Diplomacy as an institution of International Society in English school of International relations
(12-19)

More about authors
Mironov Victor V. Dr. Sci. (Hist.), Associate Professor, Professor at the Department of the History and Theory of International Relations
For read the full article, please, register or log in
Annotation:
This article is devote to the analysis of one from the key institutions in the conception of international society. The aim of the article is identify historiographical aspects for the analysis diplomacy in the context of the English school’s approach to the study of international institutions. English school of International relations formed in the end 1950-1970. Some famous scientists (H. Butterfield, M. Wight, and H. Bull) took an active part in the creation of this scientific society. British Committee for the study of international politics was a main intellectual structure in the genesis of the school. Committee had worked during 25 years (1959-1985) and become a base for the development two first generations of English school of international relations. Herbert Butterfield was very famous English historian and first chief of British Committee during 1959-1967. He had conservative credo. He shared the idea of the decline of diplomacy and divided it into new and historical. During some time, his views on diplomacy in modern history came into conflict with wide interpretation international society - central concept of the school. Martin Wight saw in diplomacy as a minimal indicator of the social character of international system in any time, but he also inclined that diplomacy will not be play very much role in the future. At the same time, he did not accept the concept “international society” and preferred the idea of “system of state”. Concept “international society” become a symbol and different mark this scientific community thanks to the books by H. Bull in 1960-1970. Hedley Bull included diplomacy in his list main international institutes, but central place among them in his views played balance of power and international law. Modern adepts of the conception of international Society continue diplomatic research. The works of modern representatives of the English School are studies in the article. Main conclusion of this part of the article consist of that the functional analysis of the diplomacy become a base for the following development of British intuitionalism and an important part of the conception of international society today. The British institutionalism are highlighted general trends of the following development English school of international relations and some problems for the dialogue with American theory of International relations.
How to Cite:
Mironov V.V., (2021), DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTITUTION OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY IN ENGLISH SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. History and Modern Perspectives, 1: 12-19.
DOI: 10.33693/2658-4654-2021-3-1-12-19
Reference list:
Bull H. The anarchical society. A study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. 335 p.
Butterfield H. The new diplomacy and historical diplomacy. In: Diplomatic investigations. Essays in the theory of international politics. H. Butterfield, M. Wight (eds.). London: Allen Unwin, 1966. Pp. 181-192.
Buzan B. From international to world society. English school theory and social structure of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 295 p.
Buzan B. Rethinking Hedley Bull on the institutions of international society. In: The anarchical society in a Globalized World. R. Little, J. Williams (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Pp. 75-96.
Der Derian J. Anti-diplomacy: Spies, terror, speed and war. Oxford, 1992. 215 p.
Dunne T. Sociological investigations: Instrumental, legitimist and coercive interpretations of international society. Millennium. 2001. Vol. 30. No. 1. Pp. 66-91.
Hall I. Diplomacy, anti-diplomacy and international society. In: The anarchical society in a globalized world. R. Little, J. Williams (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Pp. 141-161.
Holsti K.J. Taming the Sovereigns. International change in international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 372 p.
Jones C. War in the twenty-first century: An institution in crisis. In: The anarchical society in a globalized world. R. Little, J. Williams (eds.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Pp. 162-187.
Kedourie E. A New international disorder. In: The expansion of international society. H. Bull, A. Watson (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Pp. 347-355.
Linklater A., Suganami H. The English school of international relations. A contemporary reassessments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 302 p.
Nationalism and international relations. J.B.L. Mayall, J. Jackson-Preece (eds.). London: London School of Economics, 2011. 109. P. 216.
Ottoman diplomacy. Conventional or unconventional N.A. Yurdusev (ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. 202 p.
Riordan S. Dialogue-based public diplomacy: A new foreign policy paradigm In: The new public diplomacy. Soft power in international relations. New York, 2005. Pp. 180-193.
The expansion of international society. H. Bull, A. Watson (eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. 479 p.
Watson A. Diplomacy. The dialogue between states. London: Eyre Methuen. 1982. 239 p.
Wight M. De systematibus civitatum. In: System of state. H. Bull (ed.). Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977. Pp. 21-41.
Wight M. Power politics. H. Bull, C. Holbroad (eds.). Leicester, 1979. 317 r.
Yurdusev N.A. International relations and the philosophy of history. A civilization approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 204 p.
Keywords:
English school of International relations, diplomacy, International institutions.