B4-The English School – Flashcards

- According to Bull's classical definition, international society comes into being 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 common institutions." - English School theorists think that International Society started with the Peace of Westphalia with a few states and grew. - The first key element of International Society is mutual recognition, which indicates the presence of a social practice. Recognition is fundamental to this sort of identity relationship. If states recognize each other, than it's possible that they can become conscious of the certain common interest and values. - Once it's been established that a state is a rightful member of a particular community, you can start to understand the rules and norms within that community that constitute International Society. - This theory focuses on sovereign states. - Dunn suggests that they're not strictly the only members of the International Society, historical anomalies have always existed. Ex: the Catholic Church is a member of International Society.

- Hugo Grotius who is the intellectual lineage to the English School. - They talk a lot about the ways in which the English School is drawing off of people who thought about international law as binding and useful, even when there isn't a government that goes over international law. - The English School relies on Grotius' idea that Hedley Bull finds crucial - that there is an international society (a society between states) - Hedley Bull is one of the founders of the English School of IR. He suggested that Grotius' idea that there's a society between states merits paying attention. Ex: lots of ideas about what diplomacy should look like, how diplomats should treat each other, what appropriate gifts should be give, what the rules and laws should be around the embassies around the world. Bull suggests that all of these things demonstrate that there's a society among states, social norms, whether or not there's a government and formal legal norms and that international law is one of the many things that forms those social norms. - Bull argues that these ideas were crucial to establishing the Peace of Westphalia (credited with founding sovereign states), and why it was successful because it noticed that not only do states interact, they can interact with a set of rules and norms that they all understand, even when there's no government. It's not an international system that's anarchical (like realists would think) and it's not an international system which though anarchical can be tempered, like the liberals would think. Instead, it's an international society where states have social relationships on certain rules and norms. - Liberals draw from John Locke.

- The English School seems to be a middle ground theory between the orthodoxy of realisms and liberalisms and the more critical theories to be learned. AKA: unlike realism and liberalism, they make different assumptions about both how the international system works and how it would be best to study it. On the other hand, they maintain enough of the assumptions of realism and liberalism that they don't go as far away from those assumptions and some of the critical theories to be learned later. - There is a real difference between theorizing in the U.S. and outside of it, but that difference isn't all "English School." In fact, the English School is considered generally fairly closer to the U.S. in terms of theories than what goes on in places like Europe, Australia, outside of the U.S. - Key feature is an interest in international society. - Studying the social relationships between states, but still keeping states as primary actors in the international arena is unique to the English School. - One of the major criticisms of the English School, which is the idea of international society is all well and good, so long as there's no crisis. But when there's a crisis, then the society falls apart and so do the rules. - Founded and continued to build on in Britain and Tim Dunn says, something that's had its ups and downs, getting more attention sometimes than others an now it's getting more attention than it used to. Dunn makes the claim that is the dominant theory in Great Britain right now.

- Different than the realist or liberals suppose it to be. - When thinking of International Society in terms of the English School, it's important to understand that they have a clear understanding of how the international arena works; very different than traditional American theories. - The English School talks about International Society as something in between the idea that everybody's all the same and cosmopolitan and that we can work together and that the system is composed to discrete states that compete only and don't have social relationships.

- According to Hedley Bull's classical definition, international society comes into being when "a group of states, conscious of certain common internets and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules on their relations with one another sonf she in the working of common institutions." - In this definition, a # of English School theorists have traced the history of International Society as starting at the Peace of Westphalia, with a few states and growing. - The first key element of International Society is mutual recognition, which indicates the presence of a social practice. Recognition is fundamental to this identity relationship. If states recognize each other, than it's possible that they can become conscious of the certain common interests and values. - Once it's been established that a state is rightful member of a particular community, one can start to understand the rules and norms within that community that constitute International Society. - The primary players of this theory are sovereign states. - Time Dunne suggests that sovereign states are not strictly the only members of International Society, he says that historical anomalies have always existed. Ex: The Catholic Church or the U.N. are members of International Society. - The International Society is largely found on states and how these states relate socially. Think about diplomatic practices, treaty, and law interactions, how states help institutions run together. - It's important to think about International Society as a cooperative venture. - International Society is how states relate socially.

- Central place for natural law (where realists believe central place of human nature). Natural law is how people are entitled to social interactions and how they can make legal determinations without the existence of government. - Universality of international society. It's universal among the states that participate in it and are part of its society. The society, therefore, is inclusive. Though it has borders outside, whatever happens inside the society has the same rules and norms. - Individuals and non-state groups have a place in International Society, usually, but not always as members of states. - Solidarism in the enforcement of the rules (actual or potential solidarity in enforcement). AKA they see International Society as enforcing the rules. - The absence of international institutions of government (this is a "get-together" among states, rather than a formal affair) AKA this is talking about institutions that create world governance. Some institutions may be members of International Society, others may not. Instead, it's actually about social relationships outside of institutions. They can be rules and laws, but those rules and laws exist as interaction rules and laws, rather than as governing rules and laws.

- Two types: pluralist and solidarist. - They both see International Society as the informal social relationships between states, that means that anarchy is not always conflictual. - Hedley Bull's book, "The Anarchical Society," talked about social relationships with anarchy. Pluralists and solidarists disagree on the content of those social relationships. - Dunne tells us that there's really debates between these two ideas in the English School and these debates aren't yet solved. There are pros and cons of each of them, which are discussed on page 142. These pros and cons can be seen in the case study used in the chapter, on page 146 about different interpretations of human rights. - Think about: is there a society between states, but if you believe that there is a society between states, how do you believe that it functions and how do you believe that it ought to function?

- Framework geared to the liberty of states and maintaining order among them. - They suggest that states have social relationships, maintaining their individual liberty as primary and looking for order between them as they interact. - The rules are complied because paying attention to them is relatively cost-free to the states and the collective benefits are large (like the rules of the road). - Ex: the elaborate rules that have to do with ambassadorial and diplomatic privileges, which is what Dunne uses in the book. He says, "Acceptance that representatives of states are not subject to the laws of their host country is a principle that has received widespread compliance for many centuries. This is one instance where rules of coexistence have come to dominate state practice. So these provide a structure of coexistence build on mutual recognition of states as independent and legally equal members of society." - This pluralist order suggests that the liberty of states is the most important part of the way that states have social relationships. They can establish some practices that go together that actually then make interacting with other states significantly easier. On the other hand, pluralism asserts that states are entitled to equal rights regardless of their capabilities and internal arrangements. Ex: these principles of sovereign equality work in places like the U.N. Charter. - At the same time, they often come into conflict with values that some people have in the international arena. Ex that Dunne uses: "Many people think that humanitarian intervention is not only sometimes necessary, but a moral obligation." Because pluralists focus on the liberty of states, they suggest that it's not okay to violate a state's borders, even when that state is threatening the people inside of it. - Critics of pluralism suggest that it doesn't work out because it has boundaries that respect a state's sovereignty and the expense of a functional social relationship. The guiding thought of this criticism is captured in solidarism and that's the idea that the ties that bind individuals to the greater society of humankind are deeper than the pluralist rules and institutions that separate them and pay attention to the liberty of states.

- Framework geared towards rule enforcement and guarding human rights, because the purpose of a society is to protect its most marginalized citizens. - Solidarist International Society is an extension of International Society rather than its transformation, whereas world government would be its transformation. - It's defined like pluralism, by shared values holding and institutions holding together by legal rules. - But in terms of value, in solidarist International Society, individuals are entitled to basic rights. If individuals are entitled to basic rights, then they are entitled to having them enforced sometimes at the expense of the solidarity of states. - Then, though the international arena is between states, it ends up prioritizing non-state actors as well.

- The subject matter of IR ought not to be restricted to inter-state relations, but to the global political system as a whole. Particular emphasis needs to be placed on theory because our understanding of the world is mediated by concepts and values. AKA he thinks that people that look at the international relations between states are looking too narrowly and although international society is among states, it's important both to look at social relations among states and the different entities that then influences their social relations over the course of history and across cultures. - IR must be understood in historical depth. Knowing the USA has strategic superiority over its rivals is less significant than whether it is a status quo power of revisionist power. He uses Bull's example: It's insufficient simply to know the facts of the strategic superiority of the U.S. over its competitors. What's preferable is to understand how and why the U.S. regards itself as exceptional. Institutions of international society, such as law and balance of power, must also be understood in a historical context. It matters in the case study of the book, whether human rights are see by a child of the Enlightenment or whether they're believe to be a 20th century are interpretation of the Natural Rights Tradition. Those different historical understandings are vital to the diplomacy of human rights and the rationale for promoting rights beyond the borders. AKA understanding one way of working or the other is part of it, but understanding the history of how states got there is also important because until you understand the history, you don't know how that state socially interacts, how the social interaction among the states will influence it, and how certain social orders came to be. - There is no escape from values. They form the selection of topics to be researched and taught, and therefore they need to be upfront and subjected to critical scrutiny. No social order is valueless. Hadley Bull uses this argument and was targeting those who were obsessed with policy relevance. He believed that the pursuit of political influence was likely to significantly diminish the prospects of generating research that would be of interest to practitioners. AKA he was suggesting that once you start trying to pretend you're all objective about everything, then the values that we have become obvious in different ways because they still inform what we do. As a result, reacting to Tony Erskine's chapter, the English School suggests that IR is a normative enterprise. It's not that there is some theory with normative implications, which Tony Erskine also agrees that all of theory has normative implications. Instead, it's actually that theorizing is normative. Values are not simple a matter for individual researchers. They are at the heart of the discipline. What matters are the ideas the practitioners believed them and how they sought to implement them. So it's not only the values of the researcher, it's also the values of the practitioner and how they interact. IR is a normative expertise. Values are not simply a matter for individual researchers; they are the heart of this discipline. What matters are the ideas that practitioners believed in and how they sought to implement them. - The English School is different from the largely positivist approach in realist and liberal understandings and think that we can know objectively, have a political international relations and that can come to be policy relevant. That's why it was important for Dunn to distinguish these different features of what the English School tells us about IR but how it comes to that point.

True

In between traditional (realisms and alternative) and alternative (critical, post-structuralist) theories of IR.

The role of major states in the international arena.

There are no primary agents in the English School.

Buzan suggests that the article is in response to Ole Waever's criticism that the English School has largely stagnated despite the fact that it occupies an extremely interesting locale in the International Relations landscape.

- Does the English School matter in global politics? Why or why not? - What is "the anarchical society"? - How the the English School the same as realism or liberalism? How is it different?