Kent Political Almanac

62 Pages·2014·3.75 MB·English

Kent Political Almanac
‘Europe in the World’
Special Issue
ABOUT THE KENT MANAGING EDITOR ACADEMIC ADVISORS
POLITICAL ALMANAC
Léo Wilkinson Dr Ruth Blakeley
The Kent Political Almanac was
created to provide a platform for
Professor Elena Korosteleva
academic debate and peer-
EDITORIAL BOARD
reviewed publication opportuni-
Dr Ersun Kurtulus
ties for students in Politics and
Noémie Battini
International Relations. This
Professor Donna Lee
journal’s purpose is to showcase
the School’s best undergraduate Afroditi-Maria Koulaxi
Dr Neophytos Loizides
and postgraduate essays.
Eugenie Megally
The initiative came from stu- Professor Richard Sakwa
dents of the School of Politics
Maëlle Poulin
and International Relations, Dr Harmonie Toros
which led to the journal being
Erik Lindner-Olsson
launched in November 2013.
All articles are peer-reviewed by Rebecca Walker LAYOUT & DESIGN
both students and members of
the School’s academic staff. We April Yeung Mehdi Abakarim
are proud to be an entirely stu-
dent-led publication, supported Robert Small
from our School of Politics and
IR at the University of Kent.
ABOUT THE GLOBAL EUROPE CENTRE
The Global Europe Centre (GEC) is a new interdisciplinary research cen-
tre, focusing on Europe, its member states, and its place in a changing
world.
The Centre brings together leading international academics from politics and
international relations, economics, law, business, and European culture in
Global
order to explore the contemporary policy challenges to Europe and its nation
Europe
Centre states.
Get in touch The GEC team has a strong track record of engagement with policy makers
and informing decision making in London and in Brussels. Research is also
W: www.kent.ac.uk/politics/gec
widely disseminated through publications, knowledge transfer workshops,
E: [email protected]
conferences and events. The Centre has a strong commitment to the crea-
F: Global Europe Centre - University of Kent
tion of the next generation of ideas innovators and policy makers. The Cen-
T: @GlobalEuropeCen
tre also has a strong student voice, working across all levels and disciplines.
Kent Political Almanac
School of Politics and International Relations
Rutherford College
University of Kent
Canterbury
Kent, CT2 7NX
United Kingdom
YOUR LOGO
HERE
Blog: http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/kentpoliticalalmanac/
E-mail: [email protected]
2 Kent Political Almanac
Spring 2014
Kent Political Almanac
Issue 1
‘Europe in the World’
Special Issue
WELCOME TO THIS SPECIAL ISSUE
This Spring issue of the of the Kent Political Almanac is special for two
reasons: it is not only the journal’s first publication, but we also have
been privileged to launch it jointly with the Global Europe Centre, Uni-
versity of Kent. We therefore decided to make this special issue focused
on the theme of “Europe in the World”, in its first printed edition.
The articles in this issue were submitted for publication by students in
response to our call for papers in February 2014. We were delighted to
TABLE OF CONTENTS
have submissions from both undergraduate and postgraduate students,

with authors representing different countries of Europe and beyond. Sim-
The English School of
ilarly, our editorial team was just as international: even though we all
Thought ………………………….4
study at the University of Kent, we had editors originally from Sweden,

Greece and France, but also from Hong Kong and Malta.
Europe in the financial
We would like to thank all of the authors who contributed to this first turmoil………………………….16
issue. All articles were then reviewed by members of staff from the
School of Politics and International Relations, to whom we are very Peace-building ‘from below’
in Kosovo………………………26
grateful to. Our special thanks go to the Global Europe Centre,

and particularly to Professor Elena Korosteleva, whose support has been
Power-Sharing, Minority
pivotal to the journal’s launch. We also would like to acknowledge the
Rights and Equal Citizenship
support of the European Parliament office in London, for helping us to
in Nigeria and Mali…....…..38
publish this first edition.

We hope that you will enjoy reading this very special issue of the Kent The EU’s International Role:
A Normative Power in Theo-
Political Almanac.
ry or in Practice?...............50

Léo Wilkinson
Managing Editor
Issue 1 3
BY JOHANNA HANS
This paper provides a critical
assessment of the English
THE ENGLISH SCHOOL OF THOUGHT
School of Thought, also known
as the International Society
Approach.
Introduction
The English School is common-
ly associated with a group of The international society approach, also referred to as
British academics and political the English School (ES) or Liberal Realism, is a particular strand
practitioners during the second
of International Relations theory and is commonly associated
half of the 20th century. Build-
with a group of academics of the British Committee and the In-
ing upon the two dominant
ternational Relations Department of the London School of Eco-
mainstream approaches of IR
theory, the English school tries nomics during the second half of the 20th century.1 Among its
to harmonize both the theoreti- most prominent figures are the founding fathers Martin Wight
cal axioms of realism as well as
and Charles Manning, as well as Wight’s student Hedley Bull but
those of the liberal schools of
also contemporary theorists like Richard Little and Barry Buzan.
thought. Despite its appeal as a
The English School introduced the idea of an international socie-
via media between the two
grand schools of IR, the Eng- ty, a society of states, that, driven by shared values and inter-
lish School finds itself on the ests, exists despite the condition of anarchy in the international
periphery of International Re- arena.2 On this basis, the international society approach tries to
lations theory and is lacking
harmonize both the theoretical axioms of realism as well as
the wider recognition of the
those of the liberal schools of thought. Despite its appeal as a
international academic com-
via media between the two grand schools of IR, the English
munity.
School finds itself on the periphery of International Relations
Critically engaging with the
theory and is not given much attention by scholars outside the
English School, this paper por-
United Kingdom.3 The missing recognition of the international
trays how the International
Society Approach synthesizes academic community necessitates a critical engagement with the
the mainstream IR theories theoretical positions of the writers of the English School as well
into a single approach and dis-
as their critics.
cusses the potency and concep-
tual weaknesses of such an It is the aim of this paper to discuss whether the interna-
approach. tional society approach is an adequate third way between real-
ism and liberalism. In order to do so it must be asked to what
extent the English School depicts the international society ap-
proach as a via media and whether it is convincing.
The paper is divided into three parts. In the first part this paper
presents the core features of the international society approach
and examines how attempts are made to synthesise the main
“In compliance with the liberalist tradition, English School scholars
agree that institutions and norms matter and that the interdependence
between states can create pacifying effects.”
1 Totten, Mark RM (2012): The English School of International Relations Theory: Heir Apparent or
Illegitimate Pretender? Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, Wiltshire.
2 Bull, Hedley (1966): On International Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.pp.75-76
3 Totten, p.1

4 Kent Political Almanac
theoretical traditions of IR, realism, liberalism and rationalism,
into one single approach.4 The second part will consider the po-
tency and merits of the English School that are articulated by its
advocates such as Robert Jackson.5 The last part will explore and
evaluate the most dominant criticism, most prominently put for-
ward by Roy Jones.6
This paper will conclude with a rather pessimistic view
about the international society approach. It will be shown that
the School’s greatest strength, the harmonization of all three IR
traditions into one theory, is also its biggest weakness. By incor-
porating pluralistic theoretical stances, the English school looses
its coherence and plausibility which ultimately calls into ques-
tion the school‘s stand as an independent theory of International
Relations.
Due to the limited space available in this paper I will
mostly concentrate on the writings of Martin Wight and Hedley
Bull as two of the leading exponents of the international society
approach.
“In the rationalist belief, states have mitigated the belligerent effects of the con-
dition of anarchy by developing societal relations with one another which ena-
ble the development of principles of how to control the use of force.”

The English School as a Via Media
The English School accommodates the theoretical stances
of more than one world view. In his influential work Internation-
al Theory: The Three Traditions (1991) Martin Wight identified
three strands of international political thought and categorized
them into Machiavellian realism, Grotian rationalism and Kanti-
an revolutionism.7
Wight considers the realist tradition as a theory of con-
flict, war and power politics.8 Ascribing the realist school great
explanatory strength in terms of accounting for power constella-
tions in international politics, Wight adopts many of its core fea-
tures. He agrees with realists that states are the key actors in the
international state system which is characterized by the absence
of a central authority.9 Although Wight and other English schol-
ars accept the realist perception of an anarchical state system,
the implications they attribute to it, are rather different. Instead
of concluding a war of all against all in the Hobbesian sense,
they rather agree with the Lockean idea that despite the lack of a
common authority to enforce the law, human beings are able to
4 Due to the limited space available in this paper I will mostly concentrate on the writings of Martin
Wight and Hedley Bull as two of the leading exponents of the international society approach.
5 Jackson, Robert (1996): Is there a Classical International Theory? In: Ashley, Richard [et al] [ed.]:
International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
6 Jones, Roy E. (1981): The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure. In: Re-
view of International Studies, Vol. 7, No 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7 Wight, Martin (1991): International Theory: The Three Traditions. Leicester University Press,
Leicester.
8 Totten, p.5
9Wight, Martin (1986): Power Politics. Penguin, London. P.105
Issue 1 5
behave reasonably towards one another due to a common set of
interests.10
In this sense, the English School rather approximates the
Kantian liberal vision of the international state system in which
all communities, bound together by the same values and ideolo-
gies, can coexist peacefully without having to fear the use of
force.11 In compliance with the liberalist tradition, English School
scholars agree that institutions and norms matter and that the
interdependence between states can create pacifying effects.12
However, Wight and his followers abstain from the cosmopolitan
idea of a world-state or even a Kantian federation and are highly
sceptical that democratic ideas and institutions ultimately lead
to a perpetual peace, as depicted by liberal peace scholars.13 Alt-
hough the English School holds the view that anarchy and socie-
ty can coexist, they do not disregard the hostilities between
states.
As could be seen, the English School takes into account
the core presumptions of both realism and liberalism and pre-
sents them as complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
In addition to harmonizing the realist and liberalist tradition,
the English school also draws heavily upon rationalist theory
and incorporates its main assumptions into its own approach.
The rationalist tradition has its origin in the writings of Hugo
Grotius (1583 - 1645) on international law. In the rationalist be-
lief, states have mitigated the belligerent effects of the condition
of anarchy by developing societal relations with one another
which enable the development of principles of how to control
the use of force.14 This way, the rationalist tradition captures the
sociological axioms of realism as well as the normative stance of
liberalism.15
Since rationalism recognises the respective strengths of
realism and liberalism without directly challenging any of their
core propositions, Wight views the rationalist tradition as a mid-
dle way between the two.16 This appeal of rationalism as a via
media between realism and liberalism became the basis for
Wight’s concept of an international society.
The international society approach is the central focus of
the English School. ES scholars believe that there exists an inter-
national society among states that is more civilized and orga-
nized than realists suggest, but less idealistic and utopian than
liberals would hope.17
In his work The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World
10 Wight(1991), p.13
11 Linklater, Andrew (2010): The English School Conception of International Society. Reflections on
Western and non-Western Perspectives. In: Ritsumaiken Annual Review of International Studies,
No. 9, p.2. International Studies Association of Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto.
12 Jordan, Richard (2011): A Brief Case the English School. In: The Monitor, Special Edition 16, pp.
23. AIM Media Texas, McAllen.
13 Ibid, p.23
14 Suganami, Hidemi (2011): The English School, History and Theory. In: Ritsumeikan International
Affairs, Vol. 9, p.34 Ritsumeikan University, Tokyo.
15 Totten, p.6
16 Ibid, p.1
17 Burchill, Scott [et al.] (2005): Theories of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Basing-
stoke. p.85
6 Kent Political Almanac
Politics, (1995) Hedley Bull defines the international society as
follows:
“Whereas a system of states emerges when two or more states
have sufficient contact between them and exert enough impact
upon one another so that their behaviour necessitates the calcu-
lation of the other, a society of states, on the other hand is ‚a
group of states, conscious of certain common interests and com-
mon values, [that] form a society in the sense that they conceive
themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their rela-
tions with one another and share on the working of common
institutions.”18
Since life, truth and property - according to the interna-
tional society approach - are the primary goals of each society,19
states have agreed that they should work together to better se-
cure the survival of the members of their society, to mutually
respect sovereignty and property and to ensure that treaties and
agreements are kept.20
“States have agreed that they should work together to better secure the
survival of the members of their society, to mutually respect sovereignty
and property and to ensure that treaties and agreements are kept.”
The concept of the international society is a prime exam-
ple of how the three traditions blend into each other. From a
methodological point of view this synthesizing is seen by the
pluralistic ‘levels of analysis’ that English School writers operate
with. Advocates of the international society approach take ac-
count of the structural coercions of the international system at
the systemic level while at the same time recognizing the impact
of agents and processes within the society and analysing the im-
portance of individuals and transnational groups at an individu-
al level.21 This way the English School employs the units of analy-
sis of each IR tradition.22
With regard to its epistemology, meaning the question
how we know what we know, the international society approach
is primarily interpretative.23 That is to say, it understands reality
as it is perceived and experienced and sees everything and eve-
ryone as interconnected.24
However, due to the English School’s close links to real-
ism and liberalism it also adopts a positivist approach towards
18 Bull, Hedley (1995): The Anarchical Society. A Study of Order in World Politics. 2nd Edition. Co-
lumbia University Press, New York.p.3
19 Ibid, p.5
20 Linklater, p.13
21 Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür (2005): The English School, International Rela-
tions, and Progress. In: International Studies Review, Vol. 7, No.2, p.184 The International Studies
Association, Tucson.
22 Neo-realism concentrates especially on the systemic level and holds the view that the distribution
of capabilities of states within the international system shapes international relations (see Waltz
1979: 90). Liberalism on the other hand emphasizes the superiority of individual human beings thus
focusing on the individual level (see Badie 2011: 1434). Rationalists point to the societal relations
between states and employ therefore meso-level analyses.
23 Totten, p.15
24 Israel, Roger R. (2005) Three Styles of Social Inquiry: Positivist, Interpretative and Critical Re-
search. Metropolitan State University, Minnesota, USA.p,2
Issue 1 7
science, which is especially apparent in the neo-versions of both
realism and liberalism. Like neo-realist and neo-liberalists, ES
scholars believe that an international society exists independent-
ly from the observer’s perception of it and that theories can be
formulated and reviewed against the backdrop of physical obser-
vations from the political world.25
At the same time the international society approach also
incorporates the ethical, normative dimension of classical liber-
alism by depicting a society of states where common norms and
identity are regarded as two of the primary components.26 Hence
the ES features a multi-facetted epistemological nature.
Also with regard to its ontology, that is the question of
what is there that can be known about, the English School re-
tains a rather pluralistic understanding of international rela-
tions. Although war is seen as an inevitable feature in interna-
tional relations, it is claimed that it would be too one-sided to
suppose that statesmen discard all ethical concerns and are ex-
clusively preoccupied with power and conflict.27 Since states are
constantly embedded into interactions and cooperation to
achieve mutual interests, they have developed a form of interna-
tional social consciousness.28 Hence, the international society
'thickens‘ where cooperation is greatest such as in the realm of
international commerce or the agreements on basic human
rights.29
“The most commonly cited criticism that has been targeted against ES
writers is that of the lack of a common epistemology.”
In the ES vision the order of this society is maintained
through five institutions: diplomacy, international law, balance
of power mechanisms, international institutions and com-
merce.30 The role of justice in the maintenance of the internation-
al society became one of the central and most disputed ques-
tions within the English School. Influenced by E.H. Carr’s ques-
tion “order for whom?“.31 Bull concluded that justice ultimately
contributes to order and hence to the maintenance of the inter-
national society.32 Other ES writers, however, hold the view that
pursuing justice entails the danger of increasing conflict and
violence (e.g. Robert Jackson). This tension between order and
justice formed a starting point of an inner split of the English
25 Whyte, Alexander (2012): Neorealism and Neoliberal Institutionalism: Born of the same ap-
proach? (Online) URL: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/06/11/neorealism-and-neoliberal-institutionalism-
born-of-the-same-approach/.
26 Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür, p.183
27 Ibid, p.183
28 Dunne, Timothy (1995): The Social Construction of International Society. In: European Journal of
International Relations, Vol. 1, No. 3, p. 379. Sage Publication, New York.
29 Totten, p10
30 Ibid, p.9
31 Carr, E.H. (1939): The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of Interna-
tional Relations. Macmillan, London.
32Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür, p.187
8 Kent Political Almanac
School into a pluralists and solidarist camp, who differ the most
in their opinion on humanitarian interventions.33
To recapitulate, the international society approach fea-
tures a methodological, epistemological and ontological plurali-
ty. By retaining close ties to the rationalist tradition, Wight and
Bull therefore asserted that the international society approach
stands between the realist and revolutionist thought.34 Andrew
Linklater describes the international society approach as ‘more
to international relations than the realist admits but less than
the cosmopolitan desires’.35

Potency of the International Society Approach
After having pointed out the key features of the English
school, it is now imperative to critically assess the international
society approach. According to Scott Burchill ‘the English School
can claim to have passed the test of a good theory’ by success-
fully avoiding ‘the sterility of realism and the naivety of ideal-
ism‘.36 By incorporating elements of all three traditions of Inter-
national Relations theory, the international society approach
provides certain advantages: As a via media the English School
enables a dialogue between the two opposite theories of realism
and liberalism which would otherwise lack the ability to com-
municate with one another effectively.37 Apart from that, synthe-
sizing the grand traditions into one approach provides for more
explanatory variables, many of which one tradition - realism, lib-
eralism or rationalism - taken by its own, would potentially turn
a blind eye on. The English School thus enables theorists to em-
ploy a perspective from across the IR spectrum.38
Another central strength of the approach is that it is not
exclusively concerned with theories of conflict but rather re-
quires a twofold analysis of both war and peace and has a better
account of change in international relations than other theories.
While change in the realist tradition for instance only evolves
through shifts in the distribution of capabilities39 or the rise and
fall of hegemonic powers,40 Wight and Bull believe that the
course of international relations is primarily determined by the
dynamics of the international society.41 Interaction and coopera-
tion in international relations is according to ES scholars essen-
tially shaped by common interests which are subject to change.
The international society approach thus has greater explanatory
power for dynamic phenomena such as globalisation or regional
developments and provides an ideal framework for explaining
33 Unfortunately, a detailed examination of these two distinctive conceptions of the international
society is beyond the scope and space of this paper. For further discussion see e.g. Wheeler 2000.
34 Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür, p.175
35 Linklater, p108
36 Burchill, p.108
37 Little, Richard (2000): The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations.
In: European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 3, p. 396. Sage Publications, New York.
38 Totten, p.5
39 Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979): Theories of International Politics. Addison-Wesley, Boton.p.90
40 Gilpin, Robert (1981): War and Change in International Politics. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
41 Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür, p.183
Issue 1 9
progressive alliances of states.42
The persistence of war and conflict in international rela-
tions as well the existence of common rules and values (for ex-
ample why else do we have international law and universally ac-
cepted legal principles like jus cogens?) and functioning com-
mon institutions (e.g. the regular exchange of diplomats) along-
side with international and regional organizations (e.g. the Euro-
pean Union) and alliances (e.g. the War on Terror alliance), all
give merit to the international society approach. By taking into
account macro-, meso- and micro-linkages, the English School
brings together the benefits of diversity for understanding IR as
a whole.43

Conceptual Weaknesses and Lack of Plausibility
As appealing as the synthesizing of the three IR tradi-
tions may sound, as much does it expose the international socie-
ty approach at risk of becoming a ‘catch-all theory“. As Richard
Little pointed out ‚the English School can look like a perfidious
Albion, the balancer, ever willing to shift ground in order to be
on the winning side of the argument‘.44 Having spent too much
energy on trying to reconcile the apparently incompatible theo-
retical stances of the grand IR theories, the English School now
lacks a clear and coherent stand as an academic enterprise of IR
theory.
The most commonly cited criticism that has been target-
ed against ES writers is that of the lack of a common epistemolo-
gy. Wights’s proximity to historical and philosophical analysis in
IR and Bull’s obvious rejection of behavioralism,45 compound
with the retaining to positivism by most contemporary ES theo-
rists,46 give credit to the claim that the English School lacks epis-
temological consistency.
Apart from this, one of the principle ontological criti-
cisms is that the essential question of what constitutes an inter-
national society, is far from being clear. Instead, there exist di-
verse and often incompatible perceptions within the School it-
self. Whereas Wight claimed that there must be at least some
degree of cultural unity for states to form a society,47 Buzan and
Butterflied are rather doubtful whether a common culture is a
necessary precondition for the development of an international
society.48 Also Bull is careful enough to not speak of a common
culture but rather of the existence of common interests which
cause states to adopt norms, values and institutions which in
42 Ibid
43Totten, p.7
44 Little, p.396
45 Devlen, Balkan/James, Patrick/Özdamar, Özgür, p.185
46 Totten, p.15
47Wight, Martin (1977): System of States. Leicester University, Leicester. p.33
48 Buzan, Barry (1993): From International System to International Society. Structural Realism and
Regime Theory Meet the English School. In: International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 3, p.333 MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
10 Kent Political Almanac