The English School in IR Theory

1. The Use of the English School in the Study of International Relations

International Relations (IR) is an area of political science that is concerned with relationships amongst different countries and includes, inter alia, the roles of and relations between sovereign nations, international organisations, multinational corporations and nongovernmental organisations. It is, as an academic discipline, eclectic in nature and draws from areas like philosophy, anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, international law and economic development, as well as technology and engineering. It is broad in its scope and covers areas like state sovereignty, globalisation, nuclear proliferation, economic development, human rights, human security and terrorism, amongst other issues.

To provide a brief overview of its epistemology, IR theories have been shaped by two specific theoretical camps, namely the positivist and post-positivist epistemologies. The positivist epistemology in IR is associated with the natural sciences; it is essentially rational and logical in nature and focuses upon analysing the influence and effect of material forces. It focuses on issues like balance of power, the amount of military strength and state interventionism. Post-positivist theories on the other hand reject attempts to study the social world in an objective and value-neutral manner, reject central, liberal and neo-realist concepts and state that attempts to study IR as a science are inappropriate and impractical. Whilst positivist approaches attempt to relate cause with effect and try to provide causal explanations in various areas, like, for example, the reasons for exercise of power, post positivist approaches deal with constitutive questions and aim to understand the nature, elements and reproduction of power.

Discussion and Analysis

The English School or Society of States approach is a threefold method for comprehending the operations of the world. The English school, in its original articulation, was designed to incorporate the two major theories, namely realism and liberalism in order to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of international theory.

Realism focuses upon state security and power. Early exponents of realism, like, for example Morgenthau, stated that states were essentially rational, power seeking and self-interested and worked towards maximisation of their survival, prosperity and security. Cooperation between states, as well as acts of war between countries, was thus based on self-interest and survival, rather than idealism of any sort. Political realism likewise stated that politics, like society, was governed by objective laws and theories. Classical realists assert that states naturally tend to serve their own interests and gain recognition at the cost of others. The top priority of every state is its own survival.

Liberalism on the other hand was a theoretical perspective that was based upon the assumption of the innate goodness of the individual and the value of political actors in the promotion of social progress. It posited that individuals were primarily good and capable of meaningful cooperation for the promotion of beneficial change. The theory perceived states and international organisations as important international players and focused upon interdependency between them for the achievement of positive benefits. Liberalism serves as a useful counterpoint to realism; it highlights the interconnectedness of the world and the potential for successful cooperation. Theorists of the English school thus primarily sought to find ways and means for incorporating the cooperative aspect of international relations into the realist conceptualisation of the predominantly conflict-oriented nature of realism.

The English school stated that three distinct elements were at play in international politics and often operated in a simultaneous manner. These comprised (a) the international system, (b) international society and (c) world society. The international system, the conceptualisation of which was carried out by Hobbes and Machiavelli, was concerned with power politics amongst states. Realism placed the structure and process of international anarchy at the core of IR theory. This position was broadly similar to mainstream and structural realism and was thus developed in depth and understood with clarity. International society, first conceived by Grotius, was on the other hand concerned with the institutionalisation of shared identity and interest amongst states; with rationalism putting the development and maintenance of shared norms, institutions, rules and regulations at the centre of IR theory. Whilst this position has some similarities with regime theory, it goes much deeper and has constitutive rather than instrumental implications.

World society, elaborated by Kant, on the other hand considers individuals, along with non-state populations and finally the global population as the focus of the identities and arrangements of global systems. Revolutionism places the transcendence of the state system at the core of IR theory. It is mainly concerned with diverse forms of universal cosmopolitanism and is usually taken to mean liberalism.

The English school attempts to incorporate realist postulates, like the focus on the importance of states acting with each other in an anarchic system, but combines that realist understanding with the concept of a human element that emerges from the domestic area. Experts like Alderson and Hurrell (2000) have claimed that it is extremely difficult to understand international relations in terms of a Hobbesian state of war or anarchy. International society, the most important element of the English school thus operates under the influence of both the international system, i.e. realism and world society, namely revolutionism.

The English school itself has two specific divisions, namely the pluralist account and the solidarist account, which interpret the goals, approaches, behaviour and conduct of society in different ways. The pluralist account is more traditional in nature and places its focus on a more realist or Hobbesian understanding of the area. Suganami (2003) stated that the conduct of states within anarchy included cooperation, despite the existence and persistence of self-interest. A pluralist framework placed several restrictions on violence, but did not outlaw the utilisation of force. War was as such perceived to be not just an instrument of realist foreign policy but also an important mechanism for withstanding diverse challenges to the balance of power and assaults on international society. The pluralist version of international society was founded upon the safeguarding of national sovereignty, the search for the creation and maintenance of an international order, and minimalist rules. The restrictions imposed by the system of states and the condition of anarchy were felt to be important factors in the explanation and comprehension of the conduct of a pluralist society of states.

The second interpretation of the English school, namely the solidarist account comprises solidarist conceptions of international society. These conceptions can incorporate diverse IR theories and interpret them in different ways. Solidarists by and large focus upon the relationship between the world societies. Solidarism, which previously emphasised upon a liberal understanding of IR, now focuses on the ways in which the individual in the state influence the conduct of the society of states. This has helped in the diffusion of concepts like human rights, peace and individual security into the normative basis of global society. The solidarist account has in recent times stressed upon global patterns of communication and interaction, distancing itself from state centric models of IR.

The English school has increased in popularity in recent decades and is increasingly been appreciated for the diversity of theoretical loyalties and geographical positioning of people considering them to be part of the school. It also enables a wide array of theorists to discuss diverse critical elements and their impact on the society of states.

Conclusions

This paper aimed to examine various facets of the English school theory of international relations and explain its distinctiveness. The English school, as described earlier, constitutes a post positivist IR theory, which is pluralistic in nature and attempts to bring together apparently contradictory theories of realism and liberalism. Whilst realist have very often scoffed and mocked liberalists for their apparently soft and impractical approach towards IR, the English school has attempted to bring together these different approaches and is thus considered to be a coherent and beneficial method for achieving a wide and complex understanding of contemporary international issues.

Several experts have dwelt upon the diverse advantages of the English school on account of its ability to balance optimism and pessimism, as well as analyse China’s influence on IR theory. It is considered to be appropriate for explaining the causes of change in world society, rather than the sources of change, side by side with the growing impact of humanity on world events. Contemporary IR theory tends to be a mixed bag of unrelated approaches with little dialogue between themselves. The English school, by bringing these diverse threads together helps significantly in enhancing one’s understanding of IR.

2. The Contribution of the International Monetary Fund towards the Maintenance of the Stability of the International Monetary System

This paper aims to examine and assess the contribution of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the stability to the International Monetary System (IMS).The IMF, formed in 1946 in continuation of the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, was essentially formed to prevent the recurrence of financial turmoil and disorder that occurred in Europe between the two World Wars. Technically an autonomous and specialised UN agency, its brief is to check the occurrence of economic misconduct; mandated to abide by the directions of the UN Security Council, the IMF has 188 member states, each with a voting share that is proportional to its quota or financial obligation.

The IMS on the other hand is a basket term for the various policies and arrangements associated with the global balance of payments, more specifically exchange rate arrangements. It consists of capital and current payment flows, international reserves and exchange rates and is governed and overseen by diverse institutions, including the World Bank and the IMF.

There is little doubt of the volatility that characterises contemporary global financial exchange, especially after the surfacing of the global financial crisis of 2008. With the IMS being central to the functioning of the international economy in an increasingly globalising and complex world, it is important to enhance its safety, security and stability. This paper aims to explain the contribution of the IMF to the stability of the international monetary system.

Discussion and Analysis

One of the most important roles of the IMF, ever since it was created, was to ensure the stability of the global economy through the monitoring and control of exchange rates. Its primary objective, from the time of its commencement in 1946 to 1973, was the administration of the dollar-gold based system of worldwide exchange rates. The dollar was fixed to gold at 35 USD per ounce; the currencies of all the members of the IMF were thereafter set to the dollar at diverse rates.

The officials of the IMF furthermore checked, monitored and supervised the broad economic and exchange rate policies of all fund members and assisted them in overcoming balance of payments associated crises through appropriate short-term lending support. Such short-term funding helped currencies in regaining their fixed value and in stabilising the IMS. The dollar based fixed exchange rate system collapsed in the early 1970s, with the US government initiating the subsequent arrangement of floating exchange rates.

The existing IMS evolved from the purely floating rate arrangement in the early 2000s, after the Asian crisis of 1997-98 and the floatation of the Euro as a major global currency in 1999. The development of the present IMS occurred subsequent to the reinvigoration of the US dollar area, which incorporated the USA, the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) oil exporters and China amongst others. The existing IMS is fundamentally mixed in nature because of the presence of both fixed and floating currency regimes of its important participants. Whilst the US dollar plays the central role in the current IMS, the Euro has over the course of the last decade developed into an important alternative to the dollar.

It is important to note that the role of the IMF was considerably modified after the collapse of the Bretton Woods dollar based fixed exchange regime. Its primary purpose was defined to be the ensuring of the stability of the international monetary system, more specifically the system of exchange rates and international payments that facilitates countries as well as their citizens to engage in transactions with each other. The IMF, before the 1960s, encouraged growth through a combination of state controlled and private sector funding. Its task, from the 1970s onwards, was conceived in narrower and neoliberal economic terms. The mandate of the fund was importantly updated in 2012 to incorporate all macroeconomic issues that had any sort of bearing on global economic stability.

The IMF carries out its responsibilities through three specific responsibilities, namely (a) surveillance, (b) technical assistance and (c) the provisioning of loans.

Surveillance

The fund attempts to maintain stability and prevent turmoil and crisis in the international monetary system through the reviewing of the policies of various countries, as well as global, regional and national financial and economic developments through surveillance. It is important to appreciate that the policies of one country, in the contemporary globalised economy, can affect those of many others, making international cooperation extremely essential. The IMF, with its practically universal membership of 188 nations, facilitates such cooperation.

The fund’s surveillance has two aspects, namely bilateral surveillance, which is concerned with the appraisal of the policies of each member country, and multilateral surveillance, which entails overseeing the global economy. Economists from the IMF constantly monitor the economies of member countries, visiting them to exchange views with officials of their central banks and their governments in order to assess the presence of risks to domestic and global stability. Such assessments are carried out to determine needs, if any, for adjustments to financial or economic policies.

The discussion carried out for this purpose focus primarily on national policies in areas associated with exchange rate, fiscal and monetary policies, as also structural reforms. IMF officials attempt to meet with and obtain the opinions of other stakeholders, like business leaders, members of parliament and trade unions in order to assess the economic and political outlook of a country. Such visits are routinely followed by the preparation and presentation of a report and the formulation of the views of the IMS executive board on a particular country, which are subsequently conveyed to the country.

The IMF also constantly monitors regional and global economic trends and examines the impact of the policies of individual members on the global economy. The fund’s publications and reports provide detailed evaluations of the global economy and take up important issues, like the ongoing economic downturn and global financial turmoil.

Technical and Financial Assistance

It is important to note that the fund additionally provides technical and financial assistance to its members in order to assist them in strengthening their capacity for designing and implementing effective policies and for overcoming balance of payment problems. It is important to appreciate that the IMF’s responses and leadership assisted in easing and in preventing further deterioration of the international financial scenario during the global financial crisis. The fund created the Flexible Credit Line (FCL) in 2009, namely a swift disbursing loan facility with low conditionality that aimed to reassure investors through the provisioning of appropriate liquidity to tide over exchange related crises.

It is important to keep in mind that the fund has been subjected to intense criticism and accusations for middling with the sovereignty of member countries through the imposition of austerity measures, the dictating of financial policy, and the extraction of stringent promises by countries for bringing about significant organisational change in return for funding support. The formulation and implementation of the FCL thus marks a watershed in the attitudes and approaches of the fund towards its member countries. With the FCL, countries are able to obtain financial assistance on the basis of their history, rather than their promises. Countries with sound macroeconomic fundamentals are thus able to access drawings under the FCL, similar to ability of individual borrowers with good credit histories being able to access loans with good terms and conditions from lenders. Another similar programme, namely the Rapid Credit Facility, is being prepared for low income countries. This facility will also have low conditionality and help developing countries in overcoming exchange rate associated problems.

It is important to appreciate that the existing IMS has several weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The absence of an effective channel for forcing countries with managed exchange rates and surplus balance of payment situations can result in impediments in the equilibration of real exchange rates or to bring about a unilateral depreciation of the actual exchange rate. Experts agree that whilst the IMF is playing an important role in maintaining the stability of the existing IMS through surveillance and financial and technical support, it needs to take a more proactive role in the development of a universal flexible exchange rate regime and thereby help in preventing the development of financial distortions in the global economy.

Conclusions

This paper aimed to elaborate, describe and assess the contribution of the IMF towards the maintenance of the existing international monetary system.

The study carried out for this purpose revealed that the IMF, right from its formation in 1946, has played a key role in ensuring the stabilisation of the IMS. Whilst its original brief entailed the administering of the fixed dollar-gold based exchange regime, its responsibilities were modified and enlarged after the collapse of the Bretton Woods’s agreement to incorporate (1) surveillance of the members of the IMF and the regional and global economy, and (2) the provisioning of technical and financial support. The fund is constantly engaged in national, regional and global surveillance to spot areas of existing and potential financial distress and turmoil in order to initiate corrective action by different players.

With the lending strategies of the fund being subjected to intense criticism in the past for its arbitrariness and its interference with the actions and policies of sovereign nations, it has initiated financial assistance schemes for nations in financial distress without conditionalities. Various experts have appreciated and recognised that the actions of the fund have helped significantly in the management and moderation of the global financial crisis of 2008 and the consequent economic downturn. Whilst the fund has been appreciated at length for its contribution to the stability of the IMS, diverse financial experts have stated that it should adopt a more proactive rate in ironing out the deficiencies of the existing IMS and in the promotion of a truly flexible exchange rate environment.

3. Contribution of Gender Theory to Understanding of International Relations

This essay aims to examine the contribution of gender theories to international relations. It is important to appreciate that international politics has for long been a gendered activity in the modern state system. With foreign and military policy making being by and large carried out by men, the discipline analysing these activities has primarily been dominated by men and masculinity. The examination and determination of the contributions of gender theories to international relations thus calls for an examination of the term gender, the highlighting of the normative theoretical framework and ontology within the discipline of international relations and its dominant realist and neoliberal discourse and identify the areas wherein writers have attempted to challenge such hegemonic assumptions and move beyond traditional areas of enquiry.

It is important to appreciate that gender is frequently used in an interchangeable manner with that of sex. It is important to differentiate between sex and gender. Whilst the former is concerned with the physical differences between males and females, the latter deals with wider and more complex sets of socially constructed concepts about differences between what is feminine and what is masculine.

The exploration and investigation of the social construction of masculinity and femininity reveals the prevalence of a power relationship, wherein women are underrepresented as a social category and gender difference is politicised. Gender identity and difference thus constitutes a queried, subverted and often contested and manipulated construct, which, in turn is used for the justification, explanation and bolstering of conventional and normalised approaches to international politics and international relation theory.

Feminist writers have, very specifically responded to this phenomenon by seeking to examine and investigate the inequalities in gender relations that are present in the interstate system and evaluate the implications of the reality that much of international politics and the public domain of the state have been reserved for men. Gender theorists have challenged the very conception of femininity and its use or role in the political sphere; they have also identified and dealt with the diversity of ideas about maleness and the privileging and prioritising of specific types of masculinity in contemporary politics. Gender has thus been identified by an ever growing body of writers as an important consideration in the epistemological and normative framework of international relations.

Discussion and Analysis

Contemporary feminist theory has arisen from diverse disciplinary paradigms and traditions, which in turn have influenced the development of its multiple approaches. Whilst all women are not necessarily feminist, feminine theories have been constructed from the experiences of women in their several and different circumstances; these experiences have furthermore been glossed over and by and large not considered by most intellectual disciplines.

The majority of contemporary feminist perspectives are defined in terms of reacting to traditional liberal feminism that has attempted to bring attention to and remove the legal limitations stopping the access of women in the achievement of full participation in the public domain. The majority of contemporary feminist scholars state that discrimination against women runs much deeper than legal barriers and is enmeshed in diverse social economic and cultural structures. These barriers thus do not end with the removal of legal restraints. Most feminist perspectives have as such been driven by the common objectives of (1) describing and explaining the sources of gender inequality and consequent women’s oppression, and (b) searching for strategies to end them.

Feminists claim that women are oppressed in multiple ways, depending upon culture, race and class and of course gender. Attempts have been made to categorise diverse m0odern feminist theories in line with the ways in which they perceived women oppression. Marxist feminists as such believe capitalism to be the cause of women’s oppression, whilst radical feminists assert that women are oppressed by prevalent patriarchal systems that have existed under practically all modes of production. Patriarchy is forcefully institutionalised through diverse economic, social, cultural and legal institutions.

Feminists in the psychoanalytical tradition search for the root of women’s oppression in the psyche, specifically in gender relationships wherein that people are socialised from birth. Socialist feminists have on the other hand tried to adopt a pluralist approach and bring these diverse approaches together into a comprehensive explanation of women’s oppression. They assert that the position of women and society is shaped by structures of production in the economy and of reproduction in the household; structures are furthermore reinforced by early socialisation of children into gender specific roles. Social feminists accordingly state that the unequal status of women in all these structures has to necessarily be eliminated for the achievement of full equality. Post-modernist feminist however argue that a unified representation of women across racial, cultural and class line is impossible. They feel the need to hear a multiplicity of women’s voices in order to ensure that feminism does not become one more hierarchical system of knowledge construction.

With regard to international relations, it is accepted that knowledge is partial and a function of the lived experience of people to know. With knowledge about the behaviour of states in the international system primarily depending upon assumptions stemming from the experiences of men, there is the likelihood of a large body of human experience, with the potential for enhancing the range of options and opening up of new ways of thinking about diverse interstate practices, not having been used in the conceptualisation of IR. Theoretical perspectives depending upon a broader range of human experience are important for both men and women because of the need for people to seek new ways of thinking about contemporary dilemmas.

Feminist theories, which speak on the diverse experiences of women, can certainly offer several new insights in the behaviour of states and the needs of individuals, specifically of those individuals who are located on the peripheries of the international system. Tradition maxims of IR theory have ignored and silenced the voices of women and non-elite men and resulted in the prioritisation of issues like security, sovereignty and power in the conceptualisation of world politics.

Feminist theories have rejected traditional IR norms of content and methodology and shifted the focus from a sweeping analysis and state centrism of classicist realist theory towards an interpretation of political experience that places value on the role of people without power as political actors. The liberalist and largely economic perspective has classified gender issues as separate to those of sovereignty, state and power. The focusing of attention on women and gender has however resulted in debate that is working towards moving issues like poverty, human rights and healthcare beyond the boundaries of marginal consideration to a new paradigm; the epistemological and ontological foundation of traditional IR theory is being challenged and replaced in this paradigm with a normative framework, wherein women are identified and reasons are provided for their feminisation and being subjected to inequalities in power relations. There is some agreement amongst experts that feminist writers have moved beyond being marginal in the discipline of IR and have successfully synthesised a range of properties from diverse disciplines and helped in the creation of a significant reorganisation in the field of IR. It is evident that gender and feminist theory has challenged both realist and liberalist thinking, expanding the realms of what was considered to be relevant to IR research well beyond considerations associated with the military, economics and human rights. The taking of gender issues with seriousness has resulted in a significant critique of the language, roles and rituals involved in IR.

Surveillance

The fund attempts to maintain stability and prevent turmoil and crisis in the international monetary system through the reviewing of the policies of various countries, as well as global, regional and national financial and economic developments through surveillance. It is important to appreciate that the policies of one country, in the contemporary globalised economy, can affect those of many others, making international cooperation extremely essential. The IMF, with its practically universal membership of 188 nations, facilitates such cooperation.

The fund’s surveillance has two aspects, namely bilateral surveillance, which is concerned with the appraisal of the policies of each member country, and multilateral surveillance, which entails overseeing the global economy. Economists from the IMF constantly monitor the economies of member countries, visiting them to exchange views with officials of their central banks and their governments in order to assess the presence of risks to domestic and global stability. Such assessments are carried out to determine needs, if any, for adjustments to financial or economic policies.

The discussion carried out for this purpose focus primarily on national policies in areas associated with exchange rate, fiscal and monetary policies, as also structural reforms. IMF officials attempt to meet with and obtain the opinions of other stakeholders, like business leaders, members of parliament and trade unions in order to assess the economic and political outlook of a country. Such visits are routinely followed by the preparation and presentation of a report and the formulation of the views of the IMS executive board on a particular country, which are subsequently conveyed to the country.

The IMF also constantly monitors regional and global economic trends and examines the impact of the policies of individual members on the global economy. The fund’s publications and reports provide detailed evaluations of the global economy and take up important issues, like the ongoing economic downturn and global financial turmoil.

Conclusions

This paper attempts to examine and assess the contribution of feminist theory to international relations. The examination reveals that feminist theory has over the years developed and evolved significantly and now comprises of diverse perspectives, like the Marxist, radical, psychoanalytic, socialist and post modernist perspectives. With the area of international relations and the activities of states being dominated over the years by men, the area of IR has suffered significantly on account of the absence of the perspectives provided by women through their lived in experiences to the discipline.

The development of gender theory has played an important role in changing the span of the discipline of International Relations, and has furthermore resulted in the re-visioning of its established paradigms. It has wanted to attract attention, not just to the marginalisation of women, but also the reduction of definite norms and values that have been characterised as female or feminine. Gender theory, in its effort to shed light on the hegemonic, privileged male perspective of normative ontology and epistemology, has augmented its reach to incorporate research into areas like language, rituals, and gendered power relations that fall beyond the traditional boundaries of IR theory. Gender theorists have, in doing so, tried to set up original paradigms and re-interpret and challenge the prevailing theoretical perspectives.  They have, in this effort, achieved some degree of success; much work still has to be done before the gendered and one-sided nature of IR is fully revealed or overcome.