Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-z8dg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T02:39:17.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English school of international relations: evidence and evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Sheila Grader
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In January 1981, an article by Professor Roy E. Jones, entitled The English school of international relations: a case for closure', appeared in this Review.1 Immediately after its publications the late Professor Northedge asked a seminar of research students at the London School of Economics for their views on the article. To his. obvious chagrin, no one, including myself, responded. On several occasions during the next years Professor Northedge drew attention to the challenge laid down by Professor Jones. Did this persistent questioning indicate a concern that Professor Jones should be answered—and, in which case, why did he not take this task upon himself? If he had, and if, as has been suggested, Professor Northedge believed that there was an ‘English school’, but that he was not part of it, then he would have had to show both that the gap between himself and the rest of the ‘school’ was greater than the differences between other members, and, at the same time, that all the scholars under review, himself included, belonged to a common discipline. This analysis would go beyond description; it would require not only a clear demarcation of the several different ways in which his colleagues had understood international politics, but also an attempt to distinguish between ‘school’ and ‘discipline’ and their relationship to the field of International Relations. Such an exercise would be philosophical in nature, and Professor Northedge's well-known empiricism would not, I submit, have been helpful. To demonstrate, as this paper attempts to do, that the scholars in question can be characterized by their differing philosophical approaches would refute Professor Jones' major thesis that there is an English school of international relations. It also seriously undermines his substantive criticisms, for obviously the non-existence of the ‘English school’ makes the question of its wrong-headedness irrelevant.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1988 , pp. 29 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Jones, Roy E., ‘The English school of international relations: a case for closure’, Review of International Studies, vii (1981), pp. 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Ibid., p. 3.

3. Ibid., p. 8.

4. Ibid., p. 2.

5. Wight, M., ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in Butterfieldand, H. and Wight, M. (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations, Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London, 1966), p. 17.Google Scholar

6. Jones, op. cit., p. 6.

7. Manning, C. A. W., The Nature of International Society (London, 1975), p. 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. See Banks, Michael, ‘Charles Manning and the Concept of “Order”’, in James, A. (ed.), The Bases of International Order (London, 1973), pp. 188–209Google Scholar, for the view that Manning's understanding of the structure of world society was systemic.

9. Manning, op. cit., p. 38.

10. Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society (London, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Hoffmann, Stanley, ‘Hedley Bull and his contribution to International Relations’, International Affairs, 62 (1986), p. 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Bull, Hedley and Watson, Adam (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford, 1984), p. 9.Google Scholar

13. Northedge, F. S., The International Political System (London, 1976).Google Scholar

14. Ibid., p. 31.

15. Donelan, Michael, ‘The Political Theorists and International Theory’, in Donelan, (ed.), The Reason of States (London, 1978), pp. 75–91.Google Scholar

16. Just how important Martin Wight considered historical evidence to be was brought home to me by the pages of neat red ink which followed my undergraduate essays whenever I indulged my own cravings for the speculative.

17. Bull, Hedley, ‘Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations’, British Journal of International Studies, 2 (1977), p. 114.Google Scholar

18. Ibid., p. 111.

19. Martin Wight did not publish his lectures, but my notes show that he used the three paradigms pedagogically to elucidate theories of international relations.

20. Jones, op. cit., p. 10.

21. Wight, Martin, Power Politics (London, 1979)Google Scholar and Wight, Martin, Systems of States (Leicester, 1977).Google Scholar

22. Wight, Martin, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, Diplomatic Investigations, p. 89.Google Scholar

23. Mill, John Stuart, Three Essays on Liberty, Representative Government and the Subjection of Women (London, 1981), p. 381.Google Scholar Mill states:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart. This is merely saying that the question of government ought to be decided by the governed.

Lord Acton replied:

The coexistence of several nations under the same State, is a test, as well as the best security of its freedom.

John Dalberg–Acton, E. E., History of Freedom and Other Essays (London, 1901), p. 290.Google Scholar

24. Bull, op. cit., p. 8.

25. Northedge, op. cit., p. 143.

26. Jones, op. cit., p. 6.

27. Claude, Inis Jr, ‘Myths about the State’, Review of International Studies, 12 (1986), pp. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Manning, op. cit., p. 23 and p. 30.

29. In his earlier work, Power Politics, Wight equated international society with European society, which, he implied, by its extension of international law had achieved global significance. He was, however, most struck by the Indian seizure of Goa in 1961 which may have increased his doubts about how widely, in fact, international law was accepted. In his later writing, edited by Hedley Bull as Systems of States, he rarely uses the term ‘international society’, preferring to describe present international politics in terms of a ‘modern system of states’.

30. Suganami, Hidemi, ‘The Structure of Institutionalism: an anatomy of British mainstream international relations’, International Relations, 7 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Ibid., p. 2363.

32. Ibid., p. 2365.

33. Ibid., p. 2366.

34. Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939 (London, 1939), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

35. Jones, op. cit., p. 1.

36. Morley, John, Edmund Burke: A Historical Study (London, 1867), p. 53.Google Scholar

37. Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969)Google Scholar; Northedge, F. S., ‘Transnationalism: the American Illusion’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 5 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Rosenau, James N., ‘International Studies in a Transnational World’, Millennium Journal of International Studies, 5 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38. Jones, op. cit., p. 9.

39. Ibid., p. 9.

40. Weber, Max, ‘“Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy’, Shils, E. (ed.), The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Glencoe, Illinois, 1949), p. 52.Google Scholar

41. Bull, Hedley, ‘International Theory: the Case for the Classical Approach’, Contending Approaches, p. 37.Google Scholar

42. Kaplan, Morton, ‘The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations’, Contending Approaches, p. 61.Google Scholar

43. Mannheim, Karl, Ideology and Utopia (London, 1936).Google Scholar

44. See Halliday, Fred, ‘Vigilantism in International Relations: Kubálková, Cruickshank, and Marxist Theory’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3 (07 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘State and Society in International Relations: a Second Agenda’, Millennium, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer 1987).Google Scholar

45. Nairn, Tom, The Break-up of Britain (London, 1977), p. 331.Google Scholar

46. Berki, R. N., ‘On Marxian Thought and the Problem of International Relations’, World Politics, xxiv (1971), p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Jones, op. cit., p. 12.