English School's Contribution to the of International Relations - Case Study Example

The Contribution to the Study of International Relations Made by the English School Introduction The study of International Relations (IR) is very important for the development of a country, because it fosters unity among different sovereign nations. Through critically evaluation the nature of laws and policies that the different nations implement, it would be easy for one nation to make decision on whether to cooperate with another country, or not. Notably, the study of International Relations is based on the analysis of policy frameworks, which might not be easily and correctly understood without proper guidelines.1 Formulating the guidelines for International relations need the contribution of the experts and academicians, who are able to make comparisons and come up with workable framework, which the learning institutions could use.2 Therefore, the paper assesses the contribution to the study of International Relations made by the English School. In pioneering the studies on IR, the English School became a research enterprise for scholars who had pertinent concerns about the relations among states. Discussion Notably, the English School (ES) has been on the fore front in formulating approaches of studying international relations.3 Their approach is probably different from the one applied in other institutions. In fact, it is well known that their approach is more comprehensive and diverse than the way, in which other scholars have so far recognized. Within the practice of International Relations, their approach and contributions as a conventional wisdom that other institutions could hardly achieve. In essence, they disseminate the information about IR through media, by taking polarized positions, including the rationalists, the proponents and the Grotians.4 Each camp had a view on frameworks and policy matters affecting international relations, across the global diversity. Despite their explanations taking a theoretical outlook, it was relatively important different views to be accommodated to bring the reality of the matter, other than taking a partial stand that does not give room for criticisms.5 Using such labels, each camp would present their argument through the media on the kind of society they would like most countries to embrace. Since the use of media exposes the School’s approach and programs on IR to the majority, it increased their publicity and made the debate on issues relating to IR to be open to criticism. Through this, they were able to achieve a practical based approach to the study of IR that other institutions could embrace. Frequently, the critics intervene in the debate and shade more light on the issue and propose alternative methods of raising the people’s awareness on international community.6 Therefore, it would be through the practice that the School achieved the aim of increasing awareness and understanding on relations among different nations. Perhaps, this was a revolutionary approach that intended to identify a specific opinion of each camp relating to the controversial issue of IR. Usually, an aspect has both the proponents, opponents and those who take neutral ground.7 The School had succeeded in taking the discussion and study of International Relation from a theoretical form to a practical based, where the camp who can substantiate their claim and position wins the confidence of the people.8 Some people may take neutral position since they might not have proper understanding of the issue at hand or, possibly they cannot justify the extreme ends of the discussion. The English School embraces a more dynamic approach that recognizes and respects all categories of people and different Schools of thought. Some scholars refer to their system as being less sympathetic and a balancer that swings in response to the capability of each side.9 The capability here means the weight, evidence presented and clarity of the argument that each camp presents. Indeed, the people’s opinion and decision on a controversial matter is swayed to the side taken by the majority, implying that a lot of critic would be applied in presenting the group’s argument. In addition, through their application of a hallmark concept in understanding issues regarding IR, the ES has encouraged a shared vision of the necessities and rightful conceptualization of international diplomacy, through embracing intellectualism and openness in discussing such matters.10 The ES has also helped in developing frameworks of analyzing the diversities among several human communities. Moreover, the ES has outlined the structural distinctions and the relationships between them to establish the ways such structures impact on the relationship of the communities. In reality, the structural system embraces might not encourage relationship, but creates antagonism between two states. Therefore, studying the structures of IR in an open and indiscriminate forum, with each side presenting their argument, becomes an important means of unveiling the best practice and structural systems that would foster relationships between States.11 Through this systematic approach, the English School has contributed to the use of diplomacy in solving matters of IR.12 It has ensured that ideological conflicts are discussed from the different view points so that they reach consensus. The practical nature of the discussion provides a clearer understanding on matters concerning International Relations, because many people have had renewed interest on the topic. In an explicit explanation, the rationalists’ based their arguments on the ability distinguish between the revolutionists and realists caps on matters relating to IR.13 On the other hand, the Grotians proudly view themselves as able to distinguish between the Hobbesians and the Kantians.14 Alternatively, the proponents find themselves on the middle ground, taking a neutral position regarding the issue of IR.15 Notably, the ES observed the roles of each camp and underscored their contribution to the development of acceptable IR policies. Indeed, the approach has enhanced the Institution’s image at being in the front light of examining and defining issues relating to IR. Due to the complex nature of their approach, the proponents have recently raised concerns about the ontological orientation and the methodology that the School has applied. In fact, they propose that it should be refined to avoid taking partial position on IR. Particularly, they were concerned about International relations, the ways such relations were organized and possibly their impacts on society.16 They employed international theories in explaining the relationships among states, examining their nature and identifying the ways in which the international community uses diplomacy to execute its functions and articulates their political principles.17 Also the manner in which the international community integrates politics in formulating their IR principles became an important consideration of the ES during the open debates. Despite criticisms about their approach, the ES has not relented on their effort to accommodate divergent views and create enough time and conceptual space for critical evaluation and study of international society.18 The conceptual space in this context means the freedom and opportunity to share opinion on the matter without fear, discrimination or prejudice. In addition, the freedom has to be accompanied by integrity and knowledge on the subject to make sure that the information shared, could be applicable in solving disputes among different communities. As a result, they have succeeded in accommodating divergent ideas to broaden the scholars’ understanding of the concept, so that necessary changes could be effected to the mode and approaches used in studying international society.19 Therefore, this tops the agenda for the study that they cannot relent until the scholars and other institutions shall adopt a proper and desirable methodology of studying IR. The approach makes the English School to have the ability to consider a similar matter in two directions.20 Therefore, it acts as a mediator between two opposing camps, which could not communicate their ideas and information, to one another. Furthermore, the approach makes the English School have a vital contribution in promoting an understanding on the important aspects relating to international relations.21 Conclusion Fostering a common front in the development of unilateral IR policies was, perhaps the benchmark for the ES’s involvement in matters of international diplomacy. Notably, the methodology that the ES used was unique and put them in the central position about matters of International relations. For example, accommodating divergent opinions under a discussion forum was basic in arriving at acceptable and practical frameworks, which benefited from the scholarly contributions. In addition, each camp had their interpretation on the diverse international relation policies, supporting different Schools of thought. For example, the three main camps took different positions, with the rationalists’ basing their arguments on the practical capability of making a distinction between the revolutionists’ School of thought and realists caps on matters relating to IR. On the other hand, the Grotians were of the view they could able to distinguish perfectly between the Hobbesians and the Kantians Schools of thought who took divergent positions, in explaining International Relations. Alternatively, the proponents find themselves remaining on the middle ground, taking a neutral position concerning the issue of IR. Furthermore, the approach had practical orientation to the study of International Relation, whose findings or conclusion was acceptable and used in explaining matters concerning the relations among different communities in the world. References Aron, R. (2010), Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New York: Doubleday. Butterfield, H. & Wight, M. (2010), The Balance of Power. In Diplomatic Investigations. London: Allen and Unwin. Buzan, B. & Little, R. (1996), “Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism Meets World History.” European Journal of International Relations 2: 403–438. Buzan, B. (2003), “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School.” International Organization. 47: 327–352. Buzan, B. (2001), The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR. Review of International Studies 27: 471–488. Buzan, B. (2003) English School: A Bibliography. Available at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/polis/englishschool/documents.htm [accessed 09 Dec.2011]. Buzan, B. (2004), “From International to World Society?” English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chernoff, F. (2004), “The Study of Democratic Peace and Progress in International Relations.” International Studies Review 6: 49–77. Copeland, D. (2003), “A Realist Critique of the English School.” Review of International Studies 29: 427–441. Dunne, T. (1998), Inventing International Society: A History of the English School. London: Macmillan. Elman, C. & Miriam, E. F. (2003), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field. Cambridge: MIT Press. Freyberg-Inan, A. (2004), What Moves Man: The Realist Theory of International Relations and Its Judgment of Human Nature. Albany: State University of New York Press. Harrison, E. (2004), The Post-Cold War International System: Strategies, Institutions, and Reflexivity. London: Routledge. James, P. (2002), International Relations and Scientific Progress: Structural Realism Reconsidered. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Knorr, K. & Rosenau, J. N. (1969), International Theory: The Case for the Classical Approach. In Contending Approaches to International Relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Little, R. (2000), “The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 6: 395–422. Reus-Smit, C. (2002), “Imagining Society: Constructivism and the English School”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4 (3): 487–509. Watson, A. (2008), “Hedley Bull, State Systems, and International Studies.” Review of International Studies 13: 147–153. Wheeler, N. J. (2000), Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheeler, N. J. (2009), “Pluralist and Solidarist Conceptions of International Society”. Millennium 21:463–489. Read More