Defining English School theory

The emergence and the evolution of the theory is outlined in detail in the different eBooks in the reading folders on the IR202 Theories of International Relations and the IR431 International and Regional Security Moodle webpages.

In the folders, there are two eBooks on international relations describing the various theories. A third one is on the key concepts in international relations. Another book is on the key thinkers of international relations. The key thinkers book is important to help you understand the champions in the various theories.

One particular champion is Hedley Bull. As an English School Theorist, Bull’s ideas provides pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to help us understand his theoretical premises. Especially, the concepts of ‘order’ and ‘international society’.

Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (2009: p. 213) state that in his book ‘The Anarchical Society’ (1977), Bull describes ‘order’ as a pattern of activity that sustains some elementary social goals in society, such as maintaining security for its members against arbitrary violence, ensuring agreements are kept and protecting property rights.         

These goals are the defining characteristics of the ‘international society’ of states. As members of the international society, states understand that they need to have common rules and institutions in place to address these goals and sanction states including their agents who breach these goals despite the absence of an overarching sovereign.

Bull said, as cited by Griffiths, Roach and Solomon (ibid.), institutions does not only refer to international organizations but also the set of habits and practices shaped towards the realization of the common goals. These are; balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war (under certain circumstances) and the managerial functions employed by the great powers.

In comparison, Linklater (2005) states that the foundational claim of the theory is that sovereign states have formed a society of equals which is anarchic because there is no higher authority to whom they submit to. Regardless, theorists argue that there is a high level of order and low level of violence among states.

Lawson (2012) cited Bull and Watson (1984) in her explanation of the English School Theory. She said; “an international society is a group of states which establish by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognize their common interest in maintaining these arrangements” (p. 48).

Furthermore, Griffiths, O’Callaghan and Roach (2009: p. 95) defines the theory as “a school of thought that focuses on the moral, political, and social properties and rules of the international system, and that shows how these properties and rules both constitute and constraints state interest and action”. The theory represents a synthesis of moral and rationalist approaches.

However, Bellamy (2007) outlines an interesting aspect of the theory which challenges our discussion so far. He argues that we think the theory has a single view or focus but in fact there are many theories and accounts of international relations embedded within the school.

Bellamy (ibid.) goes on to outline the three traditions of world politics, labeled by Wright (1991) as realism, rationalism and revolutionism. Bull (1977), on the other hand, labeled them as Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian.

“Whilst Grotianism refers to the rational constraints of domestic law on the state and international society (rationalism), Hobbesianism represents the anarchical character of the international system: more particularly, the warlike conception of the interstate society rooted in the distrust and heated competition between and among states. Kantianism, in contrast, represents the moralistic and universal strand of English School thinking, in which international solidarity is characterised by the duty to act in accordance with international principles of accountability and equal respect.” (Griffiths, O’Callaghan & Roach, 2009: pp. 95-96)

In addition, Lawson (2012) said ideas about international society developed in two distinct and competing strands as explained by Bull (2000). Pluralism focused on the role of cultural differences in politics while solidarism focused on the unity of humanity over cultural and other differences.

For the pluralist; “the cultural factor means that states may be capable of reaching agreement on only a limited number of issues. The most important among these are recognition of each other’s sovereignty and the norm of non-intervention in each other’s affairs. These norms are to be maintain even if one state believes that another state is behaving unjustly in its internal affairs. If states abide by the norms and rules that support reciprocal recognition of sovereignty and no-intervention in the international sphere, regardless of differing approached to norms and values within the boundaries of a state, then all will be well in terms of international order.” (Lawson, 2012: pp. 48-49)

According to Lawson (ibid.) the solidary of states in the international system in the enforcement of law makes it possible for the development of a collective will among states. This enables them to engage in purposive action when needed. If a state behaves badly, the solidarism position argues that states should come together collectively to enforce the accepted standard of behaviour.

References

Bellamy, A. J. (2007). The English School. In M. Griffiths (Ed.), International relations theory for the twenty-first century (pp. 75-87). New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, M., O’Callaghan, T., & Roach, S. C. (2008). International relations the key concepts (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Griffiths, M., Roach, S. C., & Solomon, M. S. (2009). Fifty key thinkers in international relations (2^nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Lawson, S. (2012). International relations (2^nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Linklater, A. (2005). The English School. In S. Burchill et al, Theories of international relations (3^rd ed.) (pp. 84-109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.