The english school

Good Luck

1. The English School Professor: Dr. A. ghorbani Student: Mostafa Goodarzi kharazmi university November 2017 [email protected]

2. Briefing Main Sources English School’s Scholars Key concepts in English School Methodology The evolution of International Society First- and second-order Pluralism and solidarism Primary and secondary institutions Hypotheses International society and international security Regional international society Conclusion Criticism of English School

3. Main Sources Buzan, Barry (2014) An Introduction to the English School of International Relations , Camridge & Malden: Polity Press. DEVLEN, BALKAN; JAMES, PATRICK & O¨ ZDAMAR, O¨ ZGUR (2005) “The English School, International Relations, and Progress”, International Studies Review , Vol.7, 171–197. Gardini , Gian Luca (2010) “Who still cares about the English School, and why?“, Mural Internacional , Vol.1, pp. 7-11. Ren, Lin (2012) “Introduction into the English School and the current reality related research topics”, SCS Journal , Vol. 1'(1), pp. 50-63. Spalding, Liam James (2013) “A Critical Investigation of the IR Theories that Underpin the Debate on Humanitarian Intervention, International Public Policy Review , Vol.7, No 2, pp.1-15. Sugnami , Hidemi (2011) “The English School, History and Theory” Ritsumeikan International Affairs , Vol.9, pp. 27-50. Sugnami , Hidemi ( 2010) “The English School in a Nutshell”, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies , Vol.9, pp. 15-28.

4. English School’s Scholars C. A . W. Manning, Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, Alan James, John Vincent & Herbert Butterfield 1) the Department of International Relations at the London School of Economics ; headed by Manning (Wight, Bull & James) 2) British Committee on the Theory of International Politics ; inaugurated by Herbert Butterfield (Wight, Bull, Watson & Vincent. Vincent was Bull’s doctoral student at the Australian National University) Andrew Hurrell , one of the last of Bull’s Oxford pupils, Tim Dunne, Hurrell’s doctoral student at Oxford , Nick Wheeler, Dunne’s close collaborator at one time and a critical follower of Vincent’s work, and David Long and Peter Wilson, both of whom studied International Relations under James at Keele University . David Armstrong and Paul Keal , both of whom were Bull’s doctoral students at the ANU .

5. English School’s Scholars 3) Andrew Linklater (Wight’s work developer) and Ian Clark (Wight’s and Bull’s work developer); also Robert Jackson 4) Barry Buzan and Richard Little, who were inspired by Adam Watson’s work in particular. “reconvene the English School”. ( Sugnami 2010; 2011 )

6. Preamble A reasonable date for the beginning of the English School is 1959 , when the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics ( hereafter, the British Committee) first met . ( Buzan 2014: 5) The name ‘English School’ was not coined until Roy Jones (1981) used it in calling for its closure. In a sweet irony, it became a label accepted both by those within and those outside the School. Like many such labels, including ‘realism’ and indeed ‘international relations’ itself , ‘English School’ is a poor fit with what it represents. Some of its founding figures were not English – Hedley Bull was Australian , Charles Manning South African . Alternatives: ‘British School ’, ‘ classical approach ’, ‘ international society school ’. The British Committee focused on developing a general understanding of international relations around the concept of international society . ( Buzan 2014: 7)

7. Key concepts in English School ( Devlen 2005, 175)

8. Key concepts in English School The English School not only focuses on the structure , but also emphasizes the “ process ” factor. Under the “undeveloped system” that is full of anarchy, “it is possible that one unit might gain control of the system , temporarily transforming anarchy into a hierarchical structure, until internal weakening and disintegration allow the reemergence of international anarchic relations(China, Persia, Rome).” (The English School addresses this point through the “process” study instead of only applying the structural casual analysis as Morgenthau, Kohane , Nye and other scholars did.

9. English School Bull: States may not agree on the meaning of justice but, they can harmonize about how to maintain order among themselves . Most agree that each state should respect the sovereignty of the others and observe the principle of non-intervention . Each society can then promote its notion of the good life within its own territory, recognized as an equal by all others . Order among all mankind is of primary value , not order within the society of states.

10. English School A great deal of the English School of thought concerns itself with the examination of traditional international theory: 1 . Realist or Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes) (giving priority to national responsibilities ) 2 . Rationalist (or Grotian , after Hugo Grotius) (giving priority to international responsibilities ) 3 . Revolutionist (or Kantian, after Immanuel Kant). (giving priority to humanitarian responsibilities ) In broad terms, the English School seeking a middle ground between the 'power politics ' of realism and the 'utopianism' of revolutionism .  Not pessimist as Realist  Not Optimist as Idealist (Devlen 2005, 175)

11. Note

12. English School There is a society of states at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy . International relations represents a society of states that Regulate: war the great powers diplomacy the balance of power international law in the sovereignty (Devlen 2005, 179) Although English School scholars recognize various aspects of these respective traditions, their works have been closest to Grotian rationalism . (Devlen 2005, 185)

13. Methodology Compared with Behaviorism’s positivism approach , Traditionalism prefers the humanity and historical path , which focuses on understanding and interpreting instead of explaining . The English School attaches itself more onto the Traditionalism approaches . Its contribution is also based on modifying Positivism since some international events might not be fully explained with the causal logics like in nature science , so that people could only try to “understand ” the international events through a dozen of other perspectives , such as law , history and philosophy . ( Ren 2012: 53-54)

14. Methodology A classical approach redefined as interpretive methodology in Hedley Bull’s International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach. It derives from philosophy , history and law and relies upon the exercise of judgment . I . The Subject matter of IR: body of general propositions about the ‘global political system vs. positivist pursuit of the formulation of ‘ testable hypotheses ’ II . The importance of historical understanding: It is insufficient to know facts, so historical depth is needed. Historical context is important to understand. III . There is no escape from values : values are important to select which topic to study, the pursuit of political influence was likely diminish the prospects of generating research. IV . IR is fundamentally a normative enterprise : IR theorist doing normative inquiry needs to stay close to the state practice.

15. Main Questions Martin Wight First question : ‘‘ what is international society ?’’ Second question: ‘‘How far does international society extend?’’ Hedley Bull First question: ‘‘what does order mean in world politics?’’ (a) ‘‘does order exist ?’’ and (b) ‘‘how is it maintained ?’’ Second question: ‘‘should one prioritize order over justice ?’’

16. The key concepts of International Society English School thinking is built around a triad of three key concepts: ( Buzan 2014: 12) international system , international society, world society.

17. International system International system ( Hobbes/Machiavelli/realism) is about power politics among states and puts the structure and process of international anarchy at the centre of IR theory. This position is broadly parallel to mainstream realism and neorealism and is thus well developed and clearly understood outside the English School . It is based on an ontology of states and is generally approached with a positivist epistemology , materialist and rationalist methodologies, and structural theories. ( Buzan 2014: 12)

18. International society International society (Grotius/rationalism), or sometimes states-system , or interstate society , or society of states , is about the institutionalization of mutual interest and identity among states and puts the creation and maintenance of shared norms, rules and institutions at the centre of IR theory . ( Buzan 2014: 13)

19. The evolution of International Society 1) the emergence and consolidation of a distinctive anarchical international society in Europe built around the Westphalian institutions of sovereignty/nonintervention , territoriality , the balance of power , war , international law , diplomacy and great power management ; 2) the transfer of this society to the rest of the world on the back of expanding European economic and military power , mainly in colonial form but also in encounters with non-Western societies that escaped colonization ; 3) decolonization, the bringing in of the Third World to equal membership of global international society , and the subsequent problems . ( Buzan 2014: 62)

20. World society World society (Kant / revolutionism ) takes individuals, non-state organizations and ultimately the global population as a whole as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements and puts transcendence of the state system at the centre of IR theory. ( Buzan 2014: 13) we cannot ignore the question that how far away we are now from the realization of the world society with the shared standard or norms, such as the human rights protection . (Ren 2012: 59)

21. T hree other pairs of concepts First- and second-order Pluralism and solidarism Within the idea of international society Primary and secondary institutions

22. First- and second-order societies First-order societies are those in which the members are individual human beings . Such societies have been the principal subject of Sociology , and much of what falls under world society is about first-order societies . Second-order societies are those in which the members are not individual human beings but durable collectivities of humans, such as states , which are possessed of identities and actor qualities that are more than the sum of their parts. As noted above, the English School rejects the domestic analogy for international society , seeing it as a distinctive form. The terms first- and second-order society are not (yet) in common use, but the very idea of an international society requires acceptance that such a thing as a second-order society is possible. In the English School perspective, IR is mainly about the study of second-order societies , a subject largely neglected by Sociology. ( Buzan 2014: 15)

23. Pluralism and solidarism The English School is split into two main wings . Pluralism and solidarism related to the debates about order and justice , human rights and ( non)intervention . (Buzan 2014: 15 ) Pluralism represents the communitarian disposition towards a state-centric mode of association in which sovereignty and nonintervention serve to contain and sustain cultural and political diversity. It is in this general sense status quo orientated and concerned mainly about maintaining interstate order . As a rule, pluralists, following Bull , will argue that, although a deeply unjust system cannot be stable , order is in important ways a prior condition for justice . (Buzan 2014: 15-16) Solidarism represents the disposition either to transcend the states system with some other mode of association or to develop it beyond a logic of coexistence to one of cooperation on shared projects. In principle solidarism could represent a wide range of possibilities, but in practice within the English School it has been linked mainly to liberal cosmopolitan perspectives and to concerns about justice . Solidarists typically emphasize that order without justice is undesirable and ultimately unsustainable . (Buzan 2014: 15-16)

24. Pluralism and solidarism The divergence between Pluralism and Solidarism is the classical discrepancy between the natural law and the subjective law . The questions, such as whether a single human or the nations should be the subject of international law and which one should enjoy the higher privilege lay at the core of the debate. ( Ren 2012: 58) Solidarism observes the process how a world could transfer to an international society with justice , while Pluralism addresses how countries arrive at order in anarchy . (Ren 2012: 60) The concept of non-intervention dominates English School discourse , with particular emphasis from the pluralist side . ( Spalding 2013: 5)

25. Three assumptions of humanitarian intervention people have equal rights and freedoms , all people equally possess these rights and freedoms, and , the protection of these is a concern for all people. (Spalding 2013: 12)

26. Primary and secondary institutions Institutions : as ‘an organisation or establishment founded for a specific purpose ’, or in more general ones, as ‘ an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community ’ Primary institutions are those talked about by the English School and reflect the second usage of ‘institution’ above . They are deep and relatively durable social practices in the sense of being evolved more than designed. These practices must not only be shared among the members of international society but also be seen among them as legitimate behaviour . Primary institutions are thus about the shared identity of the members of international society. They are constitutive of both states and international society, in that they define not only the basic character of states but also their patterns of legitimate behaviour in relation to each other, as well as the criteria for membership of international society. The classical ‘ Westphalian ’ set consists of sovereignty, territoriality, the balance of power, war, diplomacy, international law and great power management, to which could be added nationalism, human equality and, more recently and controversially, the market. But primary institutions can be found across history wherever states have formed an international society. (Buzan 2014: 16-17) The English School focuses mainly on primary institutions.

27. Primary and secondary institutions Secondary institutions are those talked about in regime theory and by liberal institutionalists and relate to the organizational usage of the term. They are the products of a certain types of international society (most obviously liberal, but possibly other types as well) and are for the most part intergovernmental arrangements consciously designed by states to serve specific functional purposes. They include the United Nations , the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the nuclear non-proliferation regime . Secondary institutions are a relatively recent invention, first appearing as part of industrial modernity in the later decades of the nineteenth century. (Buzan 2014: 17)

28. A Survey on Hypotheses (Devlen 2005, 194)

29. Regional international society The Cold War, after all, is easy to construct as a zero-sum competition between two sub-global international societies competing with each other to see which would dominate. In that perspective, any regional developments might easily have been seen as dividing and weakening international society at the global level. (Buzan 2014: 57) A good example of the English School’s neglect of international society at the regional level was Hurrell (1995 ).

30. International society and international security The classical English School view of coexistence international societies , like the realist one, stresses great powers , war and the balance of power as key institutions of the social order . But in cooperative and convergence international societies of almost any plausible sort, war and the balance of power will be respectively marginalized or nearly eliminated as institutions. This does not, of course, mean that such societies have no security agenda. As one can see from the contemporary practice of the EU or the liberal international economic order , security concerns move away from the traditional military ones towards economic, societal and environmental ones and the human security agenda . ( Buzan 2014: 181)

31. T hree novel lines for thinking about international security What are the security consequences for insiders of being included within the particular set of primary institutions that defines any international society? What are the security consequences for outsiders of being excluded from international society ? Can international society itself become a referent object of security? (Buzan 2014: 181)

32. Conclusion The English School situates contemporary debates on world politics in longer historical perspective; system , international society , world society . It is more universal than West oriented as takes into consideration the different approaches of global organizations and regional ones towards norms and values . Reorientation of IR to ‘global IR’ vs. the power of the ‘hegemon’ ( realism), and cooperation (liberalism) to explain world politics. T he English School devotes to recover and explore the unexploited academic resources due to the shifting world reality . Global order is reproduced through complex patterns of socialization and resistance .

33. Criticism of English School The English School scholars’ rich theoretical work. (Devlen 2005, 194) Not a series of self-consciously expanding empirical theories . Neither Wight (1977, 1986) nor Bull ( 1977) have presented an explicit or detailed account of the negative heuristic of their tradition , that is, ‘‘what is ruled out .’’ Methodology problem: because the English School did not take a ‘‘scientific’’ path in studying IR, it also is not possible to infer its negative heuristic from researchers’ efforts to ‘‘protect the hard core from empirical falsification .’’

34. Criticism of English School A solid consensus among the English School community about the necessary conditions for maintenance of an international society , mechanisms for maintaining order within an international society , and the belief that the existence of an international society will lead to greater cooperation and order between and among states . English School represents a genuinely non-American current of thought in International Relations Theory. ( Gardini 2010, 11) Eclecticism Solidarism is based on constructing the possible cosmopolitanism future. It goes even further to the highly unified norms, institutions and regulations than the “international society” has reached.

35. Criticism of English School Halliday ’s complaint that the English School pays insufficient attention to revolution . Despite English School’s focus on International Law , it has not had much to say about the shift from natural to positive law as the dominant form that took place during the transformation to modernity during the nineteenth century. The English School member believed that “ the great powers can be ‘great responsibles ’ which do not place their own interests before the task of strengthening international order ”(Linklater,2005:88). Therefore, “international society can survive in the absence of a balance of power” (Linklater,2005:88 ), while a dominating power could co-exist and guarantee the order in the international society. ( Ren 2012: 55) State Sovereignty and Intervention on Humanitarian Grounds. Devetak critiques that the metaphysical focus on state sovereignty leads theorists to ignore, “the real and profane violence committed by sovereign power in the name of security and raison d’état”. (Spalding 2013: 12)

36. Criticism of English School the process of exploring to natural law that based on justice can cultivate the formulation of the international society towards further world society as Solidarism suggests , it left one question unsolved: Which comes first: Order or justice ? Solidarism avoids answering this question and turn to another one that “process” towards common norms and identity of people is possible , which escapes from responding to whether or not can we apply the justice principle to the countries , which are more sensitive to intervention from the outsiders. (Ren 2012: 60) Human Rights Intervention the countries that once have suffered from imperialism feel afraid that globalization might be another new form of imperialism .

37. Criticism of English School Hedley Bull’s key proponent publication of the English school, The Anarchical Society , highlights in its title the paradoxical nature of an ‘international society ’. The minorities, such as the Islamic world has shown similar trepidation towards the trend of globalization. These minorities ’ revolting emotion towards globalization has accumulated unstable factors which pose a threat to the world order. (Ren 2012: 62) Copeland as a Realist: policy-makers will be concerned that military and economic cooperation could work to the benefit of a potential adversary . ‘international societal norms provide little restraining power against an adversary bent on war’.

38. Criticism of English School Copeland criticizes the English school for its lack of theoretical sophistication . In the context of a societal balance of power each state will abide by international law because if it fails to do so, other states will sanction them ’ but … . T heoretical expansion of the English school is entirely possible , but finding historical evidence to support the proposition of a theory when it is not there is impossible.