ULUSLARARASI İLİŞKİLER TEORİLERİ I - Deneme Sınavı - 1

The English School does not limit the study (and scope) of the field of international relations to the colonial and post-colonial eras.

Commonality of views, self-identification, and recognition by the community are the three conditions for the definition of a school. While historical lineage and evidence may seem important, the English School itself may also be traced back to arguments from the writings of scholars from previous centuries such as Hugo Grotius, Edmund Burke, and A.H.L. Heeren. Therefore, the first meeteing of the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics in 1959 is considered the birthplace of the English School as one can always take the traces of an event further back.

The English School is renowned for its multidisciplinary approach to international relations, as the school conceived study in this field in terms of a multi or inter disciplinary approach since its beginning. While the Committee that established the foundations of the school determined that insight was required from politics, economics, history and philosophy, the convenors of the committee even considered inviting a mathematician for a while.

The British Committee emerged as a result of an American initiative. Kenneth Thompson, a member of the American Committee on the Theory of International Politics suggested the idea and provided funding through the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Cold War is the result of rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia/U.S.S.R. following World War II. The relationship between the two nations was borne out of their contact and the impact that their decisions had on each other, where each nation had to calculate their behavior in accordance with the other. The other examples are groups of states with common interests, and therefore bind themselves to a common set of rules in their relations with one another, forming a society of states.

International society is defined by four components: common interests, common rules, common values and common institutions.

In time, English School authors have elaborated two versions of international society: the pluralist version and the solidarist version. This typology is an offspring of the order versus justice debate in international relations where pluralists prioritize order to justice, as an unjust system cannot be stable. Solidarists prioritize justice as an unjust system (even if it has order) is undesirable and ultimately unsustainable. This debate is a continuing argument between second-generation scholars that ties into international society as a core concept of international relations - the second basic argument of the English School.

The English School has its main roots in the study of history, political theory and international law, whereas constructivism grew out of debates about epistemology and method. The distinctions of the English School from other schools and its merits are ontological and epistemological pluralism, its historical approach repudiating both determinism and presentism, and the significance given to values and cultural civilizational identities.

Pluralists typically prioritize order to justice within the system as they argue that, although a deeply unjust system cannot be stable, order is in many ways a prior condition for justice. They also enphasize the significance of sovereignt, non-intervention, and cultural and political diversity.

Keohane and Nye argue that regimes are regulations comprising of the rules, norms and procedures
influencing behaviors and results. Hedley Bull, defines the regimes as rules and institutions that regulate behaviors of individuals and states. Krasner noted that regimes should not be seen as provisional regulations changing according to the change of power and interest in international relations. Keohane also pointed out that regimes should be differentiated from treaties in a certain subject. A treaty can be ad hoc in character but also would be narrow in terms of subject matter and parties. However, regimes are not always limited to a certain subject and not interim provision.

The view that regimes generate differential benefits for states belongs to realists.

Numbered views as I, III, and V belong to Liberal institutionalists.

The expression that regimes flourish best when promoted and maintained by a benign hegemon belongs to Liberal institutionalists.

Keohane also pointed out that regimes should be differentiated from treaties in a certain subject. A treaty can be ad hoc in character but also would be narrow in terms of subject matter and parties. However, regimes are not always limited to a certain subject and not interim provision.

All international institutions cannot be assumed as international regimes. International regimes are sub section of international institutions.

Numbered views as I, III, and V belong to realists.

That regimes flourish best when promoted and maintained by a benign hegemon is the one of the assumptions of liberal institutionalists.

Regimes enable states to coordinate. This assumption is one of the assumptions of realists.

Krasner noted that regimes should not be seen as provisional regulations changing according to the change of power and interest in international relations.