English school, Marxism, Neo Marxism ( short answers) - Essay Example

English school, Marxism, Neo Marxism (short answers) Q1. What is the difference between international system and international society? Why do English School scholars believe it is important to draw such a distinction? One of the most essential concepts in International Relations that is often distinguished from other concepts, especially the concept of ‘international system’, is international society and the English School scholars highly purport that it is important to draw the distinction between the two concepts – international system and international society.

Bull in his classical definition suggests that an international society comes into being when “a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, forms a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of common institutions.” (Bull 1977, 13). He defines system as being an arena which has interaction between communities and no shared rules or institutions. The distinction between international system and international society helps the English School scholars in addressing the question how far international society extends.

Significantly, “by looking at the formation of the system it is possible to discern mechanisms which shape and shove international and world societies.” and “the category of the system can usefully be used to capture the basic material forces in world politics - flows of information and trade, levels of destructive capability, capacities of actors to affect their environment.” (Dunne 2007, P. 138). Q2. How do dependency theorists portray the nature of the international system? Is this portrayal more or less convincing than that of realism?

There is an essential distinction between the dependency theorists and the realist theorists on the nature of the international system – or more accurately, an inter-state system. The English School scholars were interested in the system basically for what it tells about the history of international society. “If one takes Bulls developmental insight into the relationship between system and society, then it is clear that the existence of a society presupposes the existence of a system. It is also important to realize that systemic interactions remain a possible future arrangement if the dominant actors in international society cease to comply with the rules and act in ways which undermine the international security.

” (Dunne 2007, P. 139). The nature of the international system according the dependency theorists is less convincing than that of the realism. Q3. Why does Robert Cox distinguish between problem solving and critical theories? One of the essential considerations in the International Relations is that there is an important distinction between problem solving and critical theories. It was Robert Cox who distinguished between problem solving and critical theories in International Relations and he had strong reasons for that.

“While the former accepts the social and power structures and institutions as it finds them and deals with problems within this framework, critical theory calls them into question, investigates their origins and assesses whether they are in the process of change. In short, critical theory is a theory of history in that it is concerned with understanding the process of change affecting the very structures that problem-solving theory takes for granted.” (Jones 2001, P. 1104). It is also important to realise that the human institutions are not understood as fixed, but as a continuing creation of new forms.

Moreover, critical theory does not differentiate between beliefs and ideologies on one hand and objective facts on the other. “Instead, it is realized that ideas in the form of inter-subjective meanings are as constitutive of social reality as material characteristics and that, therefore, every theory, itself derived from a particular place in time and space, incorporates a particular perspective.” (Jones 2001, P. 1104). BibliographyBULL, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study, of Order in World Politics.

London: Macmillan. P. 13. DUNNE, Tim. (2007). “The English School.” International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Timothy Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. London: Oxford University Press. P. 138. JONES, R. J. Barry. (2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries G-O. Taylor & Francis. P. 1104.