SUBMITTED BY: Zaheer Ahmed Mahar

SUBMITTED TO: Mr. Fazzal Abbass

REGISTRATION NO: Huss221107027

COURSE: Approaches to Theories In International Relations

SEMESTER: 4th

TOPIC: The English School Of Thought in International Relations

ASSIGNMENT NO: 02

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 30-04-2024

 ❖ THE ENGLISH SCHOOL OF THOUGHT IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
This theoretical perspective sometimes referred to as liberal realism, the International
Society school, or the British institutionalists, provides a unique lens for understanding global
politics. Here are the key points:

❖ Conceptual Foundations:
The English School posits that there exists a “society of states” at the international level,
even in the absence of a global ruler or world state—anarchy.
Unlike some other theories in International Relations (IR), the English School takes a holistic
approach, attempting to view the world as a whole.
Three Key Concepts:
1) International System: This concept refers to the interactions among states when they
have sufficient contact and impact on each other’s decisions to behave as parts of a
whole. It mainly deals with power politics conditioned by the structure of international
anarchy.
2) International Society: When like-minded states conceive themselves as bound by a
common set of rules and share in the working of common institutions, an international
society emerges. It focuses on shared norms, rules, and institutions.
3) World Society: More fundamental than international society, world society transcends
the state system. It considers individual human beings, non-state actors, and the global
population as the focus of global societal identities and arrangements.
❖ Institutions vs. Organizations:
In the English School, the term “institution” refers to long-term practices among states (such
as diplomacy, law, and war). It does not refer to international bureaucratic structures
(organizations) established to facilitate state interaction.
For international organizations, the English School uses terms like “pseudo-institutions” or
“secondary institutions” to emphasize that their effectiveness depends on the function of
primary institutions within international society.
❖ Middle Ground Between Realism and Liberalism:
The English School offers a middle ground between the opposing theories of realism
(focused on power and anarchy) and liberalism (emphasizing cooperation and institutions).
By considering both systemic power dynamics and shared norms, it provides a nuanced
perspective on international relations.
 ❖ APPLICATION OF ENGLISH SCHOOL OF THOUGHT

The English School of International Relations has increasingly engaged with Contemporary
global issues, demonstrating its relevance beyond historical contexts. Let’s explore some recent
applications:

1) Role of Emerging Powers and World Order:

Recent scholarship within the English School has examined the changing dynamics of global
power. It considers the rise of emerging powers (such as China, India, and Brazil) and their
impact on the existing world order.

By using the English School’s nuanced approach, researchers analyze how these emerging
powers navigate international norms, institutions, and power relations. The school’s historical
awareness helps make sense of the complexities in this transition11.

2) Globalization and Regionalization:

The English School has expanded its focus to address globalization and regionalization. It
explores how global processes intersect with regional dynamics.

Scholars use English School concepts to understand how shared norms and institutions
shape regional cooperation, conflict, and identity. Mechanisms like normative arguing and
boundary-drawing come into play.

3) European Security and Brexit:

The English School provides valuable insights into European security challenges and the
implications of Brexit.

Researchers examine how European states perceive their security interests within the
broader international society. The School’s historical ideal types help analyze the tensions
between sovereignty, cooperation, and identity in the European context.

❖ CRITICISM OF ENGLISH SCHOOL OF THOUGHTS:

The English School of International Relations has faced several criticisms over the years. Let’s
explore some of the key critiques:
 1) Lack of Clarity as a Theory:

Critics argue that the English School lacks clarity as a putative theory of international
politics. It is challenging for social scientists to discern precisely what the School aims to explain,
its causal logic, or how to measure its core independent variable, “international society.”

Unlike other well-defined theories, the English School provides more descriptive
accounts of historical international societies and weakly defined hypotheses related to
cooperation. However, it lacks a rigorous and testable framework for understanding
international relations.

2) Vagueness and Conceptualization:

The English School offers descriptions of international societies and their evolution
throughout history. However, it does not provide clear falsifiable hypotheses for empirical
testing.

Its focus on “international society” remains somewhat vague, making it challenging to

operationalize and measure. As a result, the School falls short of being a fully developed theory.

3) Neglect of Realist Implications:

Realist critics argue that the English School downplays the impact of anarchy—the
absence of a global ruler or world state—on international relations.

While the English School emphasizes shared rules and norms within international
societies, it overlooks the fundamental implications of anarchy. Realists contend that states’
behavior is primarily driven by power and security considerations, which may not align with
cooperative norms.

4) American Realism as an Alternative:

Some argue that American realism remains a more useful starting point for building
explanatory and predictive theories in IR.

Realist theory focuses on power dynamics and security interests as primary causal forces
in global politics. Critics believe that American realism provides a stronger foundation than the
English School for understanding state behavior.

In Conclusion, while the English School has made significant contributions to IR theory, it faces
challenges related to clarity, vagueness, and its treatment of anarchy. Realist critiques highlight
these limitations and advocate for alternative approaches.