Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 8. Ünite Sorularla Öğrenelim

1) English school scholars consider International Relations (IR) as an autonomous subject rather than being a part of (International) Politics.

2) They examine order in the world in terms of the structure of relations between sovereign nation-states.

3) They have a common style that involves no use of statistics, geometry and algebra, no rhetoric of world problems, such as poverty and monetary reform.

4) The English School has a commitment to holism in the sense that the whole is more than the mere summation of its parts.

There were basically two issues:

a) whether there was a distinct “English School” of international relations and

b) if yes, what were its distinctive characteristics and contributions.

1) aspiration to werthfreiheit (morally neutral analysis),

2) rejection of behaviourism or scientism,

3) reliance on sociological methods (institutional analysis),

4) unity and specificity of the states- system (autonomy of IR),  

5) rejection of utopianism

1) interest in the issues of the Third World and decolonisation,

2) international relations being conceived more about culture, values and history rather than structure and mechanics of international system, and

3) the conceptualization of international theory as a normative theory

British School,

British Institutionalists,

International Society Approach,

the Classical School,

British Idealists and Rationalism

1) there must be some commonalities of the views in terms of the subject matter, concepts, principles and methods among the scholars/ members in concern,

2) conscious self-identification with the school by the members, and

3) recognition by the larger community of the discipline

Historically, the English School has emerged on the one hand against the American social science approaches, especially against the behaviouralist approach, and on the other hand within the British tradition.

In the 1950s, there were two dominant schools for the study of international relations within the United States, namely Realism and Behaviouralism.

The basic premises and arguments of the English School

• ontological and epistemological pluralism,
• international society as the core concept and element of international relations
• the salience of cultural/civilisational factors and values,
• epistemological/methodological pluralism,
• rejection of presentism

According to Hudley Bull, international system is conceived to be an interdependence relationship and an international society to be a conscious relationship. In a system, we see that the behaviour of one actor is a consideration for the behaviour of another because they are mutually dependent, as a result of necessity either by structural positioning or by a hegemonial imposition. In a society, the action of one actor becomes a consideration for another not because of necessity, but because of conscious choice. That is why the School has been called by some “international society approach”.

common interests, common rules, common values and common institutions

The English School authors have elaborated two versions of international society: the pluralist version and the solidarist version.

Pluralists typically prioritize order to justice within system. (Pluralists also emphasize the significance of sovereignty, non-intervention and cultural and political diversity.)

Realist conception is much more mechanical and structural, whereas English School’s is much more historical.

They both strive to show the social bases of international relations and for both of them society is constructed with norms and institutions. They also stress the significance of norms and other ideational factors such as identity and values.

English School has its main roots in the study of history, political theory and international law, whereas Constructivism grew out of debates about epistemology and method. The English School has a much more normative orientation as seen in debate about solidarism and pluralism. As to the norms and institutions of the society, while the English School scholars see them as historical formations, the constructivists see them as more of in contemporary terms and purpose oriented, very much similar to regime theory of liberalism.