ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER TEORİLERİ I - Deneme Sınavı - 14

to build more factories

Hidemi Suganami (1983) agreed with Jones on the existence of a distinct school and called it as “British institutionalist approach”. He identified five factors that united the authors of this approach: 1) aspiration to werthfreiheit (morally neutral analysis), 2) rejection of behaviourism or scientism, 3) reliance on sociological methods (institutional analysis), 4) unity and specificity of the statessystem (autonomy of IR), and 5) rejection of utopianism. Suganami however disagreed with Jones and considered the contribution of the School to be significant and consequently he did not call for a closure.

Peter Wilson (1989) replied to Grader and formidably argued for the existence of a distinct English School. He identified six characteristics of the School: 1) a perspective of the whole (holism), in other words, the view that international relations constitute a whole, 2) the idea of international society, the view that international relations can be conceptualized in terms of a society, 3) the existence of order within international relations unlike the prevalent conception of anarchy or disorder, 4) the institutional basis of international order
rather than mechanical or hegemonial/hegemonic imposition, 5) rejection of utopian schemes, and 6)rejection of behaviourism.

The term “English School” was first coined by Roy Jones in a 1981 article titled as “The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure”. Jones argued that a group of scholars, basically gathered at London School of Economics, could be taken as forming a distinct school of international relations and this school could be named as “English School”. Jones argued that the School did not make a significant contribution to the study of international relations and it was time to close it.

Hidemi Suganami (1983) agreed with Jones on the existence of a distinct school and called it as “British institutionalist approach”. Suganami however disagreed with Jones and considered the contribution of the School to be significant and consequently he did not call for a closure.

Sheila Grader (1988) directly took the issue with Jones’ article and disagreed with him on the existence of a distinct English School. She argued that the authors, whom Jones grouped within a school, could not be taken as forming a distinct and common school because each of those authors had his own views and opinions about the study of international relations. The unifying elements listed by Jones were too general and vague so as to consider those authors as part of a distinct school. Even if the said authors shared those elements, they had their own interpretations rather than a common understanding.

Peter Wilson (1989) replied to Grader and formidably argued for the existence of a distinct English School. He identified six characteristics of the School:  One of them is  a perspective of the whole (holism), in other words, the view that international relations constitute a whole.

Yurdusev (1996) argued for the existence of a distinct school and outlined basic premises as follows: 1) concern for history, historical explanation and classical works, 2) international relations being an orderly realm, 3) the view of the whole, 4) the adherence to a via media (middle way) approach, in other words, precaution and refrain from the extremes 5) the significance of and emphasis upon cultural/ civilizational factors in international relations, 6) the volitional/voluntaristic conceptualization of international society/system against mechanical/ structural conception, 7) a broad historical perspective and the use of historical parallels to current problems (rejection of presentism), and 8) avoidance of scientific jargon.

Tim Dunne (1998) argued that we need to take into account three preliminary articles in order to define the English School: 1) self-identification with a particular tradition of enquiry, meaning that if we are to speak for the existence of a distinct English School, there must be a collective self-identification among the members of the said school, 2) an interpretive approach, and 3) international theory as a normative theory rather than a positivist and explanatory theory. As the subtitle of his work, i.e., “a history of the English School”, showed; Dunne had no doubt about the existence and significance of the School, so that, it was time to write its history.

The British Committee worked in the way that members prepared and distributed draft papers among themselves and then they discussed them over a week. The first publication of the Committee came out in 1966, titled Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, edited by Butterfield and Wight. In addition to Butterfield and Wight, the book included contributions by other members of the Committee such as Bull, Howard and MacKinnon. The penultimate work that came out of the working of the Committee was published in 1984, titled The Expansion of International Society, edited by Bull and Watson. In-between, we see various works, either collective or individually authored, by members of the Committee or authors inspired by the works of the Committee.

The Committee was composed of scholars coming from different disciplines, not just those coming from the discipline of IR. It included different historians, economist, philosopher and people from the practice. Here we see that for the Committee study of international relations required the insights from politics, economics, history, and philosophy. Secondly, as the Committee included people from the practice (diplomat and expert of Treasury), not just the theorists, it is again fair to say that, from the very beginning, English School argued for the unity of the theory and practice.

Although the British Committee was founded by an initial American funding, it has been a prevalent view in the literature of IR that the English School was somewhat posed against the dominance of American approaches to the study of international relations, especially American Social Science approaches, i.e. the Behaviouralist School, arguing that international relations can be studied with the use of the methods and techniques of the basic sciences. In the 1950s, there were two dominant schools for the study of international relations within the United States, namely Realism and Behaviouralism. In the Preface to Diplomatic Investigations, the seminal work of the British Committee, the editors starkly expressed their differences from the American colleagues.

The first and basic argument of the School is ontological and epistemological pluralism. The English School argues that the reality of IR, i.e. the practice of international relations, cannot be confined, or reduced, to a single element; it is always multi-dimensional. In other words, the reality of international relations is composed of ontologically plural phenomena. This idea of ontological pluralism is expressed in the description of international reality as comprising the elements of international system, international society and world society.

The IMF

Baidu

They create job opportunities for many people.

crisis

The illicit market

Hidemi Suganami (1983) agreed with Jones on the existence of a distinct school and called it as “British institutionalist approach”.

Indeed, several authors consciously associated with each other and identified themselves as members of the English School from the first generation scholars of the 1950s to 1970s such as Herbert Butterfield, Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, Michael Donelan, Roy J. Vincent; to the second generation scholars emerging with the 1990s onwards such as Barry Buzan, Tim Dunne, Peter Wilson, Hidemi Suganami, Nicholas Wheeler and Robert Jackson, to name but a few.