international society as a "norm-governed relationship whose members accept that they have at least limited responsibilities towards one another and the society as a whole".[6] States thus follow their interests, but not at all costs.[7] Another way of looking at this would be through Adam Watson's term 'raison de système', a counterpoint to 'raison d'état', and defined as 'the idea that it pays to make the system work'.[8]
There are differing accounts, within the school, concerning the evolution of those ideas, some (likeMartin Wight) arguing their origins can be found in the remnants of medieval conceptions ofsocietas Christiana, and others such asHedley Bull, in the concerns of sovereign states to safeguard and promote basic goals, especially their survival. Most English School understandings of international society blend these two together, maintaining that the contemporary society of states is partly the product of a common civilization - theChristian world of medieval Europe, and before that, the Roman Empire - and partly that of a kind ofLockean contract.
English School scholars vary in terms of the claims they make about the "thickness" of the culture of the international society is, as well as the content of international society.[5]
Based on aKantian understanding of the world, the concept of world society takes the global population as a whole as basis for a global identity. However, Buzan also argued that the concept of World Society was the "Cinderella concept of English school theory", as it received almost no conceptual development.[2]
A great deal of the English School of thought concerns itself with the examination of traditional international theory, casting it — asMartin Wight did in his 1950s-era lectures at theLondon School of Economics — into three divisions (called byBarry Buzan as the English School's triad, based on Wight'sthree traditions):
In broad terms, the English School itself has supported the rationalist or Grotian tradition, seeking a middle way (orvia media) between the 'power politics' of realism and the 'utopianism' of revolutionism.
Later Wight changed his triad into a four-part division by addingMazzini.[9]
The English School is largely aconstructivist theory, emphasizing the non-deterministic nature ofanarchy in international affairs that also draws onfunctionalism andrealism. It has been argued that, "the English School embodies the notion of a middle course between practical demands and moral claims. In contrast to the realist approach, the English School maintains that states are not entangled in a permanent struggle for power and that they limit their conflicts through common rules, institutions and moral imperatives. Unlike the revolutionist tradition, the English School accepts the realist premise that the state is the primary reality of the international political system and maintains that these imperatives foreswear the replacement of the society of states by a universal community of mankind." In this manner, the English School succeeds in incorporating the salient elements of the main traditions of International Relations theory.[10]
The English School is often understood to be split into two main wings, named after two categories described by Hedley Bull:
There are, however, further divisions within the school. The most obvious is that between those scholars who argue the school's approach should be historical and normative (such as Robert Jackson or Tim Dunne) and those who think it can be methodologically 'pluralist', making use of 'positivist' approaches to the field (like Barry Buzan and Richard Little).[11]
The English School does have affinities:
Contemporary English School writers draw from a variety of sources:
The 'English-ness' of the school is questionable - many of its most prominent members are not English - and its intellectual origins are disputed. One view (that of Hidemi Suganami) is that its roots lie in the work of pioneering inter-war scholars like the South AfricanCharles Manning, the founding professor of the Department of International Relations at theLondon School of Economics. Others (especiallyTim Dunne and Brunello Vigezzi) have located them in the work of theBritish Committee on the Theory of International Politics, a group created in 1959 under the chairmanship of the Cambridge historianHerbert Butterfield, with financial aid from theRockefeller Foundation. Both positions acknowledge the central role played by the theoristsMartin Wight,Hedley Bull (an Australian teaching at theLondon School of Economics) andR J Vincent.
The name 'English School' was first coined by Roy Jones in an article published in theReview of International Studies in 1981, entitled "The English school - a case for closure". Some other descriptions - notably that of 'British institutionalists' (Hidemi Suganami) - have been suggested, but are not generally used. Throughout the development of the theory, the name became widely accepted, not least because it was developed almost exclusively at the London School of Economics, Cambridge and Oxford University.
According to George Washington University political scientistMartha Finnemore, who notes that she is an admirer of the English School, the English School has not been received positively in American IR scholarship because there is a lack of clarity in the methods used in English School scholarship (for example, a lack of discussion about research design), as well as a lack of clarity in the theoretical claims made by the English School. She notes that the English School is reluctant to clarify its causal claims, which she contrasts with Constructivist research in the American IR tradition where there is an emphasis on constitutive causality – "how things are constituted makes possible other things (and in that sense causes them)".[12] She also notes that the English School does not engage in hypothesis testing, and that their works mirror the detailed narratives ofhistorians rather than typical works in thesocial sciences.[13]
In a 1992 review of Martin Wight's work, Keohane criticized it, saying "Wight's greatest oversight... is his neglect of the scientific or behavioral search for laws of action (or contingent generalizations) about world politics."[14]
