English School vs. Realism

Attribute	English School	Realism
Key Figures	Hedley Bull, Martin Wight	Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz
Focus	International society and institutions	State-centric view of international relations
Approach to Power	Power is not just military but also economic and cultural	Power is primarily military and coercive
View on Anarchy	Anarchy can be mitigated through international institutions	Anarchy is a constant in international relations

Introduction

English School and Realism are two prominent theories in the field of international relations that offer different perspectives on how the world operates. While both theories seek to explain the behavior of states in the international system, they have distinct attributes that set them apart. In this article, we will compare the key attributes of English School and Realism to better understand their differences and similarities.

Core Principles

English School, also known as the International Society approach, emphasizes the importance of international institutions, norms, and values in shaping state behavior. It argues that states are not just self-interested actors, but are also influenced by a shared sense of community and common values. On the other hand, Realism focuses on the anarchic nature of the international system, where states are seen as rational actors pursuing their own interests in a self-help environment.

State Behavior

In terms of state behavior, English School suggests that states can cooperate and form alliances based on shared values and norms. It believes that states can work together to create a stable international order that promotes peace and security. Realism, on the other hand, argues that states are primarily concerned with maximizing their power and security, leading to competition and conflict in the international system.

International Institutions

English School places a strong emphasis on the role of international institutions in promoting cooperation and resolving conflicts between states. It believes that institutions can help shape state behavior by providing a framework for interaction and cooperation. Realism, however, is skeptical of the effectiveness of international institutions, arguing that they are often used by powerful states to further their own interests.

Norms and Values

One of the key differences between English School and Realism is their approach to norms and values in international relations. English School argues that states are influenced by shared norms and values that shape their behavior and interactions with other states. Realism, on the other hand, downplays the role of norms and values, focusing instead on the pursuit of power and security as the primary drivers of state behavior.

Conflict Resolution

When it comes to conflict resolution, English School advocates for diplomatic negotiations, dialogue, and the use of international institutions to resolve disputes between states. It believes that conflicts can be managed through dialogue and cooperation, leading to peaceful outcomes. Realism, on the other hand, sees conflict as inevitable in the international system and emphasizes the importance of military power and deterrence in resolving disputes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, English School and Realism offer different perspectives on the nature of international relations and state behavior. While English School emphasizes the role of international institutions, norms, and values in shaping state behavior, Realism focuses on the anarchic nature of the international system and the pursuit of power and security by states. By comparing the attributes of English School and Realism, we can gain a better understanding of the complexities of the international system and the various factors that influence state behavior.