The English School’s Contribution to the study of International Relations - Richard Little

The English School’s Contribution to the study ofInternational Relations

By Richard Li�le (University of Bristol)

The aim of this paper is to explore the parameters of the English school’s approach to thestudy of international relations (IR). What emerges from this exploration is that the contributionthat has been made by the English school is much more eclectic and comprehensive than issometimes acknowledged. It has become part of conventional wisdom within IR that the Englishschool sees itself providing a via media that runs between two more polarised positions. Members ofthe English school have labelled supporters of the via media in various different ways: as rationalists,Grotians, and proponents of an international society. And without doubt each of these terms isconsidered by the English school to identify a particular point of view that lies between twoextremes. Rationalists can observe realists and revolutionists on either side of them; Grotians seethemselves separating Hobbesians from Kantians; and proponents of international society considerthemselves to be occupying the middle ground that keeps theorists who focus on the internationalsystem apart from theorists who are concerned with the creation of world society. But despite thepervasive image of the English school si�ing securely at the centre of the discipline, recentproponents have argued that the methodological and ontological orientation of the school will needto be further refined if it is to be rescued from a somewhat marginal position within thediscipline.[1] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn1) In particular, proponents ofthe English school argue that its profound anti-positivism and its rejection of realism needs to bebrought to the fore.[2] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn2) However, thisassessment of the English school can be challenged. Although members of the English school haveseen it as one of their central tasks to create the conceptual space needed to examine internationalsociety, it will be argued here that this is only one feature of a much broader and more pluralagenda.

Critics, moreover, are not predisposed to accept that the emphasis reputedly placed on thevia media by members of the English school gives them the right to occupy the centre stage of thediscipline. Viewed from a less sympathetic perspective, the English school can look like perfidiousAlbion, the balancer, ever willing to shi; ground in order to be on the winning side in any argument.Like the popular stereotype of its eponymous namesake, there might seem to be something rathertwo-faced, duplicitous, and lacking in integrity, about the English school.[3](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn3) Unsurprisingly, advocates offer a muchmore benign interpretation of the conceptual space that the English school has endeavoured tocarve out for themselves. Acknowledging that the English school is Janus-faced, it is seen to becapable of looking in two different directions at the same time. This skill thereby allows the school toact as an interlocutor between opposing positions that otherwise lack the ability to communicateeffectively with each other. So the English school, it is argued, sees itself playing a crucial role in thepromotion of an essential conversation that ought to be taking place about the nature of

About these ads (h�p://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/)

The English School’s Contribution to the study of International Relations | http://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/the-english-school’s-c...

1 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

international relations.

From the perspective of their critics, however, members of the English school are in noposition to act as effective interlocutors because they are seen to lack a coherent or consistent pointof view. On the contrary, like the cuckoo, they are o;en seen to nest within and then commandeerwell defended sites that have been built by other theorists. Or like the magpie, they are seen topurloin ideas from other theorists and then exploit them for their own advantage. For example,although they seek to distinguish themselves from realists, there is no doubt that members of theEnglish school frequently cloak themselves in ideas derived from realism. And by the same token,although they fail to identify themselves as cosmopolitans, it is equally apparent that they o;en takeadvantage of cosmopolitan thought. Various explanations have been offered to account for theapparent lack of any consensus among the members of this putative school of thought. First, it hasbeen suggested that key members of the English school, such as Bull and Wight, shi;ed ground overthe course of their careers, moving from an essentially realist perspective to one that had at leastsome things in common with the revolutionists. Second, it has been argued that because themembers of the English school are so highly a�uned to how diplomats and statesmen view theworld, the schoolís emphasis on realism during the early stages of the Cold War when the schoolwas being established, is simply a reflection of the fact that state officials were, perhapsinsurprisingly, pulled towards a more realist perspective at that historical juncture. Third, it has alsobeen argued that members of the English school have never adhered to a common perspective andso any a�empt to link them together within a single tradition of thought inevitably results in a set ofinconsistent and incoherent ideas. Fourth, it is suggested that the school has gone through at leastfour phases and its orientation has shi;ed to some extent in the process.

In this paper I want to suggest that arguments of this kind, in conjunction with the a�empt totie the English school down to an anti-positivist and anti-realist orientation, inhibit the need torecognise that the founding fathers of the English school were drawn to a pluralistic methodologythat aims to find ways of linking apparently disparate bodies of knowledge and understanding.There has, for example, been a persistent but nevertheless erroneous tendency to treat Wightísthree traditions of international theory as competing perspectives on the world. It follows that thesetraditions can then be set against each other with the theorists from each tradition being viewed asmaking incommensurable claims. But this is certainly not how Wight regarded his three traditions ofthought. On the contrary, he linked them to ëthree interrelated political conditions which comprisethe subject ma�er of what is called international relationsí.[4] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn4) As he saw it, advocates of the three traditions tended to focus on one of theseconditions at the expense of the others. Realists are seen to focus on the political condition ofanarchy because they consider it to be an enduring and unchanging feature of internationalrelations. Rationalists are seen to focus on diplomacy and commerce because they consider thatcontinuous and organized intercourse can ameliorate the effects of anarchy. Revolutionists are seento focus on the way that the multiplicity of sovereign states forms a moral and cultural whole thatcan transcend the effects of anarchy.[5] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn5)

It is an oversimplification to suggest, therefore, that the English school is synonymous withthe study of international society. Certainly the English school has acknowledged the importance ofrationalist ideas but this is not to the exclusion of realist and revolutionist ideas. From an Englishschool perspective, a comprehensive understanding of international relations must embrace allthree traditions. Focusing on rationalist ideas at the expense of the other two traditions of thoughtwill necessarily result in an incomplete picture. By the same token, it will be argued that it is amistake to assume that the schoolís members are resolutely opposed to a positivist methodology. Acomprehensive assessment of the work presented by members of the English school makes it clearthat they rely on interpretivist, positivist and critical assumptions.[6]


2 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

(h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn6) But although members of the Englishschool have been relatively explicit about their their pluralistic orientation, they have certainly notdiscussed it in any detail or examined all of the consequences of following such a route. Bya�empting to map out the implications of adopting a pluralistic approach to international relations,it becomes apparent that there are substantial lacunae in the extant work of the English school. Iconclude, therefore, by arguing there that the contemporary research strategy of the English schoolshould be to aim at filling the gaping gaps in the original research programme rather thana�empting to promote a more tightly defined approach, albeit one that is very distinctive, to thestudy of international relations.

Methodological Pluralism: For and Against

Although the English school has become ever more closely associated with the idea ofinternational society, its link with Wightís ëthree rsí – realists, rationalists and revolutionists – alsopersists as a defining feature. But in order to justify the claim that it is the association withinternational society that renders the English school distinctive, there is an accompanying tendencyto assume that the English school necessarily privileges the rationalists at the expense of the othertwo perspectives. At the same time there is also seen to be a link, perhaps even a necessary link,between the study of international society and an interpretivist methodology[7](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn7) which has only recently started to bespelled out.[8] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn8) The nature of the link willbe examined in a later section; the aim here is to scrutinise more closely the criticisms that havebeen levelled at the ëthree rsí triptych drawn first by Wight and then later embelleshed by Bull[9](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn9) and which putatively offers such radicallydifferent approaches to the study of international relations. Once these criticisisms are highlighted,however, it immediately becomes necessary to widen the discussion and explore the persistenttension within the discipline between the drive for methodological and ontological monism and thedesire to embrace methodological and ontological pluralism.

The most rigorous criticisms of the English schoolís triptych have been levelled by anemerging group of thinkers who intend to reintegrate IR and political theory. The fundamentalweakness of the English school is seen to arise from the a�empt to generate an independentdiscipline of international relations. In the process, an a�empt has been made to see what theoristshave said in the past about international relations; several dire consequences are seen by the criticsto have followed from this procedure. First, they argue, the English school has come to theerroneous conclusion that political philosophers have had li�le of significance to say aboutinternational relations.[10] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn10) They haveonly been able to reach this conclusion, it is insisted, because they have detached what keyphilosophers have had to say about international relations from the original context. It is arguedthat philosophers such as Rousseau and Kant did not tack on to their political philosophy a fewparagraphs about international relations that can be detached, readily and meaningfully, from theircomplex and profound ideas on political philosophy. The sections on international relations can onlybe properly understood when examined in the context of the overall conception of a philosopherspolitical thought. By the same token, it is also argued that political theorists have all too o;en madethe reverse but equally egregious mistake of failing to embrace the international dimension ofpolitical thought.[11] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn11). A second failinga�ributed to the English school is that when scavenging through what has been wri�en in the pastabout international relations, ostensibly in the name of theory, they have failed to ëdifferentiate


3 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

genuinely philosophical contributions from the merely polemicalí.[12](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn12) Given these two failings, it is seen to beunsurprising, although unquestionably incorrect, to reach such gloomy conclusions about thequality of IR theory.

Alongside the a�empts to reintegrate political and international relations theory, it has alsobeen observed that IR has undergone a forty year ëbizarre detourí[13](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn13) during which the discipline hassystematically sought to separate facts from values, with the result that normative thinking aboutinternational relations has been consistently eschewed. The English school does not escape fromthis criticism because it is argued that its members have displayed a bias towards ëobjectiveexplanationí as the result of giving epistemological priority to the facts.[14](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn14) On the face of it, this criticism wouldappear to be justified. Certainly Wight acknowledges that whereas political philosophers havedevoted a good deal of their time endeavouring to theorise about ëthe good lifeí, there is li�le scopefor such theorising in the field of international relations because international theory is, necessarily,ëthe theory of survivalí.[15] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn15) Thisdistinction, however, is increasingly seen to provide a perfect illustration of the fallacy of the falsedichotomy. Boucher insists that this division between progressive political theory andnon-progressive international theory is highly contentious, while Brown insists that the divisionresults in an ëundertheorised and limited conception of international relationsí and he insists thatinternational relations theory has to be contained within a more all-embracing project of social andpolitical theory.[16] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn16)

At this juncture, however, advocates of normative political theory start to part company fromeach other. Although they agree that it would be a mistake to follow the route mapped out by theEnglish school because its tripych does no more that present divergent pictures of internationalrelations, there is no agreement on how theorists should be characterised once the reintegration ofpolitical and international theory has been realised. Perhaps the most influential contender is thedivision highlighted most effectively by Brown and Thompson between communitarians andcosmopolitants.[17] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn17) Communitarianstake it for granted that the rights and duties of individuals are grounded in historically constructedcommunities, whereas the cosmopolitans posit the existence of a world community made up ofindividuals who, although represented through states, are subject to a common conception ofmorality. These two perspectives generate radically different assessments about how to approach awide range of international problems from humanitarian intervention to the treatment of refugees.

Boucher argues, however, that despite the popularity of the divide betweencommunitarianism and cosmopolitanism, it does not overcome the difficulty that he associates withthe English school insistence on seeing its tripych of traditions as forming ëmutually exclusive andautonomous categoriesí. Boucher goes on to suggest that there is an inadequate a�empt to explaineither how the categories are related to each other or how the theorists that are placed within eachcategory are related to each other. As a consequence, the traditions are ëli�le more thanclassificatory categories into which thinkers are forced irrespective of the embarrassing elementswhich appear to be ill at ease in their putative homesí.[18] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn18) Boucher insists, however, that his solution to this problem is not to generateyet another classificatory scheme. Instead, he identifies three styles of thinking that highlightparticular sets of criteria that are invoked to ëguide, justify and recommend state actioní[19](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn19) These styles of thinking are seen to havegenerated three traditions of thought that are linked in a dialectical relationship. The tradition ofempirical realism focuses on the way that human desires inevitably give rise to conflicts of interest


4 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

which need to be handled by rules of prudence and not moral imperatives. The second traditionallies justice with virtue and identifies the existence of ethical principles that are universallyapplicable. The final tradition, identified by Boucher as historical reason, is seen to provide apossible synthesis to the other two antithetical ways of thinking. This third mode of thinkingrecognises that morality is an historically emerging phenomenon and that what we observe today isa thick conception of particularistic morality that is embedded in the day to day practices of allsocieties operating alongside a very thin conception of universal morality that extends across atransnational global community of individuals. This historical mode of thinking, however, it can beargued, is itself a product of history. We now live in an era where, as Warnock puts it, ëwe cannotbut think historicallyí and this has profound consequences for the way that we think aboutmorality.[20] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn20) Boucher traces his thirdtradition back to Rousseau where this mode of historical reasoning is seen to outweigh Rousseauíswell documented realist proclivities.[21] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn21)

Boucher associates his approach with the idea of methodological pluralism which is premisedon the assumption that these are not independent traditions of thought, but that they co-exist andthat there is an inevitable tension amongst the competing ways of thinking about moralquestions[22] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn22). Theorists, therefore,cannot take their positions for granted, but must constantly endeavour to defend their ideas againstthe arguments advanced by their competitors. Boucher, however, also insists that this is not anunchanging game with new theorists constantly chasing each other around the same old theoreticalmulberry bushes. The ideas that are examined within the three traditions of thought are seen toundergo considerable changes, in contrast, according to Boucher, to the approach adopted bymembers of the English school whose traditions of thought are seen to identify three divergent setsof ideas ëthat recur with very li�le variation in different contexts, like coins that change hands, andwhose value is li�le affected by inflationí.[23] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn23) Somewhat inconsistently, however, reference is also made Wightís ëcurious propensitycontinuously to add subcategories to the traditions like species to a genusí.[24](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn24) Moreover, although Boucher fails torecognise this fact, it can also be argued that members of the English school are also drawn to hisconception of methodological pluralism. As noted above, Wight classifies theorists reacting in one ofthree ways to anarchy. Wight may be less explicit than Boucher about his methodological pluralism,but without doubt he acknowledges that his three traditions co-exist in ëmutual tension andconflictí with each other.[25] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn25) Moreover,he also refuted the idea that the traditions formed ërailroad tracks running parallel to infinityí.Instead, he recognised that although theorists tend to concentrate on one of the three politicalconditions at the expense of the others, because the conditions are interrelated, there are inevitableëcross-currentsí that pull the divergent streams of ideas together.[26](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn26) But perhaps even more significantly,Linklater endeavours to demonstrate that the English schoolís triptych of realism, rationalism, andrevolutionism exist in a dialectical relationship with each other, anticipating Boucherís argument, ifnot his categories.[27] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn27)

But Linklater pushes the idea of methodological pluralism much further than Boucherbecause, as noted earlier, he links the triptych of realism, rationalism and revolutionism with threedivergent methodologies: positivism, hermeneutics and critical theory. Moreover, he also placesthese methodologies in a dialectical relationship with each other, arguing that critical theorysynthesises the antithesis that exists between positivism and hermeneutics. Although very neat andtidy, it is far from clear that this resolution is one that accords with the intentions of the founders ofthe English school. It fails to accommodate the ontological pluralism observed in the distinctionsdrawn between the anarchic international system, the rule-governed international society and and


5 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

the transnational world society. These features of international relations are seen to co-exist and arenot considered to exist in a dialectical relationship with each other. None of the elements are givenontological priority. It is assumed that they are operating within a single complex reality. Theoverarching methodological injunction which underlies this approach is that, as Bull puts it, theanalyst must not ëreifyí any of these elements.[28] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn28) Although a�ention may be focused on only one of these elements, it must never beforgo�en that this element is lodged in the context of the other two. It is insisted by Bull that ëit isalways erroneous to interpret events as if international society were the sole or dominantelementí.[29] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn29) The point is reinforced byWatson, who argues that the distinctions are useful not because they have the effect of allowing theëcomplex reality of international relations to be simplified into this category or that but because itallows that reality to be illuminated by considering it from a particular point of viewí.[30](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn30)

But the significance of this position has not always been recognised. Hoffmann observes, forexample, that ëit is impossible now to separate as rigorously as Bull did the ëtransnationalí from theëinternationalí elements of world politicsí.[31] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn31) In making this claim, Hoffmann seems to be arguing that there has been an ontologicalshi; in the world that makes it impossible to establish methodological divisions of labour. Hoffmannis certainly not alone in adopting this position. Falk, for example, insists that neorealism offered aëreductive, totalising focus on the power relations among sovereign statesí that could do no morethan provide ëa geopolitical snapshot of the Cold War periodí. He goes on to argue that even thisërestricted imageí results in a misinterpretation of recent world history because it makes theëpresent preoccupation with the dynamics of the world economy seem overly discontinuous withthe pastí.[32] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn32) Like Hoffmann, Falk isdismissing the idea that it is possible to adopt a pluralist position that legitimises an ontologicaldivision of labour. Falk could, of course, argue that in contrast to Bull, the neorealists do appear toassume that it is necessary to give ontological priority to their conception of the internationalpolitical system. To the extent that this is true, then they are adopting a position of methodologicaland ontological monism.[33] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn33) But it isclear that Bull does not adopt this position, although he does li�le to spell out the nature andimplications of his methodological and ontological position.[34](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn34)

An a�empt will be made in the remainder of this paper to explore the methodological andontological implications underlying the work of the English school. These implications have notbeen extensively explored because the English school has come to be so closely associated with theidea of international society. In focusing on this feature of the English school the methodologicaland ontological significance of their tripych of images has been overlooked. The move being madehere can, perhaps, be seen as a counterpart to the one made by Waever when he demonstrates thatthe conception of the international society formulated by the English school can be expandedthrough an engagement with the work of rational institutionalists, constructivists, andpost-structuralists. The engagement reveals that it is possible and necessary to identify four separatelayers to any international society.[35] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn35) Waever then articulates the possibilities and dangers of opening up the English school to atransatlantic dialogue in the interests of developing this richer and more complex conception ofinternational society. Here, the aim is more modest and takes the form of a ground-clearing exercise.By exploring the methodological and ontological implications associated with each of the images inthe English schoolís triptych the paper a�empts to map out the parameters of the English schoolíscontribution to the study of international relations.


6 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Positivism, realism and the international system

It may appear perverse, at first sight, to suggest that the English school actively entertains theidea of positivism. A;er all, Bullís philippic against a ëscientificí approach to the study ofinternational relations is generally considered to epitomise the a�itude of the English school to anyapproach tainted by positivism[36] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn36). Butthis aversion to ëpositivismí only holds true if the term is equated with natural science. From theperspective of the English school, there is no doubt that treating social systems as natural systems oroverlooking the unique characteristics of human beings are errors of the highest order. Butpositivism does not have to be tied to a dehumanised or naturalised approach to social reality.Ashley, for example, associates positivism with any method that opens up the possibility ofanalysing the recurrent and repetitious pa�erns that occur in international relations.[37](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn37) Although the English school wereundoubtedly opposed to any a�empt to give the study of international relations a natural sciencetwist, they were certainly not averse to looking for pa�erns in history. In one of Wightís most widelycited quotations, he observes that international politics is the ërealm of recurrence and repetition; itis the field in which political action is most regularly necessitousí[38](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn38) There might appear to be a certain ironyhere for post-positivists[39] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn39) when it isnoted how closely this quotation mirrors what Waltz, o;en depicted as an arch positivist, has to sayabout international politics, because he similarly asserts that the ëtexture of international politicsremains highly constant, pa�erns recur and events repeat themselves endlesslyí[40](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn40).

Advocates of the English school are prone to find this textual link unse�ling. Dunne arguesthat the quotation and the essay as a whole needs to be seen in a broader context. When this isdone, it becomes apparent that Bu�erfield and Wight were both wanting to establish ëa normativetheoretical agendaí which took account of the tension between considerations of order andjustice.[41] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn41) Epp insists that Wight onlyused the phrase ërecurrence and repetitioní once in his published work and that when the phrase isexamined in the context of his total opus, it becomes clear that his main concern is with contingencyand freedom. He insists, therefore, that there can be no possible link with the structural realismmost closely associated with Waltz that has ërendered history a null set and that projects a futureinevitably like the presentí.[42] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn42) But thesetwo analysts, however, are intent on directing the English school down the via media. In doing so,they fail to acknowledge that the founding members of the English school seem to have conceivedof international relations in much more pluralistic terms than this preoccupation with the middleway permits. Focusing on the via media draws the boundaries of the English school much toonarrowly.

Because the members of the English school have all tended to be methodologicallyunselfconscious, there has never been any formal a�empt to link their interest in historical pa�ernsto their interest in the international system. Indeed, the role of the international system in theirthinking has taken a number of different forms. From one perspective, it has been associated withan historical stage that arises before the emergence of an international society.[43](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn43) But from another perspective, it can beviewed as a counter-factual condition to explore what international relations would be like in theabsence of an international society.[44] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn44)


7 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Both Bull and Watson, however, also conceptualised the international system as a dimension orëlayerí, to use Waeverís terminology, of a complex international reality. And Watson insists that thedistinction between an international system and an international society is ëseminalí for anunderstanding of international relations.[45] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn45)

The international system is identified by the condition where ëstates are in regular contactwith each other and where in addition there is interaction between them, sufficient to make thebehaviour of each a necessary element in the calculation of the otherí.[46](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn46) Bull is well aware that realists haverelied on this formulation to generate a conception of an ëautomatic tendencyí for a balance ofpower to emerge in the international system, on the assumption that all states ëseek to maximisetheir relative power positioní.[47] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn47) ButBull is quite clear that there can be no ëinevitable tendency for a balance of power to ariseí becausestates do not alway seek to maximise their relative power position, o;en preferring to devote theirresources and energies to other ends.[48] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn48) As a consequence, he formulates the idea of a ëfortuitousí balance of power that canemerge without ëany conscious effortí on the part of any of the members of the system.[49](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn49) This outcome is seen to be most likely ina situation where two dominant states are both striving to achieve hegemony within aninternational system. Because the outcome is seen to be independent of the objectives beingpursued by the states, it is viewed as a product of the system. As Watson puts it, systemic pressuresëact mechanically in the sense that they act outside of the will of the community concernedí.[50](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn50)

Despite Eppís reservations, it has to be acknowledged that this conception of theinternational system bears an uncanny resemblance to the one formulated by Waltz, albeitdeveloped in a much less systematic form. It is, therefore, less surprising than it might otherwise beto find Bull identifying Waltzís Theory of International Politics as ëan important bookí that providesthe ëfirst, rigorously ìsystematicî account of international politicsí. [51](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn51) In place of Watsonís ëmechanisticí andBullís ëfortuitousí balance of power, Waltz identifies the balance of power as an ëunintendedoutcomeí of a system made up of states which, in theory, will be striving to survive. He fortifies histheory by drawing a powerful metaphor between the balance of power as an unintended systemicoutcome of states in an anarchic system striving to survive and the equilibrium price that forms in amarket made up of states striving to maximise their profits.[52](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn52) The systemic approaches adopted byWaltz and the English school, therefore, are similar but certainly not identical. Waltz argues that thesurvival instinct of states has ensured that the balance of power has been an enduring feature of theinternational system and that it accounts for the continuous reproduction of the anarchic system aswell as the familiar ëtextureí of international politics. For the English school, the mechanisticbalance of power is an episodic and ëfortuitousí feature of the international system.

Differentiating between the conceptions of the international system advanced by Waltz andthe English school has important consequences. Bull insists, for example, that ëthe abstract logic ofthe systemí advanced by Waltz leads to conclusions that are ëat loggerheads with common senseí.For instance, it suggested, quite erroneously in Bullís view that the international system was stilldominated by the superpowers and, equally absurd, that this outcome was in the best interests of usall.. Bull argued, however, not that Waltzís formulation should be discarded, but that it should berecognised that, on its own, it was ëquite inadequateí.[53] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn53) From Bullís perspective, it is not possible to make sense of international


8 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

relations without bringing international society and world society into play. When he embracesinternational society, however, the balance of power is identified as one of the crucial institutionsthat ensure that order is preserved. But to establish the balance of power as an internationalinstitution, he has move beyond his conception of a ëfortuitousí balance. And, indeed, Bull doesdraw a clear distinction between a fortuitous and what he refers to as a contrived balance of power.The la�er emerges when states are conscious of the need to counteract the actions of other states inorder to maintain a balance.[54] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn54) But indrawing this distinction, it must be questioned whether or not Bull has over-specified how hedefines the international system. As it stands, his definition presupposes that in addition tointeracting, the behaviour of each state becomes a necessary element in the calculation of the other. But such a stiplulation would seem to generate a contrived balance of power whereas simpleinteraction can generate no more than a fortuitous or unintended balance. In wanting to identifythe balance of power as an international institution, therefore, Bull problematises the distinction hedraws between an international system and an international society in a way that Waltz manages toavoid.

But despite generating this problem (which we will return to in the next section) the realstrength of Bullís conception of the international system is that the balance of power is not seen tobe a defining feature of the system. States, it is presupposed, o;en fail to generate a balance ofpower and, as a consequence, Bull manages to escapeWaltzís presumption that the inevitable albeitunintended production of a balance of power simultaneously ensures that the anarchic structure ofthe international system is continuously reproduced. Escaping this presumption has proved to beimportant because when Watson came to examine international systems from a world historicalperspective, he reached the uneqivocal conclusion that polarised international systems have neverbeen the norm for most of world history.[55] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn55) Instead, challenging Waltzís bifurcation of political systems into anarchies andhierarchies, he insists that history reveals that there always is a pull towards hegemony in anyanarchic system of independent states and a pull towards autonomy amongst the units that formany empire. From this persepective, then, mechanisms for reproducing anarchy and hierarchy havehistorically always been very underdeveloped, with the result that both anarchy and hierarchy haveproved to be highly unstable structures. The notion that international systems can at best generate aëfortuitousí balance of power but more o;en than not no balance at all is entirely consistent withthis assessment.

The conception of the international system developed by the English school is, therefore,much less robust than the model established by Waltz. In terms of Waltzís model, it is impossible toexplain why an international system should transform into hierarchy. Of course, he does not denythat such a transformation is possible. But the logic of anarchy is seen to work against such atransformation. By contrast, the international system as conceived by the English school isexceptionally fragile and it lacks any feedback mechanisms that will help to secure its reproduction.[56] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn56) It follows that although at first sightthere would seem to be a powerful link between realism, the international system and positivism, inthe English schoolís approach, the link between realism and the international system certainlyproves to be surprisingly muted. For realists, as Waltz demonstrates, the balance of power is adefining feature of the international system. But Bull effectively separates these two concepts, andWatson goes onto demonstrate that there are very good empirical reasons for making thisdetachment. This assessment, therefore, drives a coach and horses through the assessment made byWight and Waltz about the unchanging ëtextureí of international politics. An initial appraisalsuggests that neorealists and the English school share a common conception of the internationalsystem. Closer investigation indicates that the English school subscribe to a very thin conception ofthe international system, one that presupposes no more than interaction. A very different


9 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

methodological approach is required to reveal the texture of international politics, and when thismethodology is adopted, it is the variation in texture that heaves into view.

Interpretism, Rationalism, and International Society

Operating as a ëspectatorí and looking for pa�erns in history is without doubt an importantstarting point for members of the English school. But such a methodological move only represents aplace of departure and it can certainly not be identified as a point of destination. Even as historicalobservers, however, members of the English school have challenged the well-worn truism advancedby realists about the universality of the balance of power.[57] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn57) And in doing so, they have successfully, although perhaps unwi�ingly,provided the start of an explanation for the instability of anarchy.[58](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn58) But to go any further, it is necessary tomove beyond a discussion of the international system and to engage with the idea of internationalsociety. According to Bullís formulation, an international society presupposes that states areëconscious of certain common interests and common valuesí and they also ëconceive of themselvesto be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the workingof common institutionsí.[59] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn59) It followsthat international systems and international societies take very different forms. Whereasinternational systems emerge whenever states start to interact and do not have to be aware thatthey are part of a system, members of an international society do have to be aware of their commonor shared identity. International societies and international systems, therefore, rest on very differentontological assumptions and, as a consequence, they need to be examined by means of verydifferent methodologies.[60] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn60) To identifyan international system it is only necessary (at least in the thin version) to observe that interaction istaking place between states.[61] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn61) But aninternational society presupposes that there is an intersubjective agreement amongst statesmen andto get a grasp on this intersubjectivity requires a very distinctive methodology. Using theterminology developed by Hollis and Smith, positivists tell the story from the outside and this is anappropriate methodology for examining the way that states interact.[62](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn62) But to develop an understanding of theinternational societies that have formed across time and space it is necessary to be able to tell thestory from the inside. And to be able to do this a methodology is required that enables the analyst toëpenetrate the thought world of other times and placesí.[63] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn63)

Acknowledging the centrality of language in international relations is a necessary first step tocoming to terms with intersubjectivity.[64] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn64) Wight, in particular, was very sensitive to the importance of language. He points to theendless debates that take place in the international arena as statesmen try to reach agreement aboutthe nature of the problems that they are confronting. But at the end of the day, any agreementachieved, necessarily involves language and o;en the creation of new language. All these debates,Wight insists, are ëthe stuff of international theory, and it (the stuff) is constantly bursting thebounds of the language in which we try to handle ití.[65] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn65) As Epp notes, therefore, Wightís inquiries ëinvariably circle back to considerwhen and how the words that constitute the practice of international relations enter its vocabulary,are mediated historically in their meanings, and find institutional expressioní.[66](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn66) For example, Wight observes a ëcultural


10 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

chasmí that separates medieval Christendom and the modern states-system which is marked by aëgradual transition from a language of legal right to one of temporal powerí.[67](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn67) To understand this transition, it isinadequate simply to observe the changing nature of the practices, as the positivist does, there hasto be a ëcommitment to the exploration, in as ordered manner as the evidence permits, of thethought already embodied in practiceí.[68] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn68) And thought can only be accessed by language.

Once the significance of language is acknowledged, then the methods associated withhemeneutics and interpretivism come to the fore. These methods acknowledge that it is possible todraw on the language used in a given international society in order to identify and then understandthe significance of the interests, values, rules, and institutions that prevail in a particular place andat a particular point in time.[69] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn69) It ispresupposed, moreover, that these features vary considerably from one international society toanother but this can only be appreciated through an investigation of the language used bystatesmen when they are engaged in the practices that define a given international society. Understanding an international society, therefore, requires both ëhistorical and sociologicaldepthí.[70] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn70) Although there is asubstantial literature that has explored the essential features of a methodology based onhermeneutics and interpretivism, members of the English school themselves have always very beenmethodologically unselfconscious and have viewed the task of ge�ing an ëinside viewí asunproblematic.[71] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn71)

Wight, in particular, has acknowledged that to gain a proper understanding of internationalsociety it is insufficient to focus on the way that international society evolved in Europe over the lastmillennium. He recognises, in other words, that there is a need to adopt and develop a comparativeapproach. By comprehending the nature of previous international societies, we can develop a moreprofound understanding of our own. However, the English school does also assume that theinternational society that evolved in Europe managed to produce the most sophisticated set ofinternational institutions to date. Sovereignty, the balance of power, diplomacy, and internationallaw are all seen to be products of international society that came to fruition in the Europeaninternational society. A;er examining the Greek city states, for example, Wight concludes ëJust asthey had no diplomatic system and no public international law, so they had no sense of anequilibrium of power being the foundation and as it were the constitution of internationalsocietyí.[72] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn72) Although he is prepared toacknowledge that the language associated with the balance of power began to emerge in thesubsequent Hellenistic age, it was still ëonly a glimmeringí[73] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn73). This assessment of the balance of power is also endorsed by Bu�erfield. Heinsists that the institution ëdid not exist in the ancient worldí and that ëMore than most of our basicpolitical formulas, this one seems to come from the modern worldís reflections on its ownexperienceí.[74] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn74) Like Wight, Bu�erfieldexamines the language used in the past to discuss international relations in order to demonstratethat the thought and therefore the practice associated with the balance of power failed to emergeuntil the beginning of the sixteenth century. Bu�erfield suggests that the first evidence of aself-conscious awareness of the balance of power can be found in the writings of Guicciardini.[75](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn75)

What distinguished Guicciardiniís account of international relations was his image of theItalian city states ëjealously watching one anotherís every move, diplomacy being unremi�inglyawake, and the whole still serving the purpose of peaceí.[76] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn76) Bu�erfield is suggesting, in other words, that ëthere is interaction between


11 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

the city states sufficient to make the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculation of theotherí.[77] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn77) But Bu�erfield also suggeststhat references to the balance of power over the next two hundred years still reveal a failure toappreciate the general nature of this international institution. There was ësomething lackingí inthese analyses and this was an awareness of ëa general field of forcesí.[78](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn78) From Bu�erfieldís perspective,therefore, it was only in the seventeenth century that the balance of power emerged as a fullyfledged institution in Europeís international society.

Wight is very conscious that there is something very distinctive about the importancea�ached to the role played by the language of international relations in the methodology that theEnglish school is drawing upon. He acknowledges in particular that it may be seen to be at variancewith conventional social science methods because the language of international relations is ësoindefinite and embodying such tension between oppositesí.[79](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn79) But he believes nevertheless that ëitcorresponds to the intractable anomalies and anfractuosities of international experienceí.[80](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn80) This assessment obviously appears to lieat the opposite extreme of his view that international relations are characterised by ërecurrenceand repetitioní. Yet this opposition is no doubt one of the tensions that Wight is referring to. Hisassessment of the role played by language in the theory and practice of the balance of powerperhaps helps to square the circle. Wight acknowledges that the balance of power is a metaphorwhich generates multiple meanings. But Wight insists that this feature of the metaphor should beregarded as an benefit rather than a flaw. He suggests that part of the fascination of the balance ofpower lies with the difficulty of pinning down its meaning. We resort to balance of powerterminolgy, he argues, because it is ëflexible and elastic enough to cover all the complexities andcontradictionsí encountered in the international system.[81] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn81) It helps to account for the inherent ambiguity that is such a crucial feature of international relations. Ironically, although Epp is particularly a�uned to the role of language in theEnglish schoolís approach, he fails to appreciate that the ambiguity surrounding the language of thebalance of power is a reflection of the inherent ambiguity associated with the practice of the balanceof power. [82] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn82) Hurrell is unquestionablyright when he notes that ëeven the quintessentially realist ëinstitutioní of the balance of powerappears in a different lightí when viewed as the linguistic component of a central institution ininternational society. It is viewed ëless as a formal mechanism than as a metaphor that assists powerpolitical bargaining and legitimises agreed outcomesí.[83] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn83) Bullís distinction between the ëfortuitousí or mechanical balance of powerand the ëcontrivedí balance of power gets to the heart of the distinction that the English schooldraws between the international system and international society and the different methodologiesrequired to uncover these features of international relations. But to provide a complete picture ofinternational relations it is argued that world society must also be brought into play.

Critical Theory, Revolutionism, and World Society

The idea of world society is without doubt the most problematic feature of the ontologicaland methodological framework devised by the English school. Bull argues that a world society ismade up of individuals and it presupposes a ëworld common goodí which identifies the ëcommonends or values of the universal society of mankindí.[84] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn84) It follows, therefore, that a world society is ënot merely a degree of interactionlinking all parts of the human community to one anotherí. Bull insists that there must also be aësense of common interest and common values, on the basis of which comon rules and institutions


12 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

may be builtí.[85] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn85) As Buzan has argued,therefore, there is then an assumption made by the English school that an international societyneeds to be underwri�en by a world society.[86] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn86) The consequences of this position can be observed most clearly in the analysis developedby Watson when he suggests that in the a;ermath of World War 2, whereas it was possible toidentify an international system, it was important to recognise that the two superpowers ëwere notìbook endsî holding together a single closely involved society of states; they were centres aroundwhich largely separate societies developedí.[87] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn87) Bull also asks if the international politics of the present time should be viewed as ëaninternational system that is not an international societyí. He insists that the element of society isalways present in international politics, although its ësurvival is sometimes precariousí.[88](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn88)

His position on the idea of world society, however, turns out to be much more equiviocal. Heinsists, for example, that it has to be questioned whether a world society can at this juncture beregarded as anything more than an aspiration. Bull acknowledges that people o;en write or speaktoday about international relations ëas if world society already existedí. But he is quite clear thatsuch a society has not yet emerged ëexcept as an idea or myth which may one day becomepowerfulí.[89] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn89) It is also widely accepted,however,as Wight notes, that ëIf the community of mankind is not yet manifested, yet it is latent,half glimpsed and groping for its necessary fulfilmentí.[90] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn90) But how best to achieve a world society is deeply disputed. On the one hand,Wight acknowledges the argument that international society ëconceals, obstructs, and oppressesthe real society of individual men and womení.[91] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn91) But, on the other hand, members of the English school believe that ëin so far as theinterests of mankind are articulated and aggregated….this is through the mechanism of the societyof sovereign statesí.[92] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn92)

The image of a latent world society, however, does not square neatly with the discussion oftransnationalism that Bull readily acknowledges as a feature of international relations, both past andpresent. He insists that one of the ëcardinal featuresí of the contemporary world is that thecontemporary international society is part of a much wider world political system that unequivocallyembraces transnational forces.[93] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn93) Butjust as this development should not lead us to conclude that international society is likely to declinein significance, nor should it encourage us to assume that world society is just round the corner. ForBull, the relationship between transnational forces and world society seems to take a similar but notidentical form to the relationship between the international system and international society.Transnationalism provides evidence that there is, and perhaps always has been, interaction linkingparts of the human community, in the same way that an international system can be identified bythe interaction that takes place between states. Bull acknowledges, moreover, the importance of transnational society before 1914. And he goes on to make the claim that it is very likely that the roleplayed by the residual medieval transnational relations that persisted in Europe during the sixteenthand seventeenth centuries were much more significant than the transnational relations that persistin the contemporary world.[94] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn94) So itfollows that changes in the level of transnational activity does not necessarily tell us very muchabout the fate of international society. It needs to be seen as a separate level of internationalrelations, just as the international system represents a separate level from international society. Butthis still leaves open the question of the relationship between transnational systems and worldsociety. The English school seem to work from the position that observable pa�erns of transnationalbehaviour must be distinguished from the existence of common values, interests and institutionsthat are associated with world society. But the distinction has not been articulated with any degree


13 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

of clarity. Presupposing that the relationship between international systems and societies can becompared to the replationship between transnational systems and world societies, then it followsthat whereas positivistic methods can be used to identify transnational systems, such methods needto be replaced by or at any rate supplemented with hermeneutic methods in order to study worldsociety. Drawing on such methods, Bull is able to demonstrate that the existence of world societyhas tended to ebb and flow across time. He does so, for example, by examining the way that theinfluence of natural law on international practice has tended to wax and wane over time. Thedoctrine of natural law, he argues, ëproclaimed the common rights and duties of meneverywhereí.[95] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn95) Natural law, therefore,presupposed that social bonds existed between Christians and non-Christians and this is reflected,for example, in the ëuniversal laws of hospitality by which Spaniards and Indians were bound in theAmericasí as expounded by Victoria.[96] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn96). It was the belief in natural law, therefore, that helped to mitigate the exclusiveness of theidea of a Christian society.[97] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn97) It wasalso the universalist assumptions associated with natural law that inhibited the development ofsovereignty as one of the defining features of European international society.[98](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn98) But by the eighteenth century Bullindicates that positive international law had taken the place of natural law in the theory andpractice of European international society.[99] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn99) From then on it was taken for granted that to enter this society, it was necessary for statesto subscribe to the values or standard of civilisation, that prevailed in Europe.[100](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn100) Two hundred years later, however, inthe twentieth century, Bull observes a retreat from the earlier confidence that the members ofinternational societies were states and nations ëtowards the ambiguity and imprecision on this pointthat characterised the era of Grotiusí.[101] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn101)

By developing a conception of world society and linking it to international society, the Englishschool have been able to draw a distinction between pluralist and solidarist conceptions ofinternational society. In the former, the conception of world society is low, whereas in the la�er it iswell developed.[102] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn102) A debate hasopened up within the English school about the respective merits and limits of pluralist and solidaristinternational societies. It follows that the English school has taken on a critical theory dimensionbecause the debate reflects a profound concern about the potential for human emancipation.[103](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn103) The English school, therefore, is notonly concerned about analysing the history of international relations, it is also concerned about themoral implications of current and future developments in the international arena.

Conclusion

The main aim of this paper has been to demonstrate that the English school approach hasbeen informed by methodological and ontological pluralism. As a result of adopting this approach,the English school has laid the foundations of a very broad ranging research agenda. Theparameters of this agenda, however, have been no more than hinted at. For example, although theEnglish school recognise the importance of adopting a sectoral approach to analysis, they focusalmost exclusively on political and social sectors. Despite acknowledging the importance ofeconomics, there has been a reluctance by the English school to embrace this sector wholeheartedly.Having said that, members of the English school frequently acknowledge the importance of trade as


14 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

an international institution. It follows that the English schoolís underlying logic clearly demonstratesthat to understand international relations it is necessary to identify and investigate all relevantinternational sectors. And although the methodological implications of this position have not beenexplored in depth – a task that still needs to be undertaken – it is assumed that it is useful andnecessary research task to explore international relations sector by sector as well as looking at howthese sectors interrelate.

The English school have also made it very clear that progress in the study of internationalrelations requires more comparative and historical analysis. There is a growing amount of researchfrom this perspective that may not be directly influenced by the English school, but nevertheless fitsin with its broader research agenda.[104] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn104) An obvious weakness with this approach has been the tendency by members of theEnglish school to adopt a Eurocentric perspective. The assumption that European institutions andvalues are somehow superior to those of other international societies can and has been challenged.But it has been done so by following the route of comparative analysis.[105](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn105) What the English school havedemonstrated, however, is that progress in the study of international relations requires a muchlonger historical perspective and a build up of comparative case studies. Following this route, it hasbecome clear that the emphasis on anarchy and polarity in the contemporary discipline has comeabout at the expense of examining international relations from a world historical perspective.[106](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn106) The link between Toynbee and theEnglish school helps to explain why the interest in world history approach is embedded in theEnglish school approach.[107] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn107)

The English school agenda also embraces a significant critical and normative dimension whichhas become increasingly significant for younger scholars in the 1990s.[108](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn108) The current focus on humanitarianintervention, however, should not mask the longer and deeper concern about the relationshipbetween the developed and developing world. Epp, for example, notes the importance of theprocess of decolonisation and the third world for the English school. [109](h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn109) This concern about the future directionof international relations is informed and considerably enriched by the comparative and historicalresearch of the English school because it displays a considerable interest in the normativeframeworks embedded in part international systems.

The current interest in the English school is in many ways remarkable because the work of thefounders is relatively limited in scope. Nevertheless, Bu�erfield, Bull, Wight, and Watson collectively provide a framework and research agenda which is much broader and more embracingthan any of the competitive approaches. The breadth stems from the pluralistic nature of theapproach. Not everyone is convinced of the desirability of pluralism. It is argued that the resultinganalysis is o;en ëindeterminateí.[110] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn110)No doubt more thought needs to be given to the methodological and epistemological implications ofsuch an approach. But given the fragmented nature of the contemporary discipline, it certainlyseems worthwhile to give some support to an approach that aims to draw the disparate threadstogether.[111] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_edn111)

(h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref1)Notes

[1] See Tim Dunne Inventing International Society: A History of the English School LondonMacmillan, 1998, Ch 1, and Roger Epp, ‘The English School on the Frontiers of International


15 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Society: A Hermeneutic Recollection’ Review of International Studies 1998, 24, 47-63

[2] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref2) Ibid.

[3] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref3) This sentiment is nicely captured byTim Dunne when discussing Ken Booth’s a�itude to the idea of the international society asexpressed in ‘Human Wrongs and International Relations’ International Affairs 71, 1995, 103-26.Booth argues that it is the structure of international society that helps to sustain internationalwrongs. Dunne suggests that ‘On this reading, the society of states is “seldom to be loved rarely tobe trusted’. (Dunne, 1998, p189). Perhaps the most comprehensive a�ack on the English Schoolcomes from R.E.Jones ‘The “English School” of International Relations: A Case for Closure’ Reviewof International Studies 7(1) 1981, pp.1-12. Note also R. B.J.Walker’s perceptive comment inInside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge, Cambridge UP, 1993:p.32)that ‘as with all appeals to a middle road, the intended compromise reinforces the legitimacy ofthe two poles as the limits of permi�ed discourse’. Note too how Wight observes that appeasementcan be viewed as characteristic of the via media and, as such, the ‘golden mean can be anovercautious and ignoble principle’. In Martin Wight, ‘Western Values in International Relations’ inMartin Wight and Herbert Bu�erfield, eds., Diplomatic Investigations:Essays in the Theory ofInternational Politics London, Allen and Unwin,1966, p.91.

[4] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref4) M.Wight, International Theory: TheThree Traditions London, Leicester UP1991:7

[5] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref5) ibid

[6] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref6) An argument that can be found inthe first chapter of Andrew Linklater’s Beyond Realism and Marxism London, Macmillan, 1990.

[7] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref7) The distinction betweenexplanation and interpretation or understanding is o;en described as an epistemological one, seeM. Hollis and S.Smith Explaining and Understanding International Relations Oxford, Oxford UP.(1990), for example. But I agree with H. Patomaki and C. Wight that this distinction is essentially amethodological one. See ‘A;er Postpositivism: The Promises of Critical Realism’ InternationalStudies Quarterly (2000).Their logic coincides with Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics(Reading Mass. Addison Wesley, 1979) who insists that a distinctive methodology is needed to studythe international system because it takes a different form to the systems studied by naturalscientists.

[8] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref8) See Li�le(1986), Shapco�(1994);Linklater(1990,1996); Epp(1998)

[9] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref9) Wight(1991); Bull(1977[1995])

[10] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref10) See M.Wight ‘Why is there noInternational Theory’ in H.Bu�erfield and M.Wight Diplomatic Investigations:Essays in the Theoryof International Politics London, Allen and Unwin,1966

[11] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref11) See Brown(1992); Williams(1992);Burchill(1996); Boucher(1998)

[12] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref12) Boucher(1998:4)

[13] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref13) Smith, 1992


16 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

[14] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref14) Frost(1996) 12,18-19.

[15] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref15) Wight,1966:33

[16] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref16) Boucher,1998:5; Brown 1992:83.

[17] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref17) Brown(1992); Thompson(1992).The distinction is also reflected in the division between man and citizen made by Linklater (1990)and between universalism and particularlism made by O’Neill(1996)

[18] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref18) Boucher, 1998:16.

[19] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref19) ibid p.23

[20] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref20) Mary Warnock ‘Consoled byFaith, Prodded by Reason’ THES, 5.11.1999, pp22-23. The argument is advanced in her discussion ofRichard Holloway Godless Morality Canongate, 1999. She goes on to assert that as a consequenceof this historical development it has become dangerous not to teach and discuss morality assomething separate from religion. She argues that historical consciousness is even more importantthan our acceptance of a Darwinian view of nature, itself ‘part of our imaginative grasp of history’.

[21] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref21) See Clark Reform and Resistance

[22] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref22) Boucher, 1998: p 40. Heformulates this approach in Texts in Context: Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of IdeasDordrecht, Martinus Nĳhoff, 1985

[23] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref23) Boucher, 1998:17.

[24] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref24) ibid

[25] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref25) M.Wight ‘An Anatomy ofPolitical Thought’ Review of International Studies 13 (1987) 221-7.

[26] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref26) Wight, 1991 p.266. Epp hasstressed that Wight views international relations as a ‘realm of persuasion involving a plurality ofdiscourses’ that has the effect of dissolving the distinction between participant and observer. RogerEpp, ‘Martin Wight: International Relations as realm of Persuasion’ in Francis Beer and RobertHariman Post Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations East Lansing, Michigan StateUniversity Press, 1996.

[27] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref27) Linklater, 1990, Chapter 1.

[28] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref28) Bull, 1977, 22

[29] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref29) ibid p55.

[30] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref30) Watson, 1987, 153.

[31] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref31) Hoffmann, 1995, xi

[32] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref32) R.Falk ‘The Critical RealistTradition and the Demystification of interstate power: E.H.Carr, Hedley Bull and Robert W.Cox’ inStephen Gill and James H.Mi�elman Innovation and Transformation in International Studies


17 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Cambridge, CUP, 1997

[33] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref33) Waltz accepts that theinternational political system does not exist in mutual isolation from, for example, internationaleconomic and legal systems. But he does insist that these constitute separate albeit related domainsand that they possess their own properties and pa�erns of behaviour that are best understood byabstracting the specific system from the complex whole. Waltz(1979)pp. 8,46,79.

[34] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref34) In fact, it could be argued thatWaltz does Bull’s job for him. Both acknowledge that it is possible to isolate the international systemfrom other forms of system and as will be shown in the next section, they subscribe to remarkablysimilar conceptions of the international system. The only significant differences are that Bull fails tospell out the details of his methodological position and he goes on to isolate and examine two otherfeatures of international reality: international society and world society.

[35] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref35) Ole Waever, Four Meanings ofInternational Society: A Transatlantic Dialoge’ in B.A.Roberson,ed. International Society and theDevelopment of International Relations Theory London, Pinter, 1998

[36] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref36) H.Bull ‘International Theory: TheCase for a Classical Approach’ in Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau eds., Contending Approachesto International Relations Princeton, NJ, Princeton UP, pp20-38

[37] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref37) R.K.Ashley, ‘Political Realism andHuman Interests’ International Studies Quarterly 25, 1981. 204-236. The problem with ‘positivism’as a term is that it is now o;en used for denigratory rhetorical purposes. It is also highly contested. Jim George ties realism very tightly to positivism which he views as a ‘spectator’ theory ofknowledge. By this he means that ‘knowledge of the real world is gleaned via a realm of externalfacts’. Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations Boulder,Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994, p.12. But as has been pointed out, this is almost theexact opposite of the approach adopted by Waltz. For a perceptive discussion, see Hans Mouritzen‘Kenneth Waltz: A Critical Rationalist Between International Politics and Foreign Policy’. In Iver B.Neumann and Ole Waever The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making Londonand New York, Routledge, 1997.

[38] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref38) Wight(1966)p. 26

[39] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref39) See, for example, JimGeorge(1994) who insists that the members of the English school do no more than ‘provide avariation on a positivist theme’ p35 and he insists that they are ‘commi�ed to its perpetuation’ p.12

[40] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref40) Waltz, 1979:66. He also observes‘the striking sameness of international life for millennia’ p66.

[41] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref41) Dunne, 1998:96

[42] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref42) Epp (1996):124.

[43] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref43) Bull

[44] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref44) See Adam Watson Diplomacy:The Dialogue Between States London Eyre Methuen, 1982, p36


18 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

[45] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref45) Adam Watson The Evolution ofInternational Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis London Routledge, 1992, p.4.

[46] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref46) Bull, 1977 p.10

[47] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref47) Ibid p.107

[48] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref48) Ibid.

[49] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref49) Ibid.p.100.

[50] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref50) Watson(1992) p.311.

[51] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref51) Review of Theory of International

Politics in Times Literary Supplement 18.12.1979. Cited in Andrew Hurrell ‘Society and Anarchy inthe 1990s’ in B.A.Roberson,ed. International Society and the Development of InternationalRelations Theory London, Pinter, 1998, p.20

[52] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref52) For a discussion of the role ofmetaphors in Waltz’s analysis, see Jones’s contribution in Barry Buzan, Charles Jones and RichardLi�le The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism New York, Columbia UP, 1993.

[53] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref53) Cited in Hurrell, 1998, p.20

[54] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref54) Bull, 1979, p100.

[55] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref55) Watson, 1992

[56] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref56) There are further complicationsto understanding international systems introduced by the English school. For example, Wight drawsa distinction between ‘open’ and ‘closed’ international systems. See Martin Wight, Systems ofStates ed H Bull, Leicester, Leicester UP, 1977p.75. Waltz’s model presupposes that theinternational system is closed, whereas Wight argues that, historically, most international systemshave been open. For further discussion see Richard Li�le’Neorealism and the English School: AMethodological, Ontological and Theoretical Reassessment’ European Journal of InternationalRelations 1, 1995, pp 9-34.

[57] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref57) Note that it is mainly realists whohave played on the idea of the universality of anarchy and the balance of power as its operatingprinciple. Wallerstein, as the leading world systems theorist, starts from the assumption that prior to1500AD, anarchy was always fragile and gave way to hierarchy. But note that Robert Gilpin, a‘neorealist’, adheres to the same position. See War and Change in World Politics Cambridge, CUP,1981. Note, also, that not everyone considers Gilpin to be a neorealist. See Stefano Guzzini ‘RobertGilpin: The Realist Quest for the Dynamics of Power’ in Iver B. Neumann and Ole Waever TheFuture of International Relations: Masters in the Making London and New York, Routledge, 1997.Finally, it is also worth noting that not all world systems theorists accept that history prior to1500AD should be analysed within a framework of hierarchy. See

[58] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref58) Bull makes li�le use of hisdistinction between fortuitous and contrived balances of power and Watson also fails to use thedistinction to account for the persistent tendency for anarchies to give way to hierarchies.

[59] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref59) Bull, 1977, 13.


19 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

[60] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref60) The advantage of viewingpositivism as a methodology that requires only the observation of behaviour is that it then makessense to suggest that as we move from examining the international system to examininginternational society a different methodology needs to be brought into play. Epistemologies operateon a higher level of analysis and are concerned with the nature of knowledge – how we know thatwe know anything. Philosophers have devoted a good deal of time to this question. But it can beargued that neither natural nor social scientists need to worry too much about the issue. All theyneed to be confident about is that they are employing an appropriate methodology given the natureof the phenomenon under investigation.

[61] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref61) Bull’s definition presupposes athicker conception of the international system, where the interaction between states is sufficient tomake the behaviour of each a necessary element in the calculation of the others. In principle, it canbe argued that a positivist methodology is sufficient to identify that the level of interaction hasreached this point. But it can also be argued that, in practice, an interpretive methodology would berequired to demonstrate that states were, in fact, taking each others’ actions into account.

[62] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref62) Martin Hollis and Steve SmithExplaining and Understanding International Relations Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990.

[63] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref63) D.Bebbington Pa�erns in HistoryLeicester, Intervariety Press, 1979, 92

[64] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref64) Epp,1998,55.

[65] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref65) Wight, 1966, p.33

[66] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref66) Epp, 1998,55. It is, however, anexaggeration to suggest that Wight’s analyses ‘invariably’ circle back to language. This is certainlyone preoccupation. But he is also very concerned with changing pa�erns of behaviour and happilyadopts a positivist orientation to accommodate this concern.

[67] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref67) Ibid. Epp is discussing Wight’sdiscussion in Power Politics ed. by H.Bull and C.Holbraad, Leicester, Leicester UP, 1978, Ch.1.

[68] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref68) M.Keens-Soper ‘The Practice of aStates-System’ in M.Donelan, ed., The Reason of States London, Allen and Unwin, 1978, p.40.

[69] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref69) It is perhaps necesary to pointout that Epp presupposes that language is spoken language. But archaeologists who rely on thismethod o;en have to rely on artifacts to ‘speak’ to them.

[70] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref70) Martin Wight, ‘Western Values inInternational Relations’ in Martin Wight and Herbert Bu�erfield, eds., DiplomaticInvestigations:Essays in the Theory of International Politics London, Allen and Unwin,1966, p.96.

[71] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref71) A glance at some of the primary(egGodamer) and secondary (egBernstein) literature suggests that ge�ing the inside story is notquite as straight forward as it might seem.

[72] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref72) Wight, 1977, p66

[73] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref73) ibid p.67


20 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

[74] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref74) ‘Herbert Bu�erfield ‘the Balanceof Power’ in Martin Wight and Herbert Bu�erfield, eds., Diplomatic Investigations:Essays in theTheory of International Politics London, Allen and Unwin,1966, p.133

[75] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref75) Ibid. pp.136-7. Guicciardinideveloped the conception of a balance of power in Story of Italy that describes the tragic story ofhow the Italian city states failed to repulse the French invasion in 1492.

[76] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref76) Ibid.p.137

[77] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref77) Bull, 1977 p.10. Taken from Bull’sdefinition of the balance of power.

[78] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref78) Bu�erfield, 1966 pp. 137 and 138.

[79] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref79) Martin Wight, ‘Western Values inInternational Relations’ p.96

[80] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref80) . Martin Wight, ‘Western Valuesin International Relations’ p.96. I take it that by anfractuosities he means that international relationsare inherently convoluted or complex.

[81] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref81) Wight, 1978, p.173

[82] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref82) Wight points to the‘equivocalness and placticity of the metaphor of “balance” ‘The Balance of Power’ p.150. And Epp,1998, p55 observes that although Wight is aware of the ‘placticity’ of the metaphor ‘he makes noa�empt to resolve the confusion in the interest of distilling a scientifically operational concept’. Butthis is not because Wight is hostile to the formulation of such concepts when the circumstances areappropriate, but because he believes that such a copcept would be at odds with the practice.

[83] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref83) Hurrell, ‘Society and Anarchy’pp.21 and 22.

[84] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref84) Bull, 1977, p. 84.

[85] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref85) Ibid. p.269.

[86] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref86) Barry Buzan, ‘From InternationalSociety to International System: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’.International Organization, 47(3), 1993, 327-352

[87] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref87) Watson, 1992, p.289.

[88] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref88) Bull, 1977, p.39

[89] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref89) Bull, 1977, pp. 81 and 82

[90] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref90) Wight ‘Western Values inInternational Relations’ p.93

[91] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref91) Ibid. This is the argumentdeveloped by Booth. See ‘Human Wrongs and International Relations’ International Affairs 71,1995, 103-26.


21 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

[92] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref92) Bull,1977, pp 82.

[93] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref93) ibid p.266.

[94] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref94) ibid 268-9

[95] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref95) ibid. p.32



[98] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref98) Ibid. p.29

[99] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref99) Ibid p. 31



[102] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref102) For aperceptive discussions ofthis dichotomy see Nicholas J. Wheeler ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society:Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’ Millennium, 21(3), 463-488; and Iver B.Neumann‘John Vincent and the English School of International Relations’ in Neumann and Waever.

[103] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref103) See Linklater 1990 for adiscussion of the implications of critical theory for the study of international relations.

[104] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref104) Wight has done most toencourage this approach.

[105] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref105) See, for example, ChristianReus-Smit, ‘The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of FundamentalInstitutions’ International Organization 51, 4, 1997, 555-89 and Rodney Bruce Hall, ‘Moral Authorityas a Power Resource’ International Organization 51,4,

For an overview of some of this comparative analysis, see Li�le,2000

[106] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref106) It is noticeable that Waltz(1979) is so preoccupied with the idea of polarity that he fails to take account of the idea ofunipolarity and neo-realists only picked up on this dimension of international structure a;er theend of the Cold War. An exception to this rule is Gilpin(1981) but there was no a�empt to follow hislead during the Cold War.

[107] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref107) See Thompson’s , discussion ofToynbee.

[108] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref108) See for example the work ofDunne and Wheeler.

[109] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref109) Epp, 1998.See, however, therecently completed PhD by Rob Dixon at Aberystwyth who argues that the English schoolapproach is still rather thin and needs to be underpinned by neo-marxist ideas.

[110] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref110) See the criticism of Buzan,


22 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Jones and Li�le(1993) in Stafano Guzzini Realism in International Relations and InternationalPolitical Economy: the Continuing Story of a Death Foretold London, Routledge, 1998.

[111] (h�p://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/wp-admin/#_ednref111) Concerns about the ‘divided’nature of the discipline goes back atleast to the mid 1980s. See Holsti The Divided Discipline.

This entry was posted on 23/06/2008 at 10:58 am and is filed under English School. You can followany responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback fromyour own site.

Theme: Kubrick. Blog at WordPress.com.Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).


23 de 23 8/4/2013 09:47

Documents

The English School’s Contribution to the study of International Relations - Richard Little