| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
124620
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
English School theory presently features two distinct conceptions of world society, both of which are concerned with how to best conceptualise the role of non-state actors in international politics. While a classical interpretation advocates attaching world society to non-state cosmopolitan influence, a Buzanian interpretation prefers to analyze distinct interacting non-state units. What is unfortunate is that the comparative merits of these two interpretations remain largely in question, as there has been little attempt to contrast them either conceptually or in terms of potential empirical utility. The purpose of this article is to provide just such comparisons, so as to determine the possibilities for English School theorists seeking to think outside international society. To do this the theoretical underpinnings of the two concepts are analyzed initially, after which the explanatory power of each is tested in an empirical study of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and its abolition. In light of shortcomings found with the two concepts, an alternative suggestion is then offered. The suggestion is that world society be conceptualised in accordance with the ongoing contestations between different ideologies in the non-state world, on the basis of which individuals form different types of social relationships to influence the international society of states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
102442
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Why has English School theory, even as it has been re-imagined as critical international society theory, ignored the workings of gender in international politics? This article stages an encounter between the English School and feminists in International Relations (IR), first demonstrating the broad compatibility of the two approaches. I argue that to conduct a conversation between English School and IR feminist approaches, it is necessary to reconstruct the English School's three traditions - Realist, Rationalist, and Revolutionist - so as to allow a greater role for gender as a category of analysis. I then review the work of two key English School scholars, Hedley Bull and Barry Buzan with this reconstruction in mind. Finally, I argue that IR theorists who have participated in the recent English School revival should consider integrating gender into its theoretical and research agenda, and show several examples of how a hybrid approach can be brought to bear on the expansion of international society, diplomacy, and human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|