INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 7a8738-NzA5Z



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY

Description:

... ggll_sz_at_163.com Contents INTRODUCTION METHODS FOR STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY REALISM LIBERALISM CONSTRUCTIVISM THE ENGLISH SCHOOL ... (Realism ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:237
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 29
Provided by: richa606
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY


1
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY
  • Zhou Qiujun
  • Private email zhouqiujun_at_gmail.com
  • Public email ggll_sz_at_163.com

2
Contents
  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. METHODS FOR STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
    THEORY
  3. REALISM
  4. LIBERALISM
  5. CONSTRUCTIVISM
  6. THE ENGLISH SCHOOL
  7. CRITICAL THEORIES OF WORLD POLITICS
  8. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY AND GLOBALIZATION

3
Chapter 6 The English School
  • English school in IRT
  • English schools approach to cooperation
  • Conclusion strengths and weakness

4
Chapter 6 The English School
  • English school in IRT
  • The promise of a non-American school
  • The term of English School comes from an
    article of Roy E. Jones, an opposite of the
    school. (Jones, The English school of
    international relations a case for closure,
    Review of International Studies, 1981.)
  • ??????????(Charles Manning)??????(Martin
    Wight)???????(Hedley Bull)??????(Adam
    Watson)???????(R. J. Vincent)??????(Barry Buzan)
  • The difference between the E and the American
    schools America directs its attention to
    scientific achievements and uses them to reform
    or solidify the soft science of international
    relations while the British are more likely to
    focus on historical experiences and make them the
    grounding bed of wisdom. (???)

5
  • A sociological shift in IRT
  • It claims that international relations should be
    historical and animates the social factors that
    regulate international relations ideas, norms,
    institutions, etc.
  • The English school, embodying the traditions of
    history, law, philosophy and some of the
    conceptualizations of the social science, worked
    with Constructivism to challenge the neo-neo
    debate in the 1990s.

6
  • Evolution of the English School
  • Stage-1 (59-66) Constructing an object of study.
    In 1959, founders of the English school set up
    the British Committee on the Theory of
    International Politics and started to develop
    their analysis approach centered on
    international society. The hallmark of this
    stage is the publication of Diplomatic
    Investigations by Herbert Butterfield and Martin
    Wight.
  • Stage-2 (66-77) Defining methodological
    approach. The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull
    and Systems of States by Martin Wight established
    a historical approach to studying the
    international society.

7
  • Stage 3 (77-92) Flourishing period of academic
    works. The English school made improvements to
    its theory of international society and
    strengthened its position in academia. A new
    generation of its members started to fill out the
    vacancies left out by the old members.
  • Stage 4 (92-present) Self-transcendence. New
    members like Buzan and Dunne furnished the
    schools international society theory. In this
    period, the school discovered the American
    mainstream thoughts could not fully explain the
    post-Cold War political issues and in response,
    set it in relation to factors long ignored by the
    mainstream schools of thought, like history,
    culture and society. Therefore, the English
    school was elevated to the height on a par with
    Constructivism.

8
  • International relations as social states
  • 3 traditions of thought in international
    politics3R (Martin Wight)
  • R-1. Realist or Hobbesian, who views world
    politics in a constant status of war.
  • R-2. Rationalist (or Grotian), who acknowledges
    the birth of international politics out of an
    international society.
  • R-3. Revolutionist (or Kantian), who argues for
    the effect the community of mankind plays in
    international politics.
  • 3R shapes the schools perception into the
    nature of international relations by viewing
    simultaneously the different dimensions and
    observing how they balance and interact with each
    other.

9
Research agenda of the English school
Traditions of Thought Views on History Core Elements
International system Hobbesianism (Realism) Pessimistic History Repetition Anarchy/Power
? Conservative / Pluralism ? Conservative / Pluralism ? Conservative / Pluralism ? Conservative / Pluralism
International society Grotianism (Rationalism) Cautious Progressive Improvement International Interaction/Order
? Progressive / Solidarism ? Progressive / Solidarism ? Progressive / Solidarism ? Progressive / Solidarism
World society Kantianism (Revolutionalism) Positive History Progress Community of mankind/Justice
10
3 key concepts international system,
international society and world society
  • An international system is formed when two or
    more states have sufficient contact between them,
    and have sufficient impact on one anothers
    decisions, to cause them to behave An
    international society exists when a group of
    states, conscious of certain common interests and
    common values, form 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)
  • A world society is a representation of world
    community in broad terms and it include nations,
    multi-national organizations, NGOs and
    individuals. It shows the transition from
    international society to world society during
    which a strong willingness is exhibited in
    pushing for this progress and incorporating the
    positive factors working in the current system
    like international law, order, cooperation and
    coordination into a new world order whose
    components may be non-state entities.

11
  • Distinctive features compared with the American
    schools
  • F-1 Traditionalism rather than Behaviorism. The
    school believes that international relations,
    being a social science, should follow the
    analytical tradition that is observed in other
    human science like history, law and philosophy.
    The International political events should be
    interpreted not explained.
  • eg. Wight thought that the only reference for
    international relations study is the historical
    classics their accounts of historical events are
    consistent, thought-provoking, neural and
    relevant to social events.
  • eg. Manning takes a phenomenological approach and
    does his study of the underlying meanings of a
    phenomenon instead of the phenomenon itself (eg.
    study rules via studying the social setting in
    which the rules are established).

12
  • F-2 holistic view rather than methodological
    individualism (sociological methodology rather
    than economic methodology). The English school,
    like Constructivism, seeks to demonstrate how
    international society where states interact is
    coordinated and maintained by political
    community, norms, values, international
    institutions and global culture that go beyond
    state-level.
  • eg. Sovereign Realists interpretation hinges on
    human nature and inter-personal relationship,
    that is, sovereign states relations are dictated
    by patterns of relationship between individuals
    while the English school views sovereignty as
    interstate relations and international societys
    membership.

13
  • F-3 The English school emphasizes the importance
    of rules and institutions in its own way, it
    defines institutions as a set of rules of games
    which give true meanings to state activities.
    They are primary institutions (Buzan), because
    they have vigorous power, long-standing history
    and solid foundation.
  • Bulls five basic institutions the balance of
    power, international law, diplomacy, war and the
    great powers
  • Buzan adds the norms underlying the social
    structure (sovereignty, territory, hereditary
    monarchy and colonial government, etc.) the
    inequality between people (prelude to slavery,
    aristocracy and even empire), and the notion of
    modern nationalism (which makes people and land
    be closely tied).

14
  • Compared with Constructivism
  • The E is similar to C in terms of understanding
    international relations both stress on the value
    of social factors such as ideas, recognition and
    norms.
  • But C is a sociological paradigm, with an
    attempt studying international society while the
    E is a historical philosophy, a political theory
    on international society.

15
Chapter 6 The English School
  • English schools approach to cooperation
  • Possibilities of cooperation
  • The school thinks of international relations as a
    social state, namely, international society. The
    term society is in relation to certain orders.
    These orders are composed of international rules,
    norms and institutions which are structurally
    social, and these components themselves ate the
    products of cooperation by the international
    society members (states).

16
  • The Es ideas of international cooperation are
    based on the fundamental goals pursued by the
    international society. Bull identifies two
    societal goals. One is elementary goals by all
    societies
  • to ensure life security against violence
    resulting in death or bodily harm
  • to ensure the keeping of promises, or the
    implementation of agreements
  • to ensure the stability of the possession of
    things which is free from constant and unlimited
    challenges.

17
  • The other type is goals by the international
    society
  • preservation of the system and society of states
    itself
  • maintenance of the independence or external
    sovereignty of individual states
  • maintenance of peace in the sense of the absence
    of war among member states of international
    society as the normal condition of their
    relationship.
  • The three conditions show that international
    cooperation is represented by the international
    society. Cooperation is an endogenous variable of
    international society.

18
  • Dynamics of cooperation in an international
    society
  • Two foundations for the cooperation in
    international society common interests (or
    recognition of primary values), and shared value
    system (or ideational convergence in common
    culture or civilization).

19
  • Approaches to cooperation
  • The Es idea of cooperation takes root in the
    elementary institutions maintaining the order of
    the international society, which include the
    balance of power, international law, diplomacy,
    war and the great powers.(??????)

20
1/5 The balance of power
  • states agree to regulate their interaction. It
    functions in
  • the existence of a general balance of power
    throughout the international system as a whole
    serves to prevent the system from being
    transformed by conquest into a universal empire
  • the existence of local balance of power serves to
    protect the independence of states in particular
    areas from absorption or domination by a locally
    preponderant power
  • the existence of the both general and local
    balance of power creates conditions for the
    institutions (such as diplomacy, war,
    international law and great power management)
    that guarantee an international order to function
    well.
  • ? The balance of power place an emphasis on
    cooperation not confrontation. It highlights the
    cultures and values shared by members in a
    balanced system of power, regards them as key
    elements shaping and maintaining international
    order.
  • ? In reality, small states interests are often
    on the side of sacrifice maintaining the balance
    often runs counter against the principles of
    international law because for the balance to be
    kept, military force or deterrence will sometimes
    be resorted to against a states perceived
    imminent threat, even if the state is not in
    violation of international law.

21
2/5 International law
  • a body of rules governing the mutual interaction
    not only of states but of other agents in
    international politics. It functions in
  • establishing the idea of a society of sovereign
    states as the supreme normative principle of the
    political organization of mankind
  • statement of the basic rules of coexistence among
    states and other actors in international society
    the principles include restriction of violence,
    agreements among states, norms concerning
    sovereignty and independence
  • assisting and mobilizing actors in international
    society to abide by international societys rules
    for achieving coexistence, cooperation and other
    goals.
  • ? International law increases the predictability
    of a member states foreign policies in relation
    to others, which helps guide in coordinating
    short-term and long-term interests.
  • ? The principles of international law shall be
    accepted by member states before they are valid.
    Therefore, the major limitation of international
    law is obvious in that it is more ideationally
    binding than practically effective.

22
3/5 Diplomacy
  • the conduct of relations between states and
    other entities with standing in world politics by
    official agents and by peaceful means. It
    functions in
  • facilitating communication between the political
    leaders of states and other entities in world
    politics
  • promoting negotiation of agreements
  • gathering intelligence or information about
    foreign countries
  • minimizing the effects of friction in
    international relations.
  • ? Diplomacy in the current international
    relations is going through changes in means and
    approaches, for instance, diversified backgrounds
    of diplomatic staff. Public diplomacy, as a
    complement to formal diplomacy, plays a more
    important role whereas professional diplomats
    have witnessed a decline in their significance
    some problems facing mankind such as population,
    ecological degradation and environment have got
    on board experts regardless of their
    nationalities into global governance. However the
    rising importance of public diplomacy does not
    denote the death of formal diplomacy. (eg. the
    Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in 2009)

23
4/5 War
  • War is also an institution of international
    society which could maintain the international
    order apart from the destruction war incurs.
  • From the perspective of the independent states,
    war is a policy means for a nations ends.
  • From the perspective of the international system,
    wars are decisive factors shaping the
    international system. They determine states
    fates, borders and regime jurisdiction.
  • From the perspective of the international
    society, war is on the one side a dimension of
    the anarchical international society, which
    should be limited and contained by international
    rules and on the other side is a necessary means
    enforcing international rules, which is sometimes
    justified.

24
5/5 The great powers
  • ? The imbalance of state power enables the great
    states to have more discourse power than the
    small ones they can to some extent dominate
    international affairs and international order in
    several ways preserving the general balance,
    avoiding and controlling crisis, limiting or
    containing war, unilaterally exercising local
    preponderance, mutually respecting each others
    premise, great power concert or condominium.
  • ? The legitimacy of great powers should be
    acknowledged by other members in the system,
    otherwise, great powers cannot effectively
    stabilize the order of international system.

25
Chapter 6 The English School
  • Conclusion
  • The English school focuses on norms, rules,
    institutions and values and develops a new
    normative thinking into international relations.
  • Reasons
  • Britains history as a super power. The
    experience in diplomacy, law and other areas
    accumulated since the period of British Empire
    has provided the members of the English school
    with rich historical resources
  • Long-standing traditions and development of
    Europes human science empower the English school
    with inspiration from philosophy, law and history
    of thoughts
  • Members of the British Committee have a diverse
    academic background, which constitutes precious
    human resources for the Committee.

26
  • Strength and Weakness
  • The English school remains positive about the
    future of international cooperation. Solidarists,
    in particular, are convinced that international
    society is in the right direction so that states
    can transcend logics of peaceful coexistence into
    a more proactive cooperation. (EU case)
  • ? However, the school focuses more on theoretical
    thinking than on empirical studies.

27
  • ????
  • Roy E. Jones, The English school of
    international relations a case for closure,
    Review of International Studies, Vol.7, No.1
    (Jan. 1981), pp.1-13.
  • ?????????,?????????,2004??
  • ???????????????????(?/?)
  • ???????????????,???????????(???),?????????,201
    0??(?????????,?58-63?)
  • ?????????????????????????,?????????,2006??
  • ???????????
  • ?????/??????

28
Q A
About PowerShow.com