Babes-Bolyai

University Cluj Napoca

Faculty of European Studies

The English School between Realism and

Idealism

Ananie Adina Marina

International Relations, Second Year

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER I...................................................................................................................................5
HOW DID REALISM, IDEALISM AND THE ENGLISH SCHOOL APPEARED?............5
1.1 THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF REALISM......................................................................5
1.2

THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF IDEALISM..............................................................10

1.3 THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH SCHOOL...............................................12

CHAPTER II................................................................................................................................13
THE ENGLISH SCHOOL-BRIDGE BETWEEN REALISM AND IDEALISM.................14
2.1 REALISM VERSUS ENGLISH SCHOOL VERSUS IDEALISM ON KEY ISSUES..............................14
CHAPTER III..............................................................................................................................20
CRITICISM AND FUTURE CHALLENGES..........................................................................20
CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................25
BIBLIOGRAPHY:.......................................................................................................................26

Page | 2

INTRODUCTION

This paper tries to explain the main contributions brought by realism, idealism and the
English School of International Relations to the field of Theories of International Relations. In
order to better understand in which way the three theories managed to influence the field of
International Relations, it is important to see under which circumstances realism, idealism and
the English School appeared as theories and how they developed through time. The paper also
deals with the criticisms received over the years by these three theories and the way they are
regarded nowadays.
There are several questions that need to be answered when comparing realism, idealism and
the English School. As there are controversial opinions regarding whether they are opposed or
similar, this paper tries to analyse both sides and reach to a conclusion. My main focus is to
compare realism and the English School, but elements of idealism must be analyzed because
they can help us form an opinion on the relation established between the two theories.
What are the main similarities and differences between realism and the English School of
International Relations? Is the English School a bridge between realism and idealism?
But before discussing about these three theories, we first have to place them in the larger context
of Theories of International Relations. This field attempts to analyze the international relations
from a theoretical position. In order to cope with the complexity of the world and its problems,
different theories, also known as Grand Theories, were formulated. Each of them further
analyzed in an unique way the international actors and their way of acting in the international
arena, their goals and their means to achieve those goals. Some of the most popular theories are
realism, liberalism, English School,constructivism etc.

Page | 3

My goal is to discuss two of these theories, namely realism and English School and present their
point of view regarding the international society. I also intend to discuss about idealism, in order
to see if it influenced in any way the development of the English School. I will first try to
introduce the reader into the context in which these theories appeared and the way they
developed through time. The best way in which one can form an opinion about a theory is
analyzing the writings of their reprezentatives and for this reason I will make a short analysis of
the works of the best known realists, idealists and English School scholars. As I previously
stated, each Grand Theory has its own way of examining the international society and therefore,
an important topic of my paper consists in comparing how realism and the English School
described important aspects, such as the state, the international context and the concept of
anarchy. We can then form an opinion on whether they are opposed, or on the contrary,if they
agree on some key issues. In this chapter I also discussed elements of liberalism, as they proved
to be relevant in determining the relation established between realism and the English School.
After having in mind a clear image of what these three theories entail, we can move forward on
analyzing some critics they received through time. It is obvious that there will always be
conflicting opinions about these theories, because of the complexity of the subject they deal with.
Therefore, I chose to present some of the scholars who criticized each of them and their
arguments.
The final part is dedicated to future challenges. This I found it to be of extreme importance,
because we live in a world that is constantly changing and developing, a world in which the
demands are higher and the problems are deeper. The nowadays globalized world doesnt
resemble the world of Thucydides or Machiavelli and so realism has to cope with all these
differences in order to ensure its survival as theory. Also, the English School has to make some
adjustments, because this theory was born under extraordinary international circumstances, very
different from the nowadays situation. Idealism is in the same situation, having to constantly
fight for its survival in a globalized world.The main point I want to make clear is the interest
towards finding an answer at the question :
Are realism and the English School opposed or similar?, mainly because it proved to be such
a controversial issue.
Page | 4

CHAPTER I

HOW DID REALISM, IDEALISM AND THE

ENGLISH SCHOOL APPEARED?
1.1 THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF REALISM

Realism is considered to be one of the most important theories of International Relations, being
able to survive and adapt through time and therefore, in order to understand under which
circumstances it developed, we have to analyze the writings of the main realist theoreticians.
Before discussing the origins of realism, we first have to make the distinction between classical
realism and contemporary realism. Classical realism is considered to be the traditional way of
thinking, focusing on the main values of national security. Contemporary realism has as a goal to
examine the issues of the international system and it has mainly a scientific approach.
The origins of realism can be traced back in the fifth century before Christ, in Thucydides
analysis of the 1Peloponnesian War (499 and 449 B.C). It is believed that his ideas marked the
foundation for the realist school of International Relations, as his opinion regarding the war was
that :
2

" The real cause I consider to be the one which was formally most kept out of sight. The growth of the power of

Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon, made war inevitable. Still it is well to give the grounds
alleged by either side which led to the dissolution of the treaty and the breaking out of the war."

1 The Peloponnesian War was an ancient Greek war fought by Athens and its empire against Sparta

2 Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, page 22 , http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/460_-400,_Thucydites,_History_Of_The_Peloponnesian_War,_EN.pdf

Page | 5

Thucydides emphasizes the idea of knowing how to adapt to the reality of inequalities and
portraits a world of states that fight on the international arena in order to survive.
Thucydides ideas were later taken on by a very important figure of the Renaissance, an Italian
historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist and writer, Niccol Machiavelli. In his
book, The Prince, he explains his view on how power should be handled and thus asserts the
following :
3

But, it being my intention to write a thing which shall be useful to him who apprehends it, it appears to me more

appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it; for many have pictured republics and
principalities which in fact have never been known or seen, because how one lives is so far distant from how one
ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his
preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him
among so much that is evil. Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong,
and to make use of it or not according to necessity.

Machiavelli saw the world as being a dangerous place, in which in order to ensure his survival,
one has to take advantage of all the opportunities that occur and always oversee the affairs of the
enemies. These ideas are transferred from the individual to the state, where the freedom and
independence are the main goals.

Another important promoter of realism was Armand Jean du Plessis , most commonly known as
Cardinal Richelieu. In the position of Frances Prime Minister, he sought to consolidate Frances
dominance in the 4Thirty Years War, whose end marked the establishing of the modern system of
states.

3 Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, page 72, http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.pdf

4 The Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was a series of wars fought in Central Europe, one of the most destructive
battles in history of Europe
Page | 6

To conclude the list of classical realists, we have to mention Thomas Hobbes, whose main
contribution to the field of international relations was the introduction of the term 5state of
nature. The state of nature can be considered a synonym of the state of war, as the natural
impulse of man is to fight. People live in fear and cannot trust each other. For Hobbes, the escape
from that reality is the creation of the sovereign state, in which people cooperate, driven from the
fear of an attack from their neighbors. However, as the problems between individuals are
resolved, the issue of international state of nature occurs. The peace cannot be guaranteed and
war is often considered the best way of solving problems.
These realists, under the doctrine of raison detat, or reason of state, managed to provide
instructions on how states should act on the international stage, in issues of foreign affairs. What
they try to explain is that insecurity is a natural condition and that lasting peace between states
can never be achieved.
Classical realists paved the way to the wave of realists that emerged later, in the aftermath of the
Second World War.

First World War

From a realist point of view, the First World War represented a major challenge. The rise of
German power, from a political and economical point of view, in comparison with the decline of
Britains power, the previous hegemon, who could no longer maintain a balance in Europe, were
the main causes for war. At the end of the war, Presidents Woodrow Wilson Fourteen Points
marked the basis for the peace. A number of liberties were granted, such as freedom of trade and
navigation, the right to self-determination, and, maybe the most important aspect, creation of the
League of Nations in 1919. As a consequence, the years following the World War One were
peaceful and lacked any major disputes. Realists, who lay their entire theory on anarchy and war,
found themselves at an impasse.

5 The state of nature is a term in political philosophy, introduced by Thomas Hobbes

Page | 7

However, the 1930s marked the end of the enthusiasm created at the end of the war, as a series
of problems forestalled the international arena. In Germany, the new Nazi regime started to
become a concern for its neighbors, Spain was facing civil war and Japan extended its influence
in its main enemy, China.
E. H. Carr took advantage of this situation to launch an attack against the liberal ideas that
influenced the inter-war period. Carrs theory is that every field of study, including International
Relations, goes through a phase of utopianism, in that case, liberalism, and that the cure for that
is realism. Carr put an emphasis on the practical understanding of international relations and on
the awareness of the main problems faced in foreign affairs.

Second World War and the Cold War period

In the 1940s-1950s realism managed to exercise its dominance in international relations, mainly
by criticizing the liberal idealism from the interwar period .After the devastations caused by
World War Two, classical Realism was systematized by Hans J. Morgenthau. Thus, his book
Politics Among Nations became the corner stone of international relations, for generations.
Like Carr, for Morgenthau, the best way to explain realism is by placing it in antagonism with
liberalism. Morgenthau formulated six principles that can offer the reader a better understanding
on realist ideas:
1.

2.

The key consideration "is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.

3.

"Interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid", although its exact

International relations is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature".

meaning may change with time and circumstance.

6 file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ%20NAPOCA%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/C.
%20FIRST%20DEBATE/B.%20REALISM/Dunn_1998-2000_What%20is%20Realism.HTM
Page | 8

4.

While moral principles have a place, they cannot be defined identically at every time and place, and
apply differently to individuals and the state.

5.

"The moral aspirations of a particular nation" are not "moral laws that govern the universe".

6.

Politics is an autonomous sphere that needs to be analysed as an entity, without being subordinated to
outside values.

Morgenthaus concept is that humans are political animals pursuing power. He continues the
ideas of Thucydides and Machiavelli, separating the public sphere morality from the private one,
since political morality allows actions that private morality could not tolerate. In his view,
realism tries to find answers to an ever-changing world of conflicts, in which one nation,
regardless of how strong it is, cannot impose its influence over another nation, because
ultimately will cause instability and war.
In the 1970s an important realist, Kenneth N. Waltz became known for the introduction of the
term Neorealism. According to 7Martin Dunn , Waltz concentrated his work on the nature of the
system-level structure, renouncing to see power as the most important motivation for states, and
placing instead security on the first hand. Waltz dismisses the actors of the system as being the
most important assets, and places an emphasis on the structure, as the structure is the one that
compels actors to act in certain ways.
8

According to Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, although Waltz has as a starting point

classical and neoclassical realism, he departs from them and creates something unique, as he tries
to give a scientific explanation for international politics. He is also the one who distinguished
between bipolar systems, like the case of the United States of America and the Soviet Union
during the Cold War and multipolar systems, existing before and after the Cold War.

7 Martin Dunn-Realism in International Relations file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ%20NAPOCA

%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/C.%20FIRST%20DEBATE/B.
%20REALISM/Dunn_1998-2000_What%20is%20Realism.HTM#Waltz

8 Jackson, Robert and Sorensen Georg, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, pp. 58-94
Page | 9

Between two World Wars and a Cold one, the 20th century presents itself as one of international
turmoil, offering thus the perfect conditions for realism to develop and flourish. However, at the
end of the Cold War, the world seemed to overpass its problems and another war became very
unlikely to happen.

1.2

THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF IDEALISM

Idealism is the theory of international relations which was always viewed as opposed to realism.
They gave birth to the first great debate in the field of international relations theory and managed
to defend through time their position as fundamental theories. It is difficult to trace back in time
the roots of idealism, as there are different accounts on how this theory emerged.
The origins of liberalism may be identified with the failure of feudalism in the 15th century. In
the 17th century, the 9English revolution is considered to be the first liberal revolution. The best
thing we can do is to name some of its best known representatives, who put their mark on this
field.
John Locke (1632-1704) is nowadays regarded as the father of liberalism, because he believed in
human progress and capitalist economy and discussed about the separation of Church and State.
Other philosophers later on got inspired by his works and continued to improve his ideas.
Later on, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) puts forward the concept of utilitarianism. This entails
the fact that the government has the responsibility to manage in such a way that the most of the
individuals should obtain the highest degree of pleasure. He also promoted the freedom of
expression, equal rights for women and the abolition of slavery.

9 The English Civil War (16421651) was a series of armed conflicts and political problems between
Parliamentarians (Roundheads) and Royalists (Cavaliers).
Page | 10

In Britain, Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882) is regarded as the founder of the British Idealist
Movement and the one who later on influenced other scholars such as Bernard Bosanquet,
Francis Herbert Bradley and David George Ritchie. Green believed in minimum state
intervention and in finding a local solution for a local problem, rather than national state actions.
In Germany, philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Georg Hegel (1770-1831) or
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) were known as idealists who put their mark on the 19th
century philosophy. Kant promoted the state of peace instead the state of war and adopted a
contractual view of the state, built on three principles: freedom, equality and independence.
Another important stage in the history of idealism is the Wilsonian tradition. President Woodrow
Wilson was the promoter of an idealistic approach to the foreign politics and is nowadays known
as an important representative of idealism. He presented to the Congress the 10Fourteen Points ,
which were meant to justify USAs intervention in World War One and to promote peace, ethics
and cooperation. Some of the 14 points stated the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All treaties between countries to be made public

Freedom of navigation upon the seas
The removal of economic barriers between countries
The reduction of arms
The nations to have an impartial adjustment of all colonial claims

These first 5 points discuss issues like freedom, peace, justice, cooperation. They are a very good
example of what liberalists promote and their views upon the world order.
We can conclude by saying that idealism covers a wide range of perspectives and that its
representatives dismissed the idea of the importance of war and promoted instead peace and
cooperation among states. They were also supporters of freedoms and liberties for citizens and
believed in a world of cooperation and justice.

10 The "Fourteen Points" was a statement by United States President Woodrow Wilson that the First World War
was being fought for a moral cause and for postwar peace in Europe
Page | 11

1.3 THE ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH SCHOOL

The English School of International Relations managed to establish itself through time as one of
the most important theories of international relations, being able to provide answers to
fundamental political questions. Its roots can be traced in the middle of the 20th century, closer
after the end of the Second World War.
It is believed that the history of the English School begins in the late 1950s, when the members
of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics started to meet, under the
conduct of Herbert Butterfield. Among the founding members there were historians,
philosophers, theologians who gathered around to discuss issues like the role played by different
religions and cultures in international society. The term English School was first introduced by
Roy Jones in 1981and accepted by a second generation of scholars. There are many accounts on
the development of the School and I will present here the one formulated by Ole Wver, an
important theoretician, member of the English School.
11

Ole Wver identifies four phases in the development of the English School:
1. From 1959, with the founding of the British Committee, to 1966 with the publication of
Sir Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wights Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the
Theory of International Politics.

2. From 1966 to 1977, with the release of Hedley Bulls book: The Anarchical Society, that
had as a focus the nature of the Western society and also with the book of Martin Wight :
Systems of States. In 1974, R. J. Vincent publishes Non-Intervention and International
Order, making thus a debut for a younger generation.
3. From 1977 to 1992. The British Committee lasted until 1980s but it inspired a number of
scholars to continue its main ideas, such as Donelan: The Reason of States (1978),
Mayall, The Community of States (1982), and Navari, The Condition of States (1991),

11 Ole Wver identifies the stages in the development of ES- file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ

%20NAPOCA%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/E.%20THIRD%20DEBATE/F.
%20ENGLISH%20SCHOOL/ES%20Research%20Program.HTM
Page | 12

and also generated two important monographs: Mayalls 1990 Nationalism and
International Society, and Donelans 1990 Elements of International Political Theory.
4. From 1992 to the present days. In this phase new scholars emerge, such as: Dunne,
Jackson Preece, Knudsen, Rengger, Wver, and Wheeler.
Through time, English School scholars formulated assumptions regarding international politics,
trying to establish this theory as one of the best known and utilized. Nowadays, the English
School is at its third generation of scholars, being in a continuous development.
Scott Burchill, an important scholar in the field of international relations theory, expressed his
opinion regarding the English School, by saying: the English School can claim to have passed
the test of a good international theory, by having managed to avoid the sterility of realism and
the naivety of idealism12. This idea, of English School as a theory maintaining a balance
between realism and idealism, will further be developed in the next chapters.
As we previously saw, the School has its roots in the 1950s, at the crossroad between the end of
the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, in an ambiance of flutter and
uncertainty. The world was devastated and desperately needed to reinvent itself, in order to
overpass the atrocities made by the Second World War.
The English School thus came forward as a theory which can analyze the world situation in an
objective manner and propose solutions for its well being.

12 Burchill, Scott, Theories of International Relations, p. 108

Page | 13

CHAPTER II
THE ENGLISH SCHOOL-BRIDGE BETWEEN
REALISM AND IDEALISM
The field of international relations theory has witnessed in time many different accounts on how
realism and the English School interact. It is not an easy task to establish clearly what is the
relation between them, because, unlike in the case of realism v. liberalism, when all evidences
point to an antagonistic relation, the English School seems to share a great deal of realist
assumptions. However, there are voices which claim that the English School can be seen as a
bridge between idealism and realism, sharing some characteristics of both theories. It is therefore
mandatory to analyze their perspectives on world politics and then draw some conclusions.
2.1 REALISM VERSUS ENGLISH SCHOOL VERSUS IDEALISM ON KEY ISSUES

The three approaches

One of the most important aspects dealt with by the English School is Martin Wights
international theory regarding the three traditions in the field of international relations. The three
divisions are:

Realist-after Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli-the emphasis is put on the international

system with international anarchy at its core

Rationalist after Hugo Grotius-the international society is the main structure, with the
creation of rules and norms for the institutionalization of the common interests shared by

states
Revolutionist- after Immanuel Kant-the focus is on the world society, made up out of
individuals and the global population. It has forms of cosmopolitanism, and nowadays is
in the form of liberalism.

Page | 14

What the English School has always tried to achieve was cooperation between these three
traditions and also to create a via media between realism and liberalism. As a conclusion, the
basis of English school theory is the idea that international system, international society and
world society all exist simultaneously, as objects of discussion and also as aspects of
international reality.

The state
According to the realist common belief, the states are the most important actors in international
relations and studying their interactions is of enormous importance for understanding the
mechanisms of world politics. Other actors, like supranational organizations or individuals are
considered mostly irrelevant or of limited importance. The state acts in a rational, consistent way,
according to its needs, in order to maximize its gains. States always have a personal agenda,
either to secure their borders, or to spread their influence. In order to achieve their goals, states
use violence or the threat of a future violence.
However, it is important to note that for realists, states are not equal. On the contrary, there is a
hierarchy determined by their capability to achieve and secure the power. Thus, the international
arena is made out of great powers who struggle for domination and security.
The role of the state is crucial not only in foreign affairs, but in the internal ones too, as the state
has the responsibility to guarantee to its citizens a good, decent life and has to protect their
interests. The conclusion that can be drawn is that if every state is in the pursuit of its own wellbeing, then it is obvious that it cannot have friends or allies, it cannot trust any other state. The
world pictured by realists is one of egoistic, aggressive states, which are in a never-ending
competition.
On the contrary, for idealists, the state is just one actor on the international arena and is just as
important as other actors, like transnational corporations or non-governmental institutions. This
is one of the main issues in which realists and idealists disagree. The role of the state, for
idealists, is to ensure that its citizens have the liberty to pursue their happiness without external
intervention. The rights of the people, such as the right to life or the right to property must be
Page | 15

fully respected and promoted. In the idealist perspective, states do not live in terror and
suspicion, but on the contrary, they learn to tolerate each other and cooperate. Thus, long-term
peace is to be achieved and the foreign affairs are to be based on mutual respect and justice.
From this point of view, the representatives of the English School are in agreement with realists,
placing the state on the first positions from the point of view of relevance in international
politics. The notion of sovereignty of states is both for realists as for the English School scholars
of maximum importance, being fully advocated.
However, the position of English School representatives is once again, in the middle. They reject
the over-pessimistic realist view which pictures states as selfish and self-interested, but they also
reject the over-optimistic idealist view which pictures states as honest and always cooperative
with each other. The English Schools opinion is that sovereign states are the most important
actors and they have responsibilities in foreign affairs, dealing with military policies, diplomatic
communication and so forth.

World Society
The English School scholars were always preoccupied with the issue of international societies.
Although they based their researches, as I previously mentioned, on realism and rationalism, in
order to develop their arguments, they went further, to liberal revolutionism also. As an effect,
they combined the idea of international society, among states, with that of world society, among
individuals that transcend the states. There is no complete agreement between representatives of
the English School regarding this subject, as some of them put an emphasis on the importance of
states and some on individuals.
To better understand this issue, we can make the distinction between pluralist and solidarist
conceptions of international societies, from the point of view of the English School. While the
pluralist side is a realist one, which argues that international society is about common concerns
regarding security in an anarchic world, the solidarist side is a revolutionist one, stating the
Page | 16

importance of issues like human rights. This issue of world society is yet another proof of the
balance that the English School wants to obtain between realism and idealism, combining ideas
from both sides.

Anarchy
One of the main realist assumptions is that world politics exists in the framework of an
international anarchy. As we saw before, realists acknowledge the states as being the most
important actors in the international arena, and so, they are believed to interact in a system with
no world government or clear organization. Due to the fact that the states cannot be controlled by
any supranational power, they interact and compete in an atmosphere of anarchy.
Regarding the problem of anarchy, Wendts belief is that the concept of logic of anarchy does not
exist and that the international culture is the one that shapes the way in which states interact. He
promotes the idea of states which can coexist peacefully but expresses his concern regarding
anarchy, by raising a question: 13How can states make a new culture of anarchy when the
structure of the existing one disposes them to reproduce it? While Wendt was mainly
preoccupied with finding a way for states to cooperate under anarchy, other English School
scholars, like Bull took for granted the concept that states cooperate, primarily because they do
not associate anarchy with disorder or chaos. On this issue, English School scholars tend to agree
with idealists, who believe in a world of cooperation and justice.

Key figures
Some of the main representatives of the English School were previously realists, and so their
approaches in the field of international relations, although in a continuous development and
adaptability, were realist at the core.

13 Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1999,p. 315
Page | 17

Hedley Bull is an example in this sense, being one of the most important scholars of the English
School. He agrees with the neo-realist notion of an anarchical international system. However, he
derives from this realistic concept by embracing the idea of cooperation between states in order
to preserve their interests. He sees anarchy and order existing at the same time.
As we previously discussed, the English School and realism share some of their basic
assumptions. However, we can notice that the representatives of the English School separated
themselves from some realist theses and built new ones, to better fit their common beliefs.

To sum up:
When comparing the English School with realism and idealism it is best to look at their
understanding of the main problems regarding international politics. We previously analyzed
some key issues and compared both views in order to see if there are more similarities or more
differences between them. I believe it is a matter of subjectivity to say if they are opposed or
almost the same, because you can find evidence that can support both scenarios. However, it is
my belief that the English School drew some of its main features from realism and further
developed them to better suit their understanding of the world, borrowing elements from
idealism too.
When comparing realism with the English School (ES) we can observe that they share a set of
common assumptions regarding the world. First of all, all ES scholars agree on the existence of a
society of states. The international system is formed out of states that interact in an anarchic
world. This belief is in agreement with the realist thought that states are the most important
actors and that world politics exists in an international anarchy.
Most English School approaches of international society admit the idea that the contemporary
society of states is developed from the Christian world of Europe in Medieval times and a
Lockean contract.

Page | 18

However, there can also be seen a set of points in which they disagree, mainly because the
English School is seen like a via media between realism and liberalism, and thus can somehow
be perceived as more flexible. The English School approach, to a certain degree, rejects both the
over-optimistic view on world politics of idealists, who believe in peace and cooperation, and
also the over-pessimistic realist approach, which describes an arena of states that seek power and
resort to war in order to get it.
What English School representatives proved is that from two antagonistic theories, which was
believed that cannot ever stand together, they can build something new, which adapts elements
from both of them. It occupies the middle ground between classical realism and classical
liberalism and manages to impose its influence as a theory, regardless of the political era.

Page | 19

CHAPTER III

CRITICISM AND FUTURE CHALLENGES

The field of International Relations Theory is an extremely complex one, allowing the
development of a vast range of theories, some similar and some antagonistic. It is therefore
obvious that popular theories, such as realism and English School would be accompanied by
controversies and criticism.
Realism is the main theory of international relations, a theory which is consulted and applied in
almost every issue of international security. However, there are voices that claim that realism is
nowadays facing a serious crisis.
The problem is considered to lie in its core, namely in its defenders. Representatives of this
theory often tend to state declarations that go against the traditional realist assumptions, thus
undermining its legitimacy.
For example, there are the so-called minimal realists who rely on only some of the general
assumptions attributed to realism, like the fact that states are the most important actors in world
politics, that they seek efficiency and some egoistic goals, that they live in an anarchic world and
in order to survive they use force. Usually, realists are now discussing just one or two of these
general guidelines and therefore they distance realism from its traditional form.
If we take the example of Waltz, we can see that he claims that only two assumptions are
required: anarchy and a desire for survival. The main problem is that by being minimalist,
realists fail to distance themselves from other theories. Almost all liberal and institutionalist
theories agree that states are important actors and that the world system is anarchic. As a
conclusion, minimal realist lack distinctiveness. What they should put an emphasis on are the
notions of conflict and power, which shape the relations between states.
Another example is that regarding one of the most important realist beliefs, that of autonomous
material power. Realism is about believing that there are things in the universe that exist without
Page | 20

being dependent of our thoughts and experience. However, realists like William Wohlforth,
Steven Van Evera or Jack Snyder seem to astray from this principle, taking inspiration from
liberalism or other theories, sliding from power to perceptions.
We can therefore draw the conclusion that realism faces nowadays a period of uncertainty and
crises, which needs to be overcame in order for it to maintain its status as a serious theory of
international relations. What realists need to do is distance themselves from other theories and set
up a clear range of assumptions to guide them.
Andrew Moravcsik and Jeffrey Legro, authors of the book Is Anybody Still a Realist? suggest
that the most important assumptions that need to be restored in order for realists to distance
themselves from other theories are the following : states act rationally under anarchy, state
preferences are fixed and conflictual, power defines the structure which determines the outcomes
of state interaction.
Another important critique brought to realism is from the point of view of human rights
protection, discussed by Saban Kardas, in her paper : Human Rights Policy and International
Relations: Realist Foundations Reconsidered. She argues that nowadays situation, in which
human rights are not fully protected and promoted at an international level is mainly due to
realist assumptions that guide world politics. For example, the state-centric realist attitude is an
impediment for the protection of human rights. Human rights are seen mostly as inter-state duties
because individuals and groups are considered to interact with each other through the agency of
states. Also, the notion of sovereignty and non-interference in state affairs, so much promoted my
realism, is not compatible with human rights promotion at an international level, as explained by
Kardas.

Idealism was shaken by different periods in history, too. It did not manage to remain unchanged
through time, as it had its ups and downs, depending on the political era. For example, while the
19th century was considered the century of liberalism, the 20th century was, by opposition, an
illiberal century.
Page | 21

Between Two World Wars and a Cold War, the world found itself in a time of turmoil and
deception. The interwar years, after the promotion of the Fourteen Points by President Woodrow
Wilson, were years of peace and so it was in this time that idealism flourished and became
strong.
However, in the 1930s, with the rise of the Nazi power, realists took the opportunity of blaming
the idealist thought for the incapacity of maintaining the peace and removed their influence in
world politics.
In time, idealism was the target of many critiques. For example, representatives of logical
positivism argued that idealists reject the verifiability principle, meaning that a statement is valid
only if it can be verified through experience. The rejection of this principle is seen as a sign of
weakness. Other scholars tried to prove that idealism is full of ambiguities and double meanings,
and so cannot be trusted. Idealists dealt with these criticisms not by answering them, but by
considering them to be external and not worthy.
As I previously discussed, liberals believe in progress. And although this belief helped in time
the society to improve, there is still the question of what is the limit of the progress? As Jackson
and Sorensen noticed : 14How much progress? Scientific and technological for sure, but also
social and political? What are the limits of progress? Are there any limits? . Some believe that
unrestrained pursuit of progress may cause more bad than good.
The end of the Cold War was a major victory for liberalism, and the world entered an era of
peace and cooperation. However, the terrorist attacks from 2011 in New York and the other
attacks from Madrid and other parts of the world were a wake-up call, putting an end to the
optimistic view of the world drawn by idealists. The good part is that the threat of terrorism may
motivate the liberal countries to strengthen their ties and be willing to cooperate with each other.
All in all, in the future, idealism will have to face numerous challenges, as the world is now
extremely complex and there are numerous theories which can be considered strong rivals to the
idealist thought.

14 Jackson Robert, Sorensen Georg, Introduction to International Relations, Oxford University Press, page 97
Page | 22

The English School, as theory, has also experienced some criticism through time. Buzan, for
example, is an author that puts forward a set of questions regarding some feature of the English
School, maintaining whatsoever its confidence in this theory. He emphasizes the tension between
global and regional levels of international society and how English School treats this issue.
The classical English School assumptions are that the European international society developed
into a global one and is in a continuous development. What Buzan believes is that this attitude is
too globalist and puts an emphasis on the fact that nowadays the international society can be both
global and still make room for regional societies. Buzan stresses the importance of maintaining
English School as one of the most important theories of international relations in a complex and
uncertain world.
The English Schools strategy, from Buzans perspective, must include keeping its position as a
theory than can combine elements of realism and liberalism, being able to provide guidance is a
globalised world.
However, there have been critics who argued that the English School is two-faced and hypocrite,
being willing to move on either part, realist or idealist, depending on who is the winner at the
moment. It is one of their core assumptions that the international relations must embrace all three
traditions, namely realist, rationalist and revolutionist. They can thus be condemned of lacking
integrity and coherence, by trying to combine such different approaches.
English School scholars were also often criticized of being too Eurocentric, seeing Europe as a
superior society from all points of view.
To sum up, realism, idealism and the English School were the target of numerous critics and are
nowadays struggling to ensure their survival. It is clear that the 21st century is fundamentally
different from the 20th, when world politics was in a conflictual state and thus gave chance for
these theories to flourish. Realism was often blamed of failing to provide a coherent strategy
after the end of the Cold War and lost some of its popularity. Idealism took that opportunity to
demonstrate its validity, but is now in a struggle to maintain its position.

Page | 23

The future challenges that these theories will have to face are multi-faced. The society is
obviously much more complex and developed than in the past and the expectations are higher. It
is not an easy job to provide viable assumption to a globalised and multicultural world, which
changes every second.
My opinion is that, in order to ensure their survival on the long run, both realism and the English
School, and idealism too, have to maintain a steady position, to strengthen their core beliefs and
draw a clear line between them and other theories. People tend to get confused easily and thus
they need coherence and stability.

Page | 24

CONCLUSIONS
The field of International Relations Theory is a highly complex one, due to the large number of
existing theories and their diversity. When comparing three of the most popular theories, namely,
realism, idealism and the English School, one has to pay attention to some basic aspects, like
their understanding of world politics and the relations established between international actors.
My aim was to provide a better understanding of what these theories entail, first by examining
their origins and evolution and then by presenting some future challenges they will have to face.
It is obvious that the international context in which each of them appeared has changed
considerably and so the demands they have to honor are bigger.
I began my research paper asking myself if realism and the English School are opposed or rather
similar. I found evidences that can support both scenarios, after analyzing their main assumptions
regarding the state, the anarchy or the main representatives. They both agree on the importance
of state, but English School scholars recognize also other international actors. They both agree
that the international context is an anarchic one, but most representatives of English School
believe in cooperation. Because the English School appeared only in the 20th century, while
realisms roots go back to the 5th century before Christ, I reached to the conclusion that the
English Schools theses are mostly realist ones, adapted to better fit their purposes.
Representatives of the English School combined ideas from realism and idealism and proved that
from two antagonistic theories one can build a new one, a via media between them, which can be
adapted to the international conditions anytime. The English School is seen as rather flexible, as
it tries to combine elements of realism, liberalism and even revolutionism.
I found it extremely interesting to discuss about these theories, mainly because I started the essay
by discussing only realism and the English School. Later on, I began to understand that it is
mandatory to introduce elements of idealism in the paper, as it plays a central role in analyzing
the relations between English School and realism.

Page | 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1. The course support provided by Mr. Meyers
2. Baylis, John, Smith Steve and Owens Patricia, The Globalization of World Politics,
Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Brown, Chris, (2001), World Society and the English School: An International
Society Perspective on World Society, European Journal of International Relations,
Vol. 7, pp 423-441
4. Burchill, Scott, Linklater Andrew, Devetak Richard, Donnely Jack, Paterson Matthew,
Reus-Smith Christian and True Jacqui (2005), Theories of International Relations,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York
5. Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones and Richard Little, (1993), The Logic of Anarchy:
Neorealism to Structural Realism, Columbia University press, New York
6. Buzan, Barry,(1999), The English School as a Research Program: An Overview, and a
Proposal for Reconvening, Paper for the Panel A Reconsideration of the English
School: close or reconvene?, BISA Conference
7. Buzan, Barry, (2006), An English School Perspective on What Kind of World
Order?, Cooperation and Conflict, Vol. 41, pp 364-369
8. Donnelly, Jack, (2000), Realism and International Relations, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge
9. Guzzini, Stefano, (2004), The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International
Relations, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 10, pp.533-568
10. Jackson, Robert and Sorensen, Georg, (2012),Introduction to International Relations:
Theories and Approaches, Oxford University Press, Oxford
11. Kardas, Saban, (2005), Human Rights Policy and International Relations : Realist
Foundations Reconsidered ,
12. Legro, Jeffrey and Moravcsik Andrew,(1998), Is Anybody Still a Realist?,
Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs

Page | 26

13. Little, Richard, (2000), The English Schools Contribution to the Study of
International Relations , European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, pp 395442
14. Molloy, Sean, (2003), The Realist Logic of International Society, Cooperation and
Conflict, Vol. 38, pp. 83-99
15. Snyder, Jack, (2002), Anarchy and Culture: Insights from the Anthropology of War,
International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 7-45
16. Suganami, Hidemi, (2001), Alexander Wendt and the English School, Journal of
International Relations and Development, Vol.4, pp. 403-423
17. Williams, Michael, (2004), Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans
Morgenthau, Classical Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics,
International Organization, Vol. 58, No.4, pp. 633-666
18. file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ%20NAPOCA
%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/C.%20FIRST%20DEBATE/B.
%20REALISM/Dunn_1998-2000_What%20is%20Realism.HTM , visited
at 10 May 2013
19. file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ%20NAPOCA
%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/C.%20FIRST%20DEBATE/B.
%20REALISM/Internet%20Encycl.of%20Philosophy_2001_Political
%20Realism.HTM, visited at 27 April 2013
20. file:///F:/IR%20THEORY%20CLUJ%20NAPOCA
%202013/DEBATESADDITIONALMATERIAL/C.%20FIRST%20DEBATE/B.
%20REALISM/Morgenthau_1978_Politics%20Among
%20Nations.HTM , visited at 27 April 2013
21. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/281802/idealism/68531/Types-classedby-branches-of-philosophy#toc68532 , visited at 15 August 2013

Page | 27

22. http://www.wayzata.k12.mn.us/cms/lib/MN01001540/Centricity/ModuleInstance/3055
/14ptsarticle.pdf , visited at 15 August 2013

Page | 28