Critical Commentary On English School Of International Relations

Critical Commentary On English School Of International Relations Critical Commentary On English School Of International Relations Theory â€" Coursework Example > Question 1: As Barry Buzan explains, the English School has had the ambition to be a “grand theory” of the International relations in the sense that it incorporates not only the concerns of realist power politics and those of the Neo-Liberals but also those of the liberals and constructivists and the cosmopolitan reforms. It has tried to achieve this grand thesis through bringing together what it calls the “Tree Traditions” in IR theory, as presented in Figure 1 on page 9 of Barry Buzan’s book. (from which book/file shall we find this, I’ve tried over the net, there are no “Tree Tradition” figure by Buzan) Summarise in your own words the main elements of this English School tradition up to Buzan work. Do you find this attempt at a “grand theory “necessary and valuable? (Note: do not summarize Buzan attempt to reconstruct English School theory). (400 words) Source: Toward a World Society? : An Assessment of Barry Buzan’s reconceptualization of the English Scho ol of International RelationsThe argument of the main elements of the English School tradition believes largely on power politics amongst states (Hobbes/Machiavelli); on Grotius’ institutionalization of shared interest and identity amongst states; and on, Kant’s individuals, non-state organizations and ultimately the global population as a whole. The common ground for these pillars seems to all fall down under a less complex explanation that “an international society exists despite the fact that states exist in an anarchical international system”. (Bull, n.d. ). Barry Buzan’s three mains elements, on the other hand, are Realism (international system), Rationalism (international society, and Revolutionism (worldsociety). For me, Buzan’s attempt at a “grand theory” is both necessary and valuable. This attempt to unite three notable schools of thoughts would bring about a central idea on International Relations. This, in turn, may bridge the way to a functional intern ational relation. This is necessary for the development of a world, with a little pessimism brought about by realist, but with each individual believing that they have equal rights no matter where they live (rationalist) and the belief that they live in country where they have equal opportunities as the one they used to live in (revolutionist). The attempt is also valuable so that a supreme idea could be achieved. This supreme idea could also pave the way for the creation of a solution to the problem that concerns us, as a whole, as human being. We need to combat the problem not in a state level but in a collective effort. International relations need a basic principle to stand by so that every state looks in the same way, with one goal and in a single focused perspective. Question 2: Buzan is unhappy with what he considers to be inadequacy of the English School’s treatment of the concept of” World Society”. What are his criticisms in this area and do you think we need to th eory of world society to understand contemporary international relations. (300 words). Source: Toward a World Society? :An Assessment of Barry Buzan’s reconceptualization of the English School of International Relations