INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

1. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY Zhou Qiujun Private email: zhouqiujun@gmail.com Public email: ggll_sz@163.com

2. Contents • INTRODUCTION • METHODS FOR STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY • REALISM • LIBERALISM • CONSTRUCTIVISM • THE ENGLISH SCHOOL • CRITICAL THEORIES OF WORLD POLITICS • INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND GLOBALIZATION

3. Chapter 6: The English School • English school in IRT • English school’s approach to cooperation • Conclusion: strengths and weakness

4. Chapter 6: The English School • English school in IRT • The promise of a non-American school • The term of “English School” comes from an article of Roy E. Jones, an opposite of the school. (Jones, “The English school of international relations: a case for closure,”Review of International Studies, 1981.) • 代表人物：查尔斯曼宁（Charles Manning）、马丁怀特（Martin Wight）、赫德利布尔（Hedley Bull）、亚当沃森（Adam Watson）、约翰文森特（R. J. Vincent）、巴里布赞（Barry Buzan） • The difference between the E～ and the American schools: America directs its attention to scientific achievements and uses them to reform or solidify the soft science of international relations; while the British are more likely to focus on historical experiences and make them the grounding bed of wisdom. (王逸舟)

5. A “sociological shift” in IRT： • It claims that international relations should be historical and animates the social factors that regulate international relations: ideas, norms, institutions, etc. • The English school, embodying the traditions of history, law, philosophy and some of the conceptualizations of the social science, worked with Constructivism to challenge the “neo-neo debate” in the 1990s.

6. Evolution of the English School: • Stage-1 (59-66): Constructing an object of study. In 1959, founders of the English school set up the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics and started to develop their analysis approach centered on “international society”. The hallmark of this stage is the publication of Diplomatic Investigations by Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight. • Stage-2 (66-77): Defining methodological approach. The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull and Systems of States by Martin Wight established a historical approach to studying the international society.

7. Stage 3 (77-92): Flourishing period of academic works. The English school made improvements to its theory of international society and strengthened its position in academia. A new generation of its members started to fill out the vacancies left out by the old members. • Stage 4 (92-present): Self-transcendence. New members like Buzan and Dunne furnished the school’s international society theory. In this period, the school discovered the American mainstream thoughts could not fully explain the post-Cold War political issues and in response, set it in relation to factors long ignored by the mainstream schools of thought, like history, culture and society. Therefore, the English school was elevated to the height on a par with Constructivism.

8. International relations as social states • 3 traditions of thought in international politics—3“R” (Martin Wight): • R-1. Realist or Hobbesian, who views world politics in a constant status of war. • R-2. Rationalist (or Grotian), who acknowledges the birth of international politics out of an international society. • R-3. Revolutionist (or Kantian), who argues for the effect the community of mankind plays in international politics. 3R shapes the school’s perception into the nature of international relations by “viewing simultaneously the different dimensions and observing how they balance and interact with each other”.

9. Research agenda of the English school

10. 3 key concepts: international system, international society and world society • An international system is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions, to cause them to behave … An 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. (Bull) • A world society is a representation of world community in broad terms and it include nations, multi-national organizations, NGOs and individuals. It shows the transition from international society to world society during which a strong willingness is exhibited in pushing for this progress and incorporating the positive factors working in the current system like international law, order, cooperation and coordination into a new world order whose components may be non-state entities.

11. Distinctive features compared with the American schools • F-1: Traditionalism rather than Behaviorism. The school believes that international relations, being a social science, should follow the analytical tradition that is observed in other human science like history, law and philosophy. The International political events should be interpreted not explained. eg. Wight thought that the only reference for international relations study is the historical classics; their accounts of historical events are consistent, thought-provoking, neural and relevant to social events. eg. Manning takes a phenomenological approach and does his study of the underlying meanings of a phenomenon instead of the phenomenon itself (eg. study rules via studying the social setting in which the rules are established).

12. F-2: holistic view rather than methodological individualism (sociological methodology rather than economic methodology). The English school, like Constructivism, seeks to demonstrate how international society where states interact is coordinated and maintained by political community, norms, values, international institutions and global culture that go beyond state-level. eg. Sovereign: Realists’ interpretation hinges on human nature and inter-personal relationship, that is, sovereign states relations are dictated by patterns of relationship between individuals; while the English school views sovereignty as interstate relations and international society’s membership.

13. F-3: The English school emphasizes the importance of rules and institutions in its own way, it defines institutions as a set of rules of games which give true meanings to state activities. They are “primary institutions” (Buzan), because they have vigorous power, long-standing history and solid foundation. • Bull’s five basic institutions: the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and the great powers; + • Buzan adds: the norms underlying the social structure (sovereignty, territory, hereditary monarchy and colonial government, etc.); the inequality between people (prelude to slavery, aristocracy and even empire), and the notion of modern nationalism (which makes people and land be closely tied).

14. Compared with Constructivism: • The E~ is similar to C~ in terms of understanding international relations: both stress on the value of social factors such as ideas, recognition and norms. • But C~ is a sociological paradigm, with an attempt studying international society; while the E~ is a historical philosophy, a political theory on international society.

15. Chapter 6: The English School • English school’s approach to cooperation • Possibilities of cooperation • The school thinks of international relations as a social state, namely, international society. The term “society” is in relation to certain orders. These orders are composed of international rules, norms and institutions which are structurally social, and these components themselves ate the products of cooperation by the international society members (states).

16. The E～’s ideas of international cooperation are based on the fundamental goals pursued by the international society. Bull identifies two societal goals. One is elementary goals by all societies: • to ensure life security against violence resulting in death or bodily harm; • to ensure the keeping of promises, or the implementation of agreements; • to ensure the stability of the possession of things which is free from constant and unlimited challenges.

17. The other type is goals by the international society: • preservation of the system and society of states itself; • maintenance of the independence or external sovereignty of individual states; • maintenance of peace in the sense of the absence of war among member states of international society as the normal condition of their relationship. The three conditions show that international cooperation is represented by the international society. Cooperation is an endogenous variable of international society.

18. Dynamics of cooperation in an international society • Two foundations for the cooperation in international society: common interests (or recognition of primary values), and shared value system (or ideational convergence in common culture or civilization).

19. Approaches to cooperation • The E～’s idea of cooperation takes root in the elementary institutions maintaining the order of the international society, which include the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and the great powers.（以下具体展开）

20. 1/5 The balance of power • “states agree to regulate their interaction”. It functions in: • the existence of a general balance of power throughout the international system as a whole serves to prevent the system from being transformed by conquest into a universal empire; • the existence of local balance of power serves to protect the independence of states in particular areas from absorption or domination by a locally preponderant power; • the existence of the both general and local balance of power creates conditions for the institutions (such as diplomacy, war, international law and great power management) that guarantee an international order to function well.  The balance of power place an emphasis on cooperation not confrontation. It highlights the cultures and values shared by members in a balanced system of power, regards them as key elements shaping and maintaining international order.  In reality, small states’ interests are often on the side of sacrifice; maintaining the balance often runs counter against the principles of international law because for the balance to be kept, military force or deterrence will sometimes be resorted to against a state’s perceived imminent threat, even if the state is not in violation of international law.

21. 2/5 International law • “a body of rules governing the mutual interaction not only of states but of other agents in international politics”. It functions in: • establishing the idea of a society of sovereign states as the supreme normative principle of the political organization of mankind; • statement of the basic rules of coexistence among states and other actors in international society; the principles include restriction of violence, agreements among states, norms concerning sovereignty and independence; • assisting and mobilizing actors in international society to abide by international society’s rules for achieving coexistence, cooperation and other goals.  International law increases the predictability of a member state’s foreign policies in relation to others’, which helps guide in coordinating short-term and long-term interests.  The principles of international law shall be accepted by member states before they are valid. Therefore, the major limitation of international law is obvious in that it is more ideationally binding than practically effective.

22. 3/5 Diplomacy • “the conduct of relations between states and other entities with standing in world politics by official agents and by peaceful means.” It functions in: • facilitating communication between the political leaders of states and other entities in world politics; • promoting negotiation of agreements; • gathering intelligence or information about foreign countries; • minimizing the effects of friction in international relations.  Diplomacy in the current international relations is going through changes in means and approaches, for instance, diversified backgrounds of diplomatic staff. Public diplomacy, as a complement to formal diplomacy, plays a more important role; whereas professional diplomats have witnessed a decline in their significance; some problems facing mankind such as population, ecological degradation and environment have got on board experts regardless of their nationalities into global governance. However the rising importance of public diplomacy does not denote the death of formal diplomacy. (eg. the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in 2009)

23. 4/5 War • War is also an institution of international society which could maintain the international order apart from the destruction war incurs. • From the perspective of the independent states, war is a policy means for a nation’s ends. • From the perspective of the international system, wars are decisive factors shaping the international system. They determine states’ fates, borders and regime jurisdiction. • From the perspective of the international society, war is on the one side a dimension of the anarchical international society, which should be limited and contained by international rules; and on the other side is a necessary means enforcing international rules, which is sometimes justified.

24. 5/5 The great powers  The imbalance of state power enables the great states to have more discourse power than the small ones; they can to some extent dominate international affairs and international order in several ways: preserving the general balance, avoiding and controlling crisis, limiting or containing war, unilaterally exercising local preponderance, mutually respecting each other’s premise, great power concert or condominium.  The legitimacy of great powers should be acknowledged by other members in the system, otherwise, great powers cannot effectively stabilize the order of international system.

25. Chapter 6: The English School • Conclusion • The English school focuses on norms, rules, institutions and values and develops a new normative thinking into international relations. Reasons: • Britain’s history as a super power. The experience in diplomacy, law and other areas accumulated since the period of British Empire has provided the members of the English school with rich historical resources; • Long-standing traditions and development of Europe’s human science empower the English school with inspiration from philosophy, law and history of thoughts; • Members of the British Committee have a diverse academic background, which constitutes precious human resources for the Committee.

26. Strength and Weakness • The English school remains positive about the future of international cooperation. Solidarists, in particular, are convinced that international society is in the right direction so that states can transcend logics of peaceful coexistence into a more proactive cooperation. (EU case)  However, the school focuses more on theoretical thinking than on empirical studies.

27. 参考书目： • Roy E. Jones, “The English school of international relations: a case for closure,”Review of International Studies, Vol.7, No.1 (Jan. 1981), pp.1-13. • 马丁怀特：《权力政治》，北京：世界知识出版社，2004年。 • 赫德利布尔：《无政府社会：世界政治秩序研究》（中/英） • 克里斯布朗、克尔斯滕安利著，吴志成等译：《理解国际关系》（第三版），北京：中央编译出版社，2010年。（《建构主义与“英国学派”，第58-63页） • 陈志瑞等主编：《开放的国际社会：国际关系研究中的英国学派》，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年。 • 关注巴里布赞的作品。 * 右上图：布尔/右下图：布赞。

28. Q & A