Search Results

The environment has emerged as a key issue in global politics since the early 1970s, and the issues that comprise the ‘environmental crisis’ are widely regarded to have had significant impacts on international politics. At the same time, the international society or English School of International Relations tradition has rarely had much explicit to say regarding the implications of environmental degradation for International Relations, although at a first look, it is a surprise that English School authors have not looked to environmental politics for sources of support for their arguments. This chapter attempts to elaborate how such an engagement between international environmental politics and the English School might develop. It begins with an elaboration of Hedley Bull's (1977) passage on the environment in The Anarchical Society, and then proceeds through a discussion of contemporary accounts of ‘global environmental governance’, in terms of programmatic reform, international regimes, multilevel governance, deterritorialization, and corporate governance and governance from below. The conclusion reached is that despite a superficial attraction, discussions of global environmental governance undermine the image of international society in English School accounts in two principal ways: first, they show that thinking about international society (its norms, the tensions and conversation between the three traditions in English School, and so on) is limited by the lack of understanding of the specifically capitalist character of the states‐system; and second, they show that the image given in Bull – that any alternatives to the states‐system tend to founder on the claim that states will not voluntarily cede their authority – is misplaced, for practices of global governance are emerging in the environmental field that operate outside the states‐system but where states have never given permission in the manner envisaged by Bull and others to be necessary.

In this final chapter of Part Two, the author addresses arguably the central stumbling block for those who would enlarge international society to incorporate elements of world society, alternative levels of analysis, and subject matters: namely, the problem of order. He argues that a concern with order, in its methodological, theoretical, and empirical guises, is the principal feature of the understanding of international society by the English School of International Relations. While order may endorse methodological pluralism, the author argues that the approach does not embrace it and has powerful canons that structure its work, one being the requirement that to count as valid knowledge about international society, a piece of work must begin by referring to the established fathers of the tradition. This preoccupation with order carries over into the empirical and theoretical work conducted by those associated with the School, and the author attempts to critique this by challenging the assumption, central to English School theorizing since Henry Bull, that a degree of order is necessary for the achievement of social goods. Instead, he argues that an over‐preoccupation with order can serve the cause of oppression, and therefore insists that progressive change tends to come about through periods of disorder.

Considers the relationship between culture and international society, a question that subtly permeates the work of the English School of International Relations. Begins by examining ideas among the first wave of English School authors about the role of culture in the formation of international society. Next, it considers assumptions about the relationship between culture and international society to be found among contemporary English School authors. The key issues addressed here include the role that culture plays in establishing order and stability in international society, the role that key institutions of international society play in managing cultural diversity (cultural pluralism), and the relationship between culture and perceptions of equity and justice within international society. Then seeks to draw together discussion of these three cultural issue areas to reflect on their implications for the functioning and cohesion of contemporary international society.

In his chapter on the rise of terrorism, the author points to two principal challenges to international society: first, terrorism challenges the state's monopoly of legitimate violence (which is also being eroded in a number of other ways); and second, the reaction that Al‐Qaeda has drawn from the USA threatens to create as significant a problem for international society as terrorism itself. The author opens his discussion with a brief survey of the nature of terrorism and the position it has held in the thought of the English School of International Relations: with only one or two minor exceptions, English School writers tended not to incorporate terrorism into their study despite the proliferation of terrorist incidents in the 1970s, and Hedley Bull identified terrorism as simply one of several types of ‘private international violence’. The author suggests two reasons for this apparent oversight: the School's state‐centrism and its resistance to presentism. After discussing the changing nature of terrorism in both its non‐state and state varieties, he moves on to address how terrorism poses a threat to contemporary international order, focusing in particular on terrorism as a breakdown of the state's monopoly on legitimate violence that is essential for the proper functioning of international society. The last part of the chapter describes the rise of the ‘new terrorism’ – which is characterized by religious motivation, greater lethality of attacks, greater technological and operational competence, and the desire to obtain weapons of mass destruction – and its impact on international society, and concludes by arguing that US attempts to tackle terrorism by undermining the basic principles of international society may only help to exacerbate the problem by casting further doubt on the relevance and legitimacy of international order.

In this final chapter, The author asks whether the shift from a multipolar to unipolar society of states has led to normative change in international society, using the norm prohibiting the use of force as a case study, and arguing that although material changes in international society do have an impact, the norms that underpin international society are not infinitely malleable and constrain even powerful actors like the USA. He begins his chapter with a discussion of the relationship between power and norms, which reinforces the linkages between English School of International Relations and constructivist approaches identified in Ch. 4 by Reus‐Smit. The author dismisses the realist and materialist arguments that norms play, at most, a peripheral role in international life, by arguing that even powerful states prefer to act in accordance with international rules. In relation to the use of force, he argues that it is very difficult to find a case since 1945 where a state has not sought to justify its use of force with reference to the rules governing that discussion. After charting the evolution of norms pertaining to the use of force and the globalization of international society, he turns to the post‐September 11 era, arguing that although the USA continues to follow the rules to a large extent, its attempt to act as a ‘normative innovator’ by claiming an exceptional right to self‐defence poses a grave danger to both the UN and the system of law that underpins the society of states.

Attempts to draw together the ideas presented in the book and to question the continuing relevance of the approach of the English School of International Relations to international relations. Argues that although the School has made a significant contribution to the discipline, more work needs to be done if it is to maintain its relevance. In particular, the School needs to address the relationship between international society and world society in more detail, identify and explore the many structures that underpin international society, rethink the pluralism–solidarism debate, and shed more light on the drivers and dynamics of change in world politics.

Starts by outlining the three broad ways that there are of thinking about the contribution of the English School of International Relations and international society approach to the study of contemporary international relations. The first way is to follow Barry Buzan in arguing that the English School is an ‘underexploited resource’ and that ‘the time is ripe to develop and apply its historicist, and methodologically pluralist approach’ to the subject; the second, at the other end of the spectrum, calls for the School's closure, or indeed, argues that it no longer exists because it has been too much distorted by contemporary proponents who have eschewed some of its foundational ideas – such as the centrality of states, and the importance of power politics; the third perspective is somewhere between these two, and has arisen as a result of the increased dialogue between English School ideas and other theoretical perspectives – most notably realism and constructivism, which call for the further refinement of English School thinking to give it a theory that is capable of identifying the motors for change and lines of causation in world politics. The primary purpose of this book is to assess these three positions and question the utility of the English School and international society approach to world politics, and to contribute to the development of English School thinking by opening up avenues for theoretical dialogue with other perspectives and suggesting new lines of theoretically informed empirical analysis. Two further sections of the introduction look at international relations theory after the cold war, and discuss the central question of the relationship between the English School and the concept of international society. The final section summarizes the ground covered in each chapter of the book.

The author outlines and assesses the contribution the English School of International Relations to theory in the study of world politics by discussing in turn each of three aspects of theorizing: ‘explanatory’, ‘normative’, and ‘international’. Explanatory theory aims to help understanding of how it is that the realm of world politics works out the ways it appears to do, while normative theory elucidates the steps through which some fundamental normative presuppositions lead to conclusions regarding what should be done in world politics. The author uses the term ‘international theory’ in Martin Wight's specific sense of the term as ‘a tradition of speculation about relations between states, a tradition imagined as the twin of speculation about the state to which the name “political theory” is appropriated’. As the discussion progresses, some other senses of the word ‘theory’ are also brought to attention to elucidate the activities of the English School. In sum, the author argues that the English School's explanatory theory is woefully underdeveloped, its normative theory is in need of further reflection, while its international theory offers a useful way of interpreting world politics.

In contrast to Hidemi Suganami in the first chapter, the author argues that the English School of International Relations has made, and can continue to make, an important contribution to the study of world history. In particular, he suggests that the three traditions of world politics – international system, international society, and world society – provide a useful way of thinking about the many different types of international societies and systems that have permeated world history. Adopts a world historical focus on the more familiar distinction drawn by the founding fathers of the English School between the political structures that define an international system and the social structures that define an international society, the aim being to demonstrate that a range of different international societies and systems have, across the course of world history, given way to a single worldwide international society/system. Begins by examining the debate about the validity of distinguishing between international systems and societies, and then looks at the interaction between international systems and societies in the premodern world. Goes on to outline the establishment of the European international system/society and its contact with other international systems/societies, and concludes by assessing the utility of adopting a world historical perspective and drawing a pluralistic distinction between international systems and societies.

The final two chapters in Part One investigate the evolving research agenda of the English School of International Relations and its contribution to contemporary international relations. In this chapter, the author explores what may be described as the ‘new agenda’ in English School thinking about world politics. He begins by briefly tracing the long history of the concept of international society, noting how it has become synonymous with the English School despite the fact that other paradigms have also made use of the term. He moves on to reiterate one of the central claims of the first part of this book: that the English School and the concept of international society have been propelled to the forefront of contemporary debates about world politics by important sociological and normative developments in mainstream international relations in North America. He then identifies four core and as yet unsolved ‘puzzles’ that will frame the English School's new agenda as it continues to develop; these are the relationship between agency and structure, the boundaries between international society and world society, the moral basis of international society, and the tension between forces of society and hierarchy in contemporary world politics.

The final two chapters in Part One investigate the evolving research agenda of the English School of International Relations and its contribution to contemporary international relations. In this chapter, the author investigates the emerging dialogue between English School and constructivist approaches in order to explore how they help to understand the post‐September 11 world, arguing, in particular, that, taken together, both English School and constructivist scholarship can add much to the understanding of contemporary international society. The chapter undertakes two tasks, first, it revisits an argument made elsewhere by the author: that although constructivism and the English School share much in common, and there is considerable scope for productive engagement, scholars on both sides are currently mired in an unproductive dialogue of stereotypes. In this dialogue, constructivists draw little more from the English School than the well‐rehearsed proposition that states can form international societies not just systems, and English School scholars focus too heavily on the statist, positivistic form of constructivism associated with the writings of Alexander Wendt – although it is likely to be far more fruitful to see both perspectives as bounded realms of debate, each characterized by significant internal debates over ontology, methods, and ethics. The chapter's second task is to suggest how an enriched dialogue between constructivism and the English School could be productively deployed to grapple with some of the central research questions of the post‐September 11 world: namely, the relationship between power and institutions, international society and world society, and order and justice.

Part Two of the book begins with a discussion of realist and English School of International Relations approaches to writing international history, in which the author argues that the appreciation of history that underpinned early English School thinking was reminiscent of that which also framed ‘traditional classical’ realist approaches to the subject. The author refutes D. C. Copeland's (2003) structuralist critique of the English School and argues that the School's early thinkers may provide a teleological account of agent‐led historical change that could enable traditional realists to regain ground lost to the structuralists in the past few decades. Focusing on the conceptions of history of two distinguished members of the English School, E. H. Carr and Herbert Butterfield (although their views are in some respects diametrically opposed), he argues that both implicitly accepted different renditions of a teleological view of history. He advances a case for treating human actions as directed to the agent's – both individual and collective – goals and purposes, an idea that scientific empiricism would be obliged to reject but which may unite the English School and traditional political realism. In addition, he suggests that the mix of English School and political realism provided by Carr and Butterfield offers an understanding of history that can challenge dominant neorealist and neoliberal accounts in two principal ways: first, in that it offers an account of history that focuses on the intentional actions of actors, and second, because it provides a convincing method for identifying the causes of historical change by focusing on the reasons for change.

Deals with arguably the most pointed omission from the thinking of the English School of International Relations – international political economy (IPE) – a failure has had serious and negative consequences for how the understanding of international society has developed, and has also had the consequence that the English School has so far not exploited its considerable potential to act as the theoretical framework through which globalization can be analyzed. The author holds that nothing stands in the way of bringing IPE into the international society tradition, and that much is to be gained by doing so. In the first section of the chapter, he begins his account by identifying and then accounting for this omission, arguing that it is both unnecessary and unjustified; he places the economic sector within English School thinking, looks at what has been said about it, and examines why it has been neglected. In the second section, the consequences of the neglect of the economic sector are explored for the debate about pluralism and solidarism. In the third section, regions and institutions are examined as ways of bringing IPE and the English School together, and in the final section, it is argued that this combination holds the key to a more effective study of globalization.

The author submits that the English School of International Relations could usefully engage in a dialogue with the literature emerging under the umbrella label of Critical Security Studies (CSS), suggesting that the security of individuals should be incorporated into the understanding of international society. He begins by providing a brief description of CSS, identifying it as a deeper (in that it recognizes that security is derived from societal assumptions about the nature of politics), broader (in that it recognizes that security extends beyond the threat and use of military force), and more focused (on emancipation) approach to understanding security. He then frames his discussion of CSS and the English School around four central questions: the first asks what is security, the second asks whose security should be prioritized, and the third asks what counts as a security issue. The approaches of the English School of International Relations offer a restricted response to all three of these questions, and CSS also challenges the School's belief in the central value of international order by insisting that in the long run human emancipation may involve the removal of international order as the primary value. Finally, the author asks who or what can provide security – what is to be done to promote an emancipatory politics of security in the contemporary era.

Starts by asking where women are in international society. While observing the absence of women from theories of international society, it argues that women are nonetheless present as actors in diplomatic encounters between and among states, and that gender relations have been an integral part of the evolution and expansion of international society. then proceeds to account for the conceptual exclusion of gender in the approaches of the English School of International Relations to international society. It reveals the gender bias behind two core assumptions of international society: i.e. that states are the major actors and that domestic politics are irrelevant in the workings of this interstate society. Ends by considering the future viability of the international society concept given its neglect of gender, arguing that, as a concept, international society risks irrelevance unless it can be revised to account fully for contemporary developments that significantly affect international norms and interstate behaviour.

This introductory chapter criticizes the amateurish way in which history is used to corroborate International Relations theory, in particular Realism. Conversely, it criticizes conventional historiography for its neglect of political theory. A case in point is the constructivist insight that political structures are created through political discourse. The political discourse underlying present-day political structures is so ubiquitous as to render those structures largely immune to manipulation. But since to most people the everyday political discourse of past eras is now unfamiliar, historians feel free, indeed obliged, to describe past political structures using the political concepts and assumptions of our own day. What they fail to realize is that unlike present-day political structures the political structures of past ages do change when anachronistic terminology is used to describe them: they come to look more like our own than they were.