The Anarchical Society as Christian Political Theology

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Bain
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
Political Theology ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
English School ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
The World ◽  
Artificial Nature ◽  
Hedley Bull ◽  
The Universe

It is widely accepted that in The Anarchical Society—the key text of the English School—Hedley Bull presents and defends the Grotian conception of international relations. This essay argues that Bull’s thinking about order is indebted to a medieval theological dispute about the nature of God and the extent of his power. This dispute yields a way of knowing and explaining the world that stresses the artificial nature of political relations, domestic and international. In other words, order between states is instituted in the same way that God made the universe, through will and artifice. Once this theological ground is uncovered it becomes apparent that Bull’s account of international order is consistent, not with Grotius, but with the thought of Thomas Hobbes. One of the crucial implications of this argument is that international society has not outgrown its European and Christian roots to the extent that Bull suggests.

The Historical Expansion of International Society

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry Buzan ◽  
Richard Little
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Society ◽  
English School ◽  
Historical Contingency ◽  
Early Modern Europe ◽  
The West ◽  
Planetary Scale ◽  
The World ◽  
Related Line

For most English School writers, the international society is an element that is always present in international relations, but whose depth, character, and influence all fluctuate with historical contingency. The historical wing of the English School focuses on how the contemporary global international society came about as a result of the expansion to planetary scale of what was originally a novel type of international society that emerged in early modern Europe. This is partly a story of power and imposition, and partly one of the successful spread and internalization beyond the West of Western ideas such as sovereignty and nationalism. It is also a story about what happens when international society expands beyond the cultural heartland which gave birth to it. The classical story has been critiqued for being too Eurocentric and underplaying the fact that European international society did not emerge fully formed in Europe and then spread from there to the rest of the world. Rather, it developed as it did substantially because it was already spreading as it emerged, and was thus in its own way as much shaped by the encounter as was the non-European world. A related line of critique points out the conspicuous and Eurocentric failure of the classical story to feature the fact that colonialism was a core institution of European international society.

The Expansion of International Society

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Green
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
Cultural Imperialism ◽  
English School ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of ◽  
Phases Of Development ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The 19Th Century ◽  
Creativity And Innovation

The English School of international relations theory has its own particular account of the history of international relations, a key aspect of which is the expansion of a set of norms, practices and institutions—diplomacy, embassies, international law, sovereignty, the modern state—out of their formative cultural heartland of Europe and to the rest of the world over the past few centuries. This is the story of “European international society” spreading out to become a “global international society,” accelerating especially during the 19th century via cultural imperialism and colonial conquest. The writings of the English School on this Expansion Narrative have evolved since the 1960s, going through phases of development that have concretized the details of the Narrative’s history, elaborated on the processes behind the spread, and attempted to inject more scientific rigor into analysis. Over time a more profound challenge has also emerged, in a revisionist shift from a monocentric story of Europe training the rest of the world in the proper ways of domestic and international life, toward a polycentric, globalization model, in which different civilizations have learned from each other to create a synthetic, multicultural international society by the 21st century. These analytic tensions are a source of creativity and innovation for the English School and set it apart from other approaches to international relations.

The Institutions of International Society

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tonny Brems Knudsen
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Institutional Change ◽  
International Society ◽  
English School ◽  
The Subject ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
Interdisciplinary Scholarship ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Primary Institutions ◽  
Hedley Bull

The “fundamental” or “primary” institutions of international society, among them sovereignty, diplomacy, international law, great power management, the balance of power, trade, and environmental stewardship, have been eagerly discussed and researched in the discipline of international relations (IR), at the theoretical, meta-theoretical, and empirical levels. Generations of scholars associated with not only the English School, but also liberalism and constructivism, have engaged with the “institutions of international society,” as they were originally called by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull in their attempt to develop a historically and sociologically informed theory of international relations. The fact that intense historical, theoretical, and empirical investigations have uncovered new institutional layers, dynamics, and complexities, and thus opened new challenging questions rather than settling the matter is part of its attraction. In the 1960s and 1970s, the early exponents of the English School theorized fundamental institutions as historical pillars of contemporary international society and its element of order. At the turn of the 21st century, this work was picked up by Kal Holsti and Barry Buzan, who initiated a renaissance of English School institutionalism, which specified the institutional levels of international society and discussed possibilities for institutional change. Meanwhile, liberal and constructivist scholars made important contributions on fundamental institutions in key engagements with English School theory on the subject in the late 1980s. These contributions and engagements have informed the most recent wave of (interdisciplinary) scholarship on the subject, which has theorized the room for fundamental institutional change and the role of international organizations in relation to the fundamental institutions of international society.

The English School and Institutions: British Institutionalists?

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laust Schouenborg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Society ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
English School ◽  
International Institution ◽  
Functional Perspective ◽  
Primary Institutions ◽  
Hedley Bull

The argument can be made, and has in fact been made, that the English School is primarily concerned with the study of institutions. The institutions of international society are social in a fundamental sense. That is, they are something above and beyond what one usually associates with an international institution. There are three dominant perspectives on what the primary institutions of international society are: functional, historical/descriptive, and typological. Hedley Bull was the major proponent of the functional perspective, and he identified five primary institutions of international society: the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war, and the great powers. However, the historical/descriptive perspective appears to be the prevailing one. Nevertheless, various authors have started to think about the institutions of international society typologically. This has certain implications for how one views the cognitive objectives of the English School. The adherence to functional, historical/descriptive, or typological perspectives involves a positioning in relation to where international relations (IR), as a discipline, and the English School, as an approach to it, should locate itself in wider academia.

DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY IN ENGLISH SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
VICTOR MIRONOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
International System ◽  
Central Place ◽  
Intellectual Structure ◽  
English School ◽  
School Committee ◽  
The Social ◽  
British Committee ◽  
Hedley Bull

This article is devote to the analysis of one from the key institutions in the conception of international society. The aim of the article is identify historiographical aspects for the analysis diplomacy in the context of the English school’s approach to the study of international institutions. English school of International relations formed in the end 1950-1970. Some famous scientists (H. Butterfield, M. Wight, and H. Bull) took an active part in the creation of this scientific society. British Committee for the study of international politics was a main intellectual structure in the genesis of the school. Committee had worked during 25 years (1959-1985) and become a base for the development two first generations of English school of international relations. Herbert Butterfield was very famous English historian and first chief of British Committee during 1959-1967. He had conservative credo. He shared the idea of the decline of diplomacy and divided it into new and historical. During some time, his views on diplomacy in modern history came into conflict with wide interpretation international society - central concept of the school. Martin Wight saw in diplomacy as a minimal indicator of the social character of international system in any time, but he also inclined that diplomacy will not be play very much role in the future. At the same time, he did not accept the concept “international society” and preferred the idea of “system of state”. Concept “international society” become a symbol and different mark this scientific community thanks to the books by H. Bull in 1960-1970. Hedley Bull included diplomacy in his list main international institutes, but central place among them in his views played balance of power and international law. Modern adepts of the conception of international Society continue diplomatic research. The works of modern representatives of the English School are studies in the article. Main conclusion of this part of the article consist of that the functional analysis of the diplomacy become a base for the following development of British intuitionalism and an important part of the conception of international society today. The British institutionalism are highlighted general trends of the following development English school of international relations and some problems for the dialogue with American theory of International relations.

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.

Hedley Bull, states systems and international societies

1987 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Watson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
The Other ◽  
Common Values ◽  
System A ◽  
Common Interests ◽  
Hedley Bull ◽  
Regular Contact

Hedley Bull's contribution to the theory of international relations is considerable; and nowhere more acute than in the distinction which he made between the concept of a system of states and that of an international society. His definitive formulation is set out in Chapter I of The Anarchical Society. ‘Where states are in regular contact with one another, and where in addition there is interaction between them sufficient to make the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculations of the other, then we may speak of their forming a system.’ ‘A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.’

Leviathan on a Leash

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Fleming
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
Sovereign Debt ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Modern Politics ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The World

States are commonly blamed for wars, called on to apologize, held liable for debts and reparations, bound by treaties, and punished with sanctions. But what does it mean to hold a state responsible as opposed to a government, a nation, or an individual leader? Under what circumstances should we assign responsibility to states rather than individuals? This book demystifies the phenomenon of state responsibility and explains why it is a challenging yet indispensable part of modern politics. Taking Thomas Hobbes' theory of the state as a starting point, the book presents a theory of state responsibility that sheds new light on sovereign debt, historical reparations, treaty obligations, and economic sanctions. Along the way, it overturns longstanding interpretations of Hobbes' political thought, explores how new technologies will alter the practice of state responsibility as we know it, and develops new accounts of political authority, representation, and legitimacy. The book argues that Hobbes' idea of the state offers a far richer and more realistic conception of state responsibility than the theories prevalent today and demonstrates that Hobbes' Leviathan is much more than an anthropomorphic “artificial man.” The book is essential reading for political theorists, scholars of international relations, international lawyers, and philosophers. It recovers a forgotten understanding of state personality in Hobbes' thought and shows how to apply it to the world of imperfect states in which we live.

scholarly journals Anarchy in International Relations

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silviya Lechner
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Society ◽  
English School ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Interaction Domain ◽  
Alternative Discourse ◽  
The Third ◽  
Analytical Review ◽  
International Anarchy

The concept of anarchy is seen as the cardinal organizing category of the discipline of International Relations (IR), which differentiates it from cognate disciplines such as Political Science or Political Philosophy. This article provides an analytical review of the scholarly literature on anarchy in IR, on two levels—conceptual and theoretical. First, it distinguishes three senses of the concept of anarchy: (1) lack of a common superior in an interaction domain; (2) chaos or disorder; and (3) horizontal relation between nominally equal entities, sovereign states. The first and the third senses of “anarchy”’ are central to IR. Second, it considers three broad families of IR theory where anarchy figures as a focal assumption—(1) realism and neorealism, (2) English School theory (international society approach), and (3) Kant’s republican peace. Despite normative and conceptual differences otherwise, all three bodies of theory are ultimately based on Hobbes’s argument for a “state of nature.” The article concludes with a summary of the key challenges to the discourse of international anarchy posed by the methodology of economics and economics-based theories that favor the alternative discourse of global hierarchy.

The Strange Journey of the Tributary System

2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110506
Author(s):  
Yuan-kang Wang
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International Society ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
The World ◽  
Cultural Sphere ◽  
Tributary System ◽  
Material Power

Scholars of international relations have embraced the tributary system as the dominant lens to studying historical orders of East Asia. Hendrik Spruyt’s The World Imagined, a rare gem in the study of comparative international orders, argues that the tributary system articulated the ontology of the historical East Asia international society. This article cautions against two common pitfalls. First, the tributary system is a modern conceptual construct that can blind researchers to other types of political orders existing throughout East Asia’s diverse landscape and history, thus contributing to a Sinocentric bias. Both the Mongols and the Tibetans adopted a distinctive set of rules of inter-polity conduct that have little to do with the Chinese tributary system. Second, the tributary system perpetuates the myth that East Asia has been historically peaceful, while glossing over the numerous interpolity warfare that took place in the region as well as internal conflicts within the same cultural sphere of a state. I argue that our understanding of international orders can be substantially enriched when we take material power seriously and study its interplay with ideational factors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document