The English School (International Relations)
In this article, we shall examine the English School of International Relations. We shall discuss the historical underpinnings of the English school, the various assumptions and arguments made within the English School, its development throughout the years, and its current place in international relations theory. We shall also compare The English School against other international relations theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism.
What is the English School of International Relations?
The English School (international relations) theory originated out of Britain universities (even though many of the influential writers were not British in national origin), and has been viewed as “the oldest and arguably the most significant rival to the American mainstream” (Dunne, 2011).
There have been a number of prominent international relations theorists within the English School. Some of the names of scholars within this intellectual tradition include: “Charles Manning, Herbert Butterfield, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, and R. J. Vincent.” There also exists additional English School theories in what has been termed the “post-classical” phase (from the 1990s until the present day), and they include scholars such as “Barry Buzan, Andrew Hurrell, Robert Jackson, Edward Keene, Andrew Linklater, Richard Little, James Mayall, Hidemi Suganami, and Nicholas J. Wheeler” (Dunne, 2011).
The English School (international relations) theory came out of the post World War II era, where many writers working in Britain began looking for alternatives to the realist and liberalist viewpoint of international relations. Thus, the early thinkers aimed to promote a new way of thinking “that viewed international society as a middle way between realist accounts of systemic logics and revolutionist accounts that plotted the downfall of the state system as a whole” (Dunne, 2011: 4).
The reason that this new international relations theory arose had to do with the discomfort theorists had with the assumptions that were underlying both realism and liberalism international relations theory thought.
What are the tenets of The English School?
The English school of international relations theory center on the issue of categories of states within the international system. For the English School theorists, they focus on the development of an international society, and the implications of this society. They look at the formation of the society.
Sovereignty
The English School has also taken positions on issues such as sovereignty. For the English School, sovereignty is not some sort of given in the international system, but something established, and only able to exist because of the recognition of this idea by actors themselves. So, it is as much about others respecting this idea, and in turn, expecting that others will also reciprocate the recognition of their own sovereignty. As Dunne (2013) notes: “Clearly the act of mutual recognition indicates the presence of a social practice: recognition is fundamental to an identity relationship. Recognition is the first step in the construction of an international society” (6). The English School theorists point to may examples within history of where peoples were not granted this recognition as a sovereign member within the state system.
There are of course contestations in the constructions of sovereign states; some entity may be working to establish recognition of their sovereignty, but this may be rejected by other actors in the international system. Take the case of China: “China was denied sovereign statehood until January 1942, when Western states finally renounced the unequal treaties. Why was this the case? Membership became defined, particularly in the nineteenth century, by a “standard of civilization” that set conditions for internal governance that corresponded with European values and beliefs. What we see here is how important cultural differentiation has been to the European experience of international society. China was not recognized as a legitimate member of international society, and, therefore, was denied equal membership. If the West and China did not recognize each other as equal members, then how should we characterize their relations? Here we see how the system– society dynamic can usefully capture historical boundaries of inclusion and exclusion” (Dunne, 2013: 7). So, while the United States and China clearly worked together well before the official recognition of China’s statehood by the US, according to each state, there were clear disagreements on the norms that each of the respective leaderships advocated.
The construct of the sovereign system is primary for the assurance of economic and also security, and it is with the expectation states will also recognize one another. However, the English School argues that “[t]he element of mutual recognition is highly significant for English School understandings of international society, but it is not a sufficient condition for its existence. The actors must have some minimal common interests, such as trade, freedom of travel, or simply the need for stability. Here we see how aspects of the system impinge on the possibilities for a society to develop. The higher the levels of economic interdependence, the more likely it is that states will develop institutions for realizing common interests and purposes. The independence of sovereign states, however, remains an important limiting factor in the realization of common goals. For this reason, the purposes states agreed upon for most of the Westphalian era have had a fairly minimal character centered upon the survival of the system and the endurance of the dominant units within it” (Dunne, 2011: 8).
Acting in this ‘Society of States’
Following conversations about sovereignty, the English School has also examined what it means to ‘act’ in the international system. For them, though, the attention is not to the singular state as an actor, but to the entire society as a whole.
The English School and Other International Relations Theories?
Historically, the two more dominant theories of international relations have been realism, and liberalism. While these two theories have stark differences from one another, there have emerged additional theories that look to side with neither directly, but see a more centered position of international relations. Thus, to many, theories like constructivism, and also the English School offer this position between both realism and liberalism/pluralism (Dunne, 2011).
The English School and Realism
It has traditionally been argued that The English School is a new alternative to realism. And while this is the case in some of its claims, there are points of overlap between realism and the english school. For example, “the two schools of thought are united against some ideas, such as the notion of a natural harmony of interests and the Enlightenment idea that reason provides the key to all humanities problems. Nevertheless, the English School has differentiated itself from realism and, despite certain shortcomings, offers a convincing alternative” (Wilson, 2013).
Wilson (2013) describes the main question that the English School attempts to answer by saying:
The problem the English School seeks to solve is the ‘order puzzle’. As noted earlier, a fundamental belief of the school is that order exists at the international level. The question is where it comes from. While order is maintained at the domestic level by the ‘leviathan’, or government, no such entity exists at the international level. English School theorists answer that institutions are responsible for order. Primary or fundamental institutions are basic to social order. Examples within the state included the family and the civil service. According to the English School, society is held together at both the domestic and international level by a mixture of coercion, calculation and belief. The most secure and stable societies are those held together mainly by belief. This is where institutions in the primary or fundamental sense come in. Institutions ensure that rules and norms are complied with, not as a result of calculation or coercion, but rather as a result of belief in their legitimacy.
Dunne (2011) argues that there is some similarity between the English School and the ‘systems theory’ within realism. However, the difference between these schools of thought is “that the English School was interested in the system primarily for what it tells us about the history of international society” (11).
The English School and Liberalism
As mentioned above, the English School attempts to sit between realism and liberalism in explaining international relations. The English School thus has some similarities with liberalism. For example, one primary point of similarity is the importance to the role of non-state actors in international relations. If we recall, realists have been dismissive of the role of non-state actors. However, for liberalists, as well as the English School, non-state actors are also members of the system; while states matter, it is surely not all about state actors. Non-state actors have at times held similar power to states (Dunne, 2013).
The Role of History:
Scholars of the English School have also pointed out that what their theory does that others fail to sufficiently include in explaining international relations is the importance of history. For realists, history matters little in state behavior. The same goes for liberalists, who are focused on the importance of cooperation and international institutions for global affairs issues. However, for English School theory, history is an important component in understanding states understand one another, and how they have interacted together, and what this means for their future relations.
English School and Constructivism
The English School and Social Constructivism have a lot of commonalities between one another. Both give a great amount of attention to the role of norms and how norms can evolve within the international system. State actors’ conditions are not fixed, but rather, can evolve through history and over time. There is also a commonality since both discuss the role of society. However, Buzan is quoted as saying that, for him, “the English School approach to society is better structured than the Constructivist one. At least from my point of view, it seems to be the better way to go, to ask questions about what international society looks like, how it’s structured, where it’s going, how it evolves, etc. etc. So in terms of understanding social structures, as opposed to just the material structure, again, it’s the best and the most interesting place to be” (E-International Relations, 2013).
In fact, Buzan was asked if the English School and Constructivism are one and the same, or if there are key differences in their views on international relations, to which he replied “Both. They’re fundamentally different in the sense that they come from different places. Constructivism is in a sense an epistemological position and it comes out of philosophy of knowledge. The English School is a rather practical, pragmatic tradition that comes out of political theory, history, and international law, so its roots are completely different. But both of them are talking about society, in some sense, and in that way they’re the same thing. Any kind of society has by definition to be socially constructed, there isn’t any other way of thinking about it. So from that point of view, the English School is constructivist, but there’s a lot more in its approach than just constructivism, and I think the whole approach to structure through primary institutions is a lot more interesting than say, Alex Wendt’s three types of society” (E-International Relations, 2013).
The English School References
Dunne, T. (2011). The English School. Oxford Handbooks Online. July, 2011. Available Online: http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199604456.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199604456-e-034?print=pdf
E-International Relations (2013). Interview: Barry Buzan. March 27, 2013. Available Online: http://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/27/interview-barry-buzan-2/
Wilson, P. (2013). Alternatives to Realism: The English School of International Relations. Bologna Institute for Policy Research. 28 February 2013. Available Online: http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalRelations/news/misc-news/Wilson-ES-Bologna-.pdf
