Buzan and English School

Our inquiry question for this week is: what is the English School Theory? The supporting questions are: is it vital to learn about the English School Theory? Why?

I gave you all the required readings for the particular topic. The challenge is for you all to find time to read the required readings which will also feature in the reading quiz. We need to start reading the works of scholars who are experts in the particular theories in order to develop a sound understanding of the theories.

Required readings for this week:

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.

Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dunne, T. (1998). Inventing international society: a history of the English school. Great Britain: MacMillan Press Ltd.  

Linklater, A. & Suganami, H. (2006). The English school of international relations a contemporary reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

We have a hard copy of the book by Buzan in the library. I asked the library to order one specifically for this unit. Unfortunately, it was not placed on the reserve section for all to borrow. Thus, it is on loan to one of your peers. But you can read the electronic copy in our reading folder.

After reading pages 6-15, I would like to share my understanding of what I have read in a series of blog articles. The aim is to answer our inquiry question and address the weekly learning outcomes. You can refer to our Moodle page or learning guide to see the learning outcomes for week 13.

Firstly, the English School Theory from my understanding is like what Buzan said pluralistic. There is more than one ultimate principle. The theory is a fusion of principles from the two dominant traditional theories of international relations including Constructivism. It is a bit like the Bachelor of Arts (PNG Studies and International Relations) program.

Below is a mind map of what I have read from pages 6-15:

In recent years, I focused mainly on the international society tradition. This tradition is a fusion of liberalism and constructivism. It is also easy to understand and follow compared to the other 2 traditions. 

Buzan (p.8) stated that: 

"The basic idea of international society is quite simple: just as human beings as individuals live in societies which they both shape and are shaped by, so also states live in an international society which they shape and are shaped by. This social element has to be put alongside realism’s raw logic of anarchy if one is to get a meaningful picture of how systems of states operate. When units are sentient, how they perceive each other is a major determinant of how they interact. If the units share a common identity (a religion, a system of governance, a language), or even just a common set of rules or norms (about how to determine relative status, and how to conduct diplomacy), then these intersubjective understandings not only condition their behaviour, but also define the boundaries of a social system.""

Cited in Buzan (2014), Bull and Watson defines international society as:

"a group of states (or, more generally, a group of independent political communities) which not merely form a system, in the sense that the behaviour of each is a necessary factor in the calculations of the others, but also have established by dialogue and consent common rules and institutions for the conduct of their relations, and recognise their common interest in maintaining these arrangements."

As Papua New Guineans and students of PNG Studies, I believe you are all aware of our different societies around the country. We shape and are shaped by the societies we come from. A highlander who was born and grew up in the coastal region will speak and act like a coastal person because of the influence of the society he or she grew up in and vice versa.

Take for instance Australia's offshore detention centre and its relations with Australia. 

• Why did PNG assist Australia to accommodate the asylum seekers and also decided to resettle them once they were confirmed as refugees? 
• Can we say that how we perceived Australia became a major determinant of how we acted? 
• Do we share a common identity with Australia?

We share a system of governance with Australia. Apart from being a democratic nation, we also have a shared colonial history. We are all aware of the fact that we got independence from Australia in 1975. 

So, do we regard Australia as a 'big brother' on a personal level, as well as a governmental level? Did the 'big brother' identity play a part in influencing PNG to help Australia? How influential is the 'big brother' identity on our decision makers?

On the other hand, can we also use the international system tradition to help us to understand PNG's decision to help Australia? Australia is no doubt a powerful player in the region. Jenny Heywood-Jones said in her article that Australia gives a lot of money to PNG via its bilateral aid program. This was confirmed recently with the increase of Australian aid to PNG in the 2018 Australian aid budget.

Lisa Cornish said:

"PNG’s allocation in the aid budget will increase by almost 10 percent, while the allocation for the Solomon Islands will increase by 58 percent. PNG maintains the highest direct regional funding from Australia at AU$519.5 million, or 12 percent of the total aid budget."

The amount of money Australia gives to PNG via its bilateral aid program is a manifestation of its economic power. PNG will not doubt feel obligated to help Australia in fear of what might happen if we do not. 

This is evident in what the Prime Minster said in his interview with Mark Davis (below). He said the reason why the asylum seekers were settled on Manus Island is to honour a commitment made to the Australian government.

 

Now my question is: are we honouring the commitment based on our shared identity or on Australia's economic power in the region?

Furthermore, the next question is; can we use the pluralism versus solidarism debate to further understand the case of Australia's offshore detention centre? 

Read my article on 'Defining English School Theory' to compare the definitions of pluralism and solidarism given by Lawson with Buzan.