5. International Society

2021 ◽  
pp. 137-169
Author(s):  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller ◽  
Robert Jackson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
International Society ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
World Politics ◽  
English School ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
International Systems

This chapter examines the International Society tradition of international relations (IR). International Society, also known as the ‘English School’, is an approach to world politics that places emphasis on international history, ideas, structures, institutions, and values. After providing an overview of International Society’s basic assumptions and claims, the chapter considers the three traditions associated with the leading ideas of the most outstanding classical theorists of IR such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant: realism, rationalism, and revolutionism. It then explores International Society’s views regarding order and justice, world society, statecraft and responsibility, and humanitarian responsibility and war; as well as how International Society scholars have used a historical approach to understand earlier international systems and the development of international society. It also discusses several major criticisms against the International Society approach to IR and concludes with an overview of the research agenda of International Society after the Cold War.

5. International Society

2018 ◽  
pp. 142-176
Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Georg Sørensen ◽  
Jørgen Møller
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
International Society ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
World Politics ◽  
English School ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
International History ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
International Systems

This chapter examines the International Society tradition of international relations (IR). International Society, also known as the ‘English School’, is an approach to world politics that places emphasis on international history, ideas, structures, institutions, and values. After providing an overview of International Society’s basic assumptions and claims, the chapter considers the three traditions associated with the leading ideas of the most outstanding classical theorists of IR such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant: realism, rationalism, and revolutionism. It then explores International Society’s views regarding order and justice, world society, statecraft and responsibility, and humanitarian responsibility and war; as well as how International Society scholars have used a historical approach to understand earlier international systems and the development of international society. It also discusses several major criticisms against the International Society approach to IR and concludes with an overview of the current research agenda of International Society.

5. International Society

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Georg Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
International Society ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
World Politics ◽  
World Society ◽  
English School ◽  
International History ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
Niccolò Machiavelli

This chapter examines the International Society tradition of international relations (IR). International Society, also known as the ‘English School’, is an approach to world politics that places emphasis on international history, ideas, structures, institutions, and values. After providing an overview of International Society's basic assumptions and claims, the chapter considers the three traditions associated with the leading ideas of the most outstanding classical theorists of IR such as Niccolò Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant: realism, rationalism, and revolutionism. It then explores International Society's views regarding order and justice, empire and world society, statecraft and responsibility, and humanitarian responsibility and war. It also discusses several major criticisms against the International Society approach to IR and concludes with an overview of the current research agenda of International Society.

scholarly journals On the concept of international disorder

2020 ◽  
pp. 004711782092228
Author(s):  
Aaron McKeil
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Order And Disorder ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Systems

International relations today are widely considered to be experiencing deepening disorder and the topic of international disorder is gaining increased attention. Yet, despite this recent interest in international disorder, in and beyond the academy, and despite the decades-long interest in international order, there is still little agreement on the concept of international disorder, which is often used imprecisely and with an alarmist rather than analytical usage. This is a problem if international disorder is to be understood in theory, towards addressing its concomitant problems and effects in practice. As such, this article identifies and explores two ways international order studies can benefit from a clearer and more precise conception of international disorder. First, it enables a more complete picture of how orderly international orders have been. Second, a greater understanding of the problem of international order is illuminated by a clearer grasp of the relation between order and disorder in world politics. The article advances these arguments in three steps. First, an analytical concept of international disorder is developed and proposed. Second, applying it to the modern history of international order, the extent to which there is a generative relationship between order and disorder in international systems is explored. Third, it specifies the deepening international disorder in international affairs today. It concludes by indicating a research agenda for International Relations and international order studies that takes the role of international disorder more seriously.

scholarly journals The English School: History and Primary Institutions as Empirical IR Theory?

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Buzan ◽  
George Lawson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
School Work ◽  
School History ◽  
Primary Institutions ◽  
Historical Accounts

How does the English School work as part of Empirical International Relations (IR) theory? The English School depends heavily on historical accounts, and this article makes the case that history and theory should be seen as co-constitutive rather than as separate enterprises. Empirical IR theorists need to think about their own relationship to this question and clarify what “historical sensitivity” means to them. The English School offers both distinctive taxonomies for understanding the structure of international society, and an empirically constructed historical approach to identifying the primary institutions that define international society. If Empirical IR is open to historical-interpretive accounts, then its links to the English School are in part strong, because English School structural accounts would qualify; they are, in other ways, weak because the normative theory part of the English School would not qualify. Lying behind this judgement is a deeper issue: if Empirical IR theory confines itself to regularity-deterministic causal accounts, then there can be no links to English School work. Undertaking English School insights will help open up a wider view of Empirical IR theory.

The Anarchical Society at 40

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
International Society ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
Racial Inequalities ◽  
Contemporary World ◽  
Society Perspective ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Impact

Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society was published in 1977. Though considered as one of the classics in International Relations, it does not address many world political issues that concern us deeply today—volatile great power relations after the end of the Cold War, the rise of terrorism, financial crises, climate change, the impact of the Internet, deep-rooted racial inequalities, violence against women. Moreover, through the evolution of International Relations as an academic pursuit, various limitations of the type of approach followed by Bull are coming to light. Against this background, eighteen contributors to this collection, with diverse intellectual orientations and academic specializations, have revisited Bull’s book forty years on to assess its limitations and resilience. A number of contributors point to certain fundamental problems stemming from Bull’s a historical conceptual theorizing. However, several others find arguments and insights developed or hidden in his text which are still relevant, in some cases, highly so, to understanding contemporary world politics while others explore ways of augmenting Bull’s intellectual repertoire. An intricate tapestry of ideas emerges from the criss-crossing contributions to the volume and, through this, it becomes clear that there is more to The Anarchical Society than the ‘international society’ perspective with which it is conventionally associated. The contemporary relevance of Bull’s work is clearest when we recognize the flexibility of his conceptual framework and, in particular, the often overlooked potential of his concept of the ‘world political system’ of which, Bull acknowledges, modern international society is only a part.

International Society: Global/Regional Dimensions and Geographic Expansion

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yannis A. Stivachtis
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
World War I ◽  
International Society ◽  
European Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
English School ◽  
Regional Culture ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
International Systems

To understand the global and regional dimensions of the contemporary international society, one must become familiar with the English School literature related to the historical expansion of the European society of states and its gradual transformation to the global international society of today. There is a distinction between an international system and an international society. English School scholars have accepted that this distinction is valid, but the boundary line between the two concepts is problematic. According to the English School literature, before and during the establishment of the European society of states, the world was divided into many regional international systems/societies—each with its own distinctive rules and institutions reflecting the dominant regional culture. The global international society of the early twentieth century was the result of the expansion of the European international society, which gradually brought other regional international systems/societies into contact with one another. However, World War I led to the destruction of the European society of states. Moreover, the emergence of a bipolar world in conjunction with the imperial Soviet policies during the Cold War led to the division of the global international system into two separate international societies. Nevertheless, with the end of the Cold War, a united global international society emerged. Within the confines of the global gesellschaft international society, one can find several gemeinschaft types of regional international societies—some of which are more developed than others.

From international system to international society: structural realism and regime theory meet the English school

1993 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Buzan
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
English School ◽  
Regime Theory ◽  
Theoretical Synthesis ◽  
International Systems

The idea of international society is an essential element in the study of international relations. International society is the core concept of the English school and has not yet been systematically integrated with American-originated structural realism and regime theory. This article brings together these three bodies of theory and shows how they complement and strengthen each other. It uses structural realism to show that international society is, like balance of power, a natural product of anarchic international relations and not, as some in the English school assume, only a result of exceptional historical circumstances. This line of analysis establishes definitional criteria for international society that enable a clear boundary to be drawn between international systems with and without international societies. It also shows how state-based international society relates to individual-based world society and supports an argument that in advanced systems, this relationship becomes complementary, not contradictory. The resulting theoretical synthesis provides an essential historical and political-legal foundation for regime theory, showing that international society is both the intellectual forebear and the necessary condition for the development of regimes. Connection strengthens all three bodies of theory and opens up useful channels that connect realist and liberal thinking. One result is that international society can be used both to conceptualize the complexities of a contemporary global international system, with its network of regimes ordered in terms of concentric circles, and to sketch out a policy-relevant research agenda for understanding it.

Why is there no gender in the English School?

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 855-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
ERIC M. BLANCHARD
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Hybrid Approach ◽  
English School ◽  
Hedley Bull

AbstractWhy has English School theory, even as it has been re-imagined as critical international society theory, ignored the workings of gender in international politics? This article stages an encounter between the English School and feminists in International Relations (IR), first demonstrating the broad compatibility of the two approaches. I argue that to conduct a conversation between English School and IR feminist approaches, it is necessary to reconstruct the English School's three traditions – Realist, Rationalist, and Revolutionist – so as to allow a greater role for gender as a category of analysis. I then review the work of two key English School scholars, Hedley Bull and Barry Buzan with this reconstruction in mind. Finally, I argue that IR theorists who have participated in the recent English School revival should consider integrating gender into its theoretical and research agenda, and show several examples of how a hybrid approach can be brought to bear on the expansion of international society, diplomacy, and human rights.

scholarly journals The hierarchical society: the politics of self-determination and the constitution of new states after 1919

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 372-396
Author(s):  
Maja Spanu
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
World War ◽  
New States ◽  
History Of

International Relations scholarship disconnects the history of the so-called expansion of international society from the presence of hierarchies within it. In contrast, this article argues that these developments may in fact be premised on hierarchical arrangements whereby new states are subject to international tutelage as the price of acceptance to international society. It shows that hierarchies within international society are deeply entrenched with the politics of self-determination as international society expands. I substantiate this argument with primary and secondary material on the Minority Treaty provisions imposed on the new states in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe admitted to the League of Nations after World War I. The implications of this claim for International Relations scholarship are twofold. First, my argument contributes to debates on the making of the international system of states by showing that the process of expansion of international society is premised on hierarchy, among and within states. Second, it speaks to the growing body of scholarship on hierarchy in world politics by historicising where hierarchies come from, examining how diverse hierarchies are nested and intersect, and revealing how different actors navigate these hierarchies.

scholarly journals Rising Powers, Responsibility, and International Society

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 287-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Gaskarth
Keyword(s):  
International Society ◽  
Creative Thinking ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
English School ◽  
Rising Powers ◽  
China And India ◽  
Societal Values ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Responsible Action

Responsibility is a key theme of recent debates over the ethics of international society. In particular, rising powers such as Brazil, China, and India regularly reject the idea that coercion should be a feature of world politics, and they portray military intervention as irresponsible. But this raises the problem of how a society's norms can be upheld without coercive measures. Critics have accused them of “free riding” on existing great powers and failing to address the dilemma of how to deal with actors undermining societal values. This article examines writing on responsibility and international society, with particular reference to the English School, to identify why the willingness and capacity to use force—as well as creative thinking in this regard—are seen as important aspects of responsibility internationally. It then explores statements made by Brazil, China, and India in UN Security Council meetings between 2011 and 2016 to identify which actors they see as responsible and how they define responsible action. In doing so, it pinpoints areas of concurrence as well as disagreements in their understandings of the concept of responsibility, and concludes that Brazil and India have a more coherent and practical understanding of the concept than China, which risks incurring the label “great irresponsible.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document