englush school niet af

The English School: introduction

= international society school. • Shares elements with → realism + liberalism. • Can be seen as precursor to constructivist approaches.

Methodological + epistemological foundations

• Method ↔ behaviorism. • English School was often dismissed as traditionalists / ‘classics’ who did not engage in genuinely social-scientific work. • Does NOT seek strict causal relations. • Develops interpretative + historical approach → describes major historical and/or contemporary developments in IR. • History + especially history of thought about IR matters → how ideas influenced actual actions of diplomats, military personnel + politicians. • Focus on concrete human actions > material structures (↔ neorealism). • Focus = historical development of deeper values + ideas shaping international actions of states + statesmen.

English School vs realism

• English School = primarily state-centric. • BUT rejects IP as a ‘billiard game’ → state behaviour cannot be isolated from historically developed characteristics of society + concrete policies of politicians/diplomats. • Non-state actors also matter → international organizations, individual thinkers, advocacy groups can influence states → influence IR.

Three traditions of the English School

Within study of IR + discourse/practice of IP → 3 major traditions: 1) Machiavellian/Hobbesian ~ realism; 2) Grotian ~ rationalism; 3) Kantian ~ revolutionism. • Analytical concepts → international system / international society / world society. • Actual reality = more complex → good analysis includes all 3 concepts.

International system: definition + characteristics

= formed when 2 or more states have sufficient contact + sufficient impact on one another’s decisions → behave, at least in some measure, as parts of a whole. • = states interacting + influencing each other’s behaviour. • Several co-existing systems possible. • Characteristics → interstate system; states = central actors; power politics in an anarchic context (= no higher authority to impose/enforce rules). • Tradition → Machiavellian/Hobbesian = realism.

International society: definition

= group of states, conscious of certain common interests + common values, form a society → conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in relations with one another + share in working of common institutions. • = central analytical concept + main research focus of English School. • Focus → institutionalization of shared interests + identity among states; creation + maintenance of shared norms, rules + institutions at centre of IR theory.

International society vs realism / anarchy

Difference from realism → where there may be anarchy, there is ALSO a society. • States share certain values + norms. • Recognize mutual interests → e.g. degree of order + stability. • Share a common identity within international society. • NL summary clarification → Bull’s ‘Anarchical Society’ = duality: no higher authority/world government BUT common rules + values exist → norms, diplomacy + law temper anarchy.

Multiple international societies: Greek world

Multiple international societies can exist. • Example → Greek world = international society dominated by Sparta + Athens. • Shared customs + religion + language. • Could differ culturally from Persians/Egyptians even when at points part of same wider international system. • Tradition → Grotian / rationalism.

World society: definition + focus shift

= takes individuals, non-state organizations + ultimately global population as a whole as focus of global identities + arrangements → transcendence of state system at centre of IR theory. • Focus shifts FROM states + their rights/obligations (international society) TO interests + rights of individuals, substate groups + global population as a whole → criteria for judging international actions.

World society: characteristics

• NOT state-centric. • Emphasis → human rights + environmental concerns + sustainable development + role of advocacy groups. • Kantian = refers to Kant’s concept of ‘world citizenship’ → revolutionist. • Reflects ideological perspective on IR → striving for an ideal + shaping vision of humanity/global issues.

Relationship between the three traditions/concepts

The 3 traditions can analyse both → thinkers on IR (philosophers, academics, international lawyers, historians, political scientists) + practitioners (politicians, diplomats, military leaders). • People can combine traditions rather than fit one pure category. • International society + its institutions are influenced by BOTH → international system + world society / ideas of what world society should be.

Stalin as example of combined traditions

• Committed Marxist → Kantian/revolutionist dimension → believed communism would ultimately bring happiness to all people. • Simultaneously power politician → Machiavellian dimension → pursued geopolitical interests + security of Soviet Union, incl. annexation of significant territories.

Primary international institutions

International society’s centre = international institutions. • Primary institutions = deeper patterns + principles we have internalized → guide actions of states. • Bull: 5 primary institutions → (1) diplomacy; (2) war; (3) international law; (4) great power management; (5) balance of power. • Basic rules → limiting violence: war + great power management + BOP; ensuring agreements/contracts: diplomacy + international law. • = fundamental patterns guiding state actions.

Secondary institutions

Secondary institutions = international organizations → concrete expressions of primary institutions. • Examples → UN Security Council = application of great power management; US-Soviet nuclear arms-control treaties/regime = application of general BOP principle.

International institutions: normative + social constructs

Important distinction from realism. • Realism → great powers = states with large military + economic capabilities. • English School → great powers = powerful states BUT ALSO status quo/status group + inner group of mutually recognized peers who respect one another. • Distinct role/duty → keep order in international society → define rules + maintain BOP.

Buzan: additional primary institutions + changing institutions

If state = central actor + highest entity in international society → Buzan adds primary institutions: self-determination + territorial integrity. • Content/meaning of institutions can change → colonialism disappeared as accepted institution; new institutions emerge. • Widely shared values today → self-determination + nationalism; economic stewardship; individual equality; market economy; development.

How international system + world society affect institutions

International institutions / international society influenced by: • International system → power ambitions of individual states can challenge/weaken norms; e.g. territorial annexation by a great power weakens territorial-integrity norm (Ukraine). • World society → values/norms existing within states shape international behaviour; e.g. emphasis on democracy.

Classical 3-traditions model: subtypes + border zones

Diagram/overview → Hobbesianism/Machiavellianism (Realism) [International System]; Grotianism (Rationalism) [International Society]; Kantianism (Revolutionism) [World Society]. • Subtypes from the figure/NL transcription → Realism: security-seeking/defensive ↔ power-maximising/imperial. • Grotianism: conservative/pluralist ↔ progressive/solidarist. • Kantianism: messianic universalist ↔ evolutionary. • Titles in [ ] = analytical focus; border-zone labels = where traditions blend.

Pluralism vs solidarism: central debate

Question → to what extent is there a unified international society OR global society today? To what extent are institutions universally accepted? • E.g. are individual human rights / territorial integrity universally acknowledged? • English School → major contrast between pluralists + solidarists.

Pluralism

= emphasis on state sovereignty + differences between states. • If thinking only in terms of international system → pluralist. • If emphasizing international society → can be pluralist OR solidarist. • Bull = pluralist → international society is fragile + only minimal number of shared values/institutions. • Order requires preserving rights of states to maintain own systems of government + societal preferences.

Solidarism

= there is solidarity between states. • Example → one state aids another attacked by a third. • Belief that humanity is evolving toward world society with shared values transcending states → by definition solidarist. • Driven by human rights + joint management of environmental/developmental issues. • ≠ pacifism.

Solidarism ≠ pacifism: examples + open question

• Revolutionary theories such as Marxism → conflict labour vs capital seen as inevitable → violence can be justified. • Neoconservatives → promoted US intervention in Iraq to spread democracy worldwide. • Open question → are we evolving toward robust international/world society OR toward distinct regional societies?

State: definition

States = sovereign political entities → no authority above them; exercise full control within clearly defined territory; recognized as such by other states.

Traditional narrative of state-system origins

Traditional narrative → modern state model originated in Europe with Peace of Westphalia (1648) → spread globally during 19th century + especially after decolonization in 2nd half of 20th century. • English School → this portrayal is overly simplistic.

Medieval Europe before Westphalia

• Western European structures = much more hierarchical. • Pope + Holy Roman Emperor = supreme authorities → beneath them complex web of overlapping territorial claims + political legitimacy. • Orthodox world (Byzantine, Russia, Balkans) existed outside this dual hierarchical structure.

Peace of Westphalia: English School nuance

After Thirty Years’ War → Peace of Westphalia introduced religious pluralism (Protestant + Catholic) among German states → step toward state sovereignty. • BUT modern state system remained embryonic → Holy Roman Emperor retained authority + large Western European kingdoms were excluded from agreements.

Congress of Vienna (1815)

= end of Napoleonic Wars → more truly established European international society where survival of each state was guaranteed. • Based on BOP + codified rules of international law + diplomacy. • BUT state independence not always respected → e.g. German unification sometimes against will of smaller German states.

19th-century European international society + hierarchy

European state system evolved gradually over centuries → far from uniform; democracy/human rights not universally embraced. • International society largely limited to Europe. • Non-European civilizations labelled ‘barbarians’. • Bottom of 19th-century Western hierarchy → ‘savages’ in parts of Africa/Americas → Europeans felt free to dominate. • European state society functioned as imperialist society. • Buzan → colonialism = foundational institution of international society at that time.

Global spread of European state model

European state model spread globally. • Japan + China more or less forced to use European model. • Joined with Latin American states in League of Nations. • Major breakthrough → decolonization. • Further spread/change → dissolution of Soviet Union. • Deep impact on today’s international society undeniable.

Colonialism: change + legacy

Rejection of colonialism—often after fierce independence struggles—shows international institutions can change/disappear → under influence of revolutionary anticolonial movements in colonized territories. • BUT colonial legacy persists → neocolonialist tendencies in Global North–South relations.

Bull: critique of Eurocentric origin story

Bull → absurd to think Europeans taught ancient civilizations such as Persia/China the basics of international law, diplomacy or treaty-making. • Often reverse → European sailors encountered organized international societies based on mutual agreements + treaties. • Europeans frequently engaged Asian rulers/states commercially, militarily + diplomatically on equal footing.

European self-image, inequality + credibility

Buzan → European states often see themselves as champions of democracy + equality BUT political culture historically emphasized inequality → religion (Jews, Islam) + race (colonialism + intra-European inequality). • These attitudes shaped international behaviour + values promoted globally → undermine credibility of contemporary European discourse on human rights/equality/democracy. • Shows how society’s self-image influences international society.

Multicultural international society / deep pluralism

Today’s multicultural international society → not everyone values democracy equally → inevitably pluralistic context. • Material + cultural dominance of West = over/declining. • China, India + Islamic world reclaim cultural status. • Shift → more fragmented + diverse global order; cultural/political/ideological differences more pronounced than shared values. • NL summary labels this → ‘deep pluralism’ / Global International Society.

Balance of power as primary institution: long tradition

BOP has long historical tradition. • Example → Dutch Republic + England opposed French attempt to place Louis XIV’s grandson on Spanish throne → France would become too powerful → BOP had to be preserved. • Cold War → US + USSR sought nuclear balance, each striving to possess at least as many nuclear weapons of several types as the other.

Bull’s balance of power vs neorealism

Bull: BOP = stabilizing mechanism → prevents one power becoming overwhelmingly strong + disrupting international order. • Guarantees survival + status of great powers → great powers have duty to manage BOP. • ↔ deterministic neorealist claim → BOP = structural tendency / balanced reality. • English School → BOP = something that MUST BE (normative given) > something that simply IS (ontological given). • = deeply rooted norm/objective in society of states.

BOP — Answer 1: right of great powers/states to survive

Why pursue BOP? Answer 1 → great powers (and to lesser extent other states) have a right to survive. • Not right for one power to accumulate too much/all power → threatens sovereignty of others. • Oppose ‘universal monarchy’ → today: global empire/hegemony/unipolarity. • Several great powers balancing each other → guarantee independence of individual states. • Many wars historically justified by stopping a state becoming too powerful.

BOP in nuclear era + contemporary multipolarity discourse

• Nuclear era → direct war between great powers virtually impossible → indirect confrontations/proxy wars in Africa/Asia used to restore regional BOP. • Contemporary example → Russia seeks multipolar world as counterweight to perceived excessive US dominance.

BOP — Answer 2: stability + peace through cooperation

Answer 2 → BOP should be pursued because it promotes stability + peace in international society. • To achieve this → states cooperate ↔ wage war. • BOP = organized by mutual agreement. • Example → Soviet-American nuclear agreements setting ceilings → could stop dangerous arms race conducted in name of nuclear balance.

Critiques of BOP as peace mechanism

No consensus that balance = less war. • Counterargument → if 2 parties are evenly matched, risk of misjudging who is strongest ↑ → hegemonic/cyclical thinkers use this logic. • Liberals → BOP caused too much war → should be replaced by international organizations + international law.

Great powers: more than military/economic capabilities

Bull rejects idea of mere ‘civilian power’ based on economic + political power without appropriate military capacity. • BUT great powers > big military players → form a status group with specific rights + duties; see themselves as equals in distinct ‘club’ dominating/leading world affairs + providing order. • Example → UN Security Council: 5 great powers of 1945 have veto on major decisions.

Russia + great-power status

Russian foreign policy since 1990 strongly affected by status + self-identification as great power → quest for recognition; demand for co-decision-making authority in IR; desire to reconstruct own sphere of influence in former Soviet Union.

Great power management: mutual relations

Bull → management task A = manage mutual relations through 3 mechanisms: 1) maintain general/system-encompassing BOP; 2) avoid + control mutual crises; 3) prevent + limit war between great powers.

Great power management: leadership over other states

Bull → management task B = give leadership to other states through: 1) unilateral local dominance; 2) respect for each other’s spheres of influence; 3) common action via condominium / great-power concert. • These tasks = what great powers are expected/supposed to do > description of how they actually behave in every circumstance.

‘The great irresponsibles’ + post-Cold War change

Cold War → little common management of major global problems by US + USSR → Bull called them ‘the great irresponsibles’. • After Cold War → briefly more joint action, e.g. US + USSR acted together against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990–1991).

Great powers: inequality, order + justice

Bull admits great-power position creates inequality between states. • Intrinsic tension → rights/justice of states ↔ need for order/peace. • Independence/sovereignty of small states becomes limited.

War as an institution of international society

Why war as shared/common institution? → violence can be necessary to restore order or peace. • Example international society → state annexes territory → military action may restore order. • Example world society/solidarism → military means can stop large-scale human-rights violations = humanitarian intervention.

War + balance of power

War linked to BOP → historically war seen as legitimate method for restoring BOP; nowadays less accepted. • Declining interstate wars → war increasingly seen as practice to avoid / at least limit. • BUT many intrastate wars = civil wars.

War + international law: ius in bello

Because war is institutionalized → international rules govern conduct. • Ius in bello = law in wartime / humanitarian law. • Geneva Conventions ~ solidarist perspective + element of emerging world society. • Rules → distinction combatants vs noncombatants + civilian vs military targets; also applied in internal wars. • Reference point → protection rights of individuals > states.

ICC + emerging world society

International Criminal Court → individuals, not only states, can be judged for war crimes → strengthens development toward world society. • NL summary expands categories → war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide + aggression; implementation remains limited by state interests, membership + power politics.

Ius ad bellum: legitimate reasons for war

= legitimate reasons justifying resort to war. • Historically accepted reasons included territorial expansion, collecting state debts, national unification, colonial issues, etc. • Today UN Charter → 2 circumstances in which war is legitimate: (1) self-defence when attacked by another state; (2) UN Security Council decides military operation is needed to restore international peace / stop threat to peace.

Ius ad bellum + primary institutions

Current rules reflect 2 primary institutions of international society / Machiavellian tradition: • right of individual states to survive + sovereignty + territorial integrity (= primary institution according to Buzan); • UNSC decides whether threat to peace exists → great powers have veto right.

Responsibility to Protect + sovereignty tension

After Cold War → revival of military intervention to stop large-scale human-rights violations = Responsibility to Protect. • ↔ right of non-interference in internal affairs = basic part of state sovereignty + international society. • Solidarist interpretation → promotes emergence of world society → rights of individuals as well as states + universality of human rights.

Humanitarian intervention through the three traditions

NL summary/Bellamy framing of same debate → • Machiavellian: state primarily responsible for own citizens, not others. • Grotian: non-intervention + sovereignty protect smaller states; risk of abuse + cultural relativism; intervention possibly legitimate if UNSC decides. • Kantian: shared minimum rules of decent conduct → genocide/serious war crimes cannot simply be accepted.

Critiques of the English School: method + purpose

Critique → what does school aim to prove if it does not uncover universal laws explaining all IR/events? • Answer → approach = historiographical > causal models. • ≠ no interest in general patterns/systematic comparisons across historical periods/geographical regions.

Critiques: international system vs international society

Has a purely international system without international society ever existed? → probably not. • Maybe better to speak of several TYPES of international societies where rules are more/less based on power. • Historically not all international societies were based on anarchy + absence of higher regulatory authority.

Critiques: abstraction, order + change

• English School may apply abstract concepts too easily to complex realities (also issue in other IR schools). • Strong emphasis on order can resemble conservative/status-quo position → leaves little room for revolutionary change. • BUT theoretical change inside international society remains possible.

Critiques: Eurocentrism + globalization

• Eurocentrism. • Insufficient attention to consequences of globalization for international state system + possible changes in international institutions. • NL summary characterizes English School partly as refinement of classical realism because power + great powers still play leading roles.