Theories of International Relations and Northern Ireland, Timothy J. White, Editor. 264 pages.

Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2017. ISBN 978-178-1784995287 (Hardcover)

By Neal G. Jesse

Theories of International Relations and Northern Ireland is an edited volume with two

objectives. First, it seeks to evaluate contemporary theories of international relations and their

application to events in Northern Ireland. Second, it aims to provide novel and compelling

insights into the peace process in Northern Ireland. Such an undertaking is ambitious,

compelling and overdue. As the editor Timothy J. White writes, There is a long history of

fruitful analysis based on case study research in the field of IR . . . [and] scholars have

emphasized the importance of linking case study analysis with theory (pg. 2). Yet, a good deal

of scholarship on the conflict and peace process in Northern Ireland has not followed this

recommendation. Typically, most works focus on understanding the specific details of the

formation of the Northern Irish nation, the Irish Civil War, the Troubles, British policy toward

Northern Ireland, or the consociational institutions in the Good Friday Agreement. These

focused works usually conclude that what has happened and is happening in Northern Ireland is

somehow unique to that place and time. It is unfortunate that too often such a conclusion cannot

be reached without reference to either a broader predictive theory or a comparative analysis of

Northern Ireland to other countries with similar conflicts. This volume ambitiously seeks to do

the former. Thus, the authors examine whether the typical observations in the scholarship on

Northern Ireland are correct, while at the same time investigating whether the events in Northern

Ireland fit into contemporary theories.

The authors included in this volume do not approach understanding Northern Ireland

from a single perspective nor single theory. The reader will find that the range of theories can be

quite daunting, as the authors draw from many fields of study. The theoretical sweep ranges
The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 1
Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1
from the ubiquitous Realism, to Axelrods Cooperation Theory, to network theory, to gendered

approaches, to selectorate theory, and back around to Constructive Realism. The authors in this

volume do a great job of making the theories accessible to those who may not be acquainted with

each or all of them. As a scholar of international relations and comparative politics, I am

familiar with the theories in many chapters, including, but not limited to, those of Dixon,

Owsiak, Murphy, Buchanan, and White. However, some theories were new to me, such as

Devashree Guptas transnational advocacy networks (TAN). A strength of this volume is the

presentation of many, varied theories that will leave the reader with some new insights.

Importantly, the succinct way the authors outline and present their theories, neither digressing

into unnecessary detail nor short-changing the theoretical presentation, does not leave the reader

bewildered.

Many authors do not address a single theory per se, but rather apply more general

concepts derived from theoretical approaches and scholarship. Carolyn Gallahers chapter on

disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) is one such example. She argues that the

Northern Irish approach to DDR varies from international norms in a number of ways (pg. 56),

as the decommissioning process following the Good Friday Agreement allowed the

paramilitaries to maintain a high degree of autonomy, or at least a higher degree than is common

in other similar conflicts. The consequence of this deviation is the continuance of violence used

to control territory by former paramilitary men. Another good example is Maria Powers chapter

focusing on the intersection between Catholic human rights discourse and the contest of

Northern Ireland in the 1980s. She illustrates how the Catholic Church applied its understanding

of the morality of human rights to the British treatment of prisoners. Interestingly, she concludes

by highlighting the importance of actors and agency, which ties her chapter nicely to the more

theoretical work of Andrew P. Owsiak. Owsiak applies Putnams two-level game theory to

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 2

Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1
decades of negotiation in Northern Ireland. In particular, he examines how in the 1980s and

1990s the main actors, and specifically the leaders of the political parties, were both out ahead of

their constituencies and also constrained by them.

Another strength of this volume is the consistency of the chapters. While one naturally

expects variation across an edited volume, the overall consistency of writing, content, and

chapter length in the twelve substantive chapters is notable. Also of concern in any edited

volume is the degree to which the individual chapters contribute to a more central theme. The

theme of this volume is a methodological one: the application of theory to a case study. As such

the chapters do not attempt to all sing the same song, but rather fit together like a jigsaw puzzle,

with each piece not overlapping with another, but rather completing a whole picture by each

illustrating a single part.

To this end, one chapter that stands out is P. J. McLoughlins exploration of how John

Hume was both a product and an agent of structural change (pg. 75). It is a highly detailed

account of Humes progression as both a politician and thinker from the 1960s through the Good

Friday Agreement. While much of Humes work in the late 1980s and 1990s will be familiar to

most readers, McLoughlin sheds light on other parts of Humes work that might not be as well

known. In particular, he highlights Humes contribution as the articulator of Catholic ideas in

the early 1960s. These ideas were percolating throughout the Catholic community by the late

1950s but needed a voice. Hume also departed from traditional nationalism by identifying the

impediment as the Protestant Ulster community and not the larger British nation. McLoughlin

also points to Humes work in the 1970s rallying both European and American engagement in

the Northern Irish conflict. McLoughlin recognizes how the external structure of the conflict,

such as the changing positions in London and Dublin that led to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement

and 1993 Downing Street Declaration, opened opportunities for Hume to push his ideas and play

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 3

Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1
an important role. The conclusion of the chapter argues that an examination of Humes career

helps us see how concepts from the theories of constructivism (ideas and agency) and realism

(structure) interact in ways that neither theory by itself could predict.

Given the rather ambitious aim of this volume, it can be expected that one or two

chapters might fall short of the mark or leave the reader unconvinced. Paul Dixons opening

chapter is commendable in two significant ways. First, it establishes that too much of the

scholarship on Northern Ireland has either applied theory in an inadequate manner or has made

gross assumptions that do not hold. Chief among Dixons arguments, and one with which I

strongly agree, is that Consociational theory and its reliance on conservative realist assumptions

is not realistic, especially its inherent primordial view of ethnicity. Second, he outlines the major

tenets of realism and constructivism. Authors in the rest of the volume use these theories

explicitly or implicitly to buttress their own arguments. As such, Dixon lays the groundwork for

the reader in a short, succinct way and frames the underlying structure of this edited work. Yet,

Dixons endorsement of the new, hybrid theory of constructivist realism does not convince.

Probably because of the usual page limitations on such volumes, Dixon does not have enough

space to fully elucidate the logic of the hybrid theory, nor to provide a truly persuasive defense.

Thus, one should take Dixons comments not as a complete argument, but more as a signpost

pointing the way toward the utility of alternative, mid-level, or hybrid theories.

One theme running through the collection of essays I found to be quite persuasive is that

many more actors have contributed to the peace process than just the key leaders that everyone

recognizes. Katy Hayward and Eoin Magennis state that the peacebuilding function of the

private sector itself has been more or less ignored in the mainstream literature (pg. 162). They

situate this omission as part of the overall lack of academic interest in the private sector in

international relations theories. The typology of business behavior and its contributions to the

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 4

Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1
peace process that Hayward and Magennis elucidate in this chapter provides a useful method by

which further research could continue to examine this topic. Similarly, Mary Murphy utilizes a

multi-level governance model to emphasize the role that supranational and subnational units

have played and can play in the Northern Irish peace process. Mire Braniff and Sophie Whiting

assert that scholars and political leaders in Northern Ireland have tended to overlook or dismiss

the need to see the conflict and peace process from a gendered perspective (pg. 117). Moving

beyond the critical theory of liberal feminism, which they criticize as adding women and stir

(pg. 117), they explore the more nuanced influence of structure, agency, social reality, and

power relations (pg. 118) that are in Webers terms never outside of gender (pg. 118). Thus,

using a constructivist framework, they demonstrate that the intrinsically male and masculine

(pg. 127) approach to understanding Northern Ireland is more limiting than enlightening.

Furthermore, they believe that the underlying male dominance in the conflict and peace process

has reduced the role of women and will continue to reduce it. While at the time of writing

women lead both major Northern Irish parties, the authors point is well taken that this recent

change is despite the traditional pattern of male dominance of politics. A common refrain of the

aforementioned authors is that realist theories, in particular, fail to account for such marginalized

and under-recognized actors. As such, they posit that liberal or constructivist theories are more

useful as a framework in which to explore the events in Northern Ireland and, by extension, other

similar conflicts.

Building on the idea that a focus on realist theory or consociational literature might lead

one to miss an important development in the Northern Irish peace process, Cillian McGrattan

argues that the general focus on the new institutions and institutional processes in the Good

Friday Agreement misleads us into thinking that reconciliation has made more progress than it

actually has. He suggests reconciliation should focus around substantive definitions of

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 5

Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1
democracy and politics rather than basing that policy design on proceduralist visions which

dominate at the present (pg. 219). McGrattan integrates many theories of memory and identity

into a constructivist framework, which he uses to show that the quest for reconciliation has

devolved into a banal attempt to establish the correct institutions or follow the right set of rules.

He contests that the two-sided nature of reconciliation . . . as both an objective and a transition,

seems to be increasingly lost (pg. 229). Some readers may find this argument to be more

derived from his starting point than from the application of theory. Yet, McGrattans attack on

the institutionalists and their focus on the consociational procedures and institutions in the Good

Friday Agreement is congruent with some of the other works in this volume. Further, it fits

nicely into this volumes aim of utilizing and critiquing accepted international relations theories.

In general, Theories of International Relations and Northern Ireland fills a gap in the

current scholarship. By both applying and testing contemporary theories, it situates Northern

Ireland into the larger debates in political science, history, sociology, and elsewhere. Moreover,

it also helps the reader get a better sense of how the conflict and peace process in Northern

Ireland might be similar to other places and also the ways in which it is unique. It is an

ambitious aim, one that the contributors achieve more often than not. I agree with editor

Timothy Whites conclusion that what this volume collectively demonstrates is that the case of

Northern Ireland is incredibly rich in allowing scholars to assess and apply a plethora of

theoretical approaches . . . some explored here were found to be problematic . . . others were

found to be helpful in explaining both the successes and limitations of what has been achieved in

Northern Ireland (pg. 236-237). As such, this book is necessary reading not only for those

concerned with the continuing peace process in Northern Ireland, but also for those interested in

the application of contemporary theories of international relations.

The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation 6

Spring 2017, Volume 3 Number 1