The English School: History and Primary Institutions as Empirical IR Theory?

Abstract

How does the English School work as part of Empirical International Relations (IR) theory? The English School depends heavily on historical accounts, and this article makes the case that history and theory should be seen as co-constitutive rather than as separate enterprises. Empirical IR theorists need to think about their own relationship to this question and clarify what “historical sensitivity” means to them. The English School offers both distinctive taxonomies for understanding the structure of international society, and an empirically constructed historical approach to identifying the primary institutions that define international society. If Empirical IR is open to historical-interpretive accounts, then its links to the English School are in part strong, because English School structural accounts would qualify; they are, in other ways, weak because the normative theory part of the English School would not qualify. Lying behind this judgement is a deeper issue: if Empirical IR theory confines itself to regularity-deterministic causal accounts, then there can be no links to English School work. Undertaking English School insights will help open up a wider view of Empirical IR theory.

Mughal hegemony and the emergence of South Asia as a “region” for regional order-building

“…Following Holsti (2004: 21–22), the existence of these primary institutions that evolve historically to regulate inter-unit interactions is indicated by “patterned practices,” in addition to “coherent sets of ideas and/or beliefs ,” and “ norms ,” including “rules and etiquette.” While ideas do not “cause” these practices or vice versa, they are “intertwined” and “reinforce” each other (Holsti, 2004: 37). Since international orders “exhibit a contingent evolutionary logic” (Ikenberry, 2016: 549), these practices must be determined empirically since “history and theory” are “co-constitutive” (Buzan and Lawson, 2017: 7, 16). 5…”

“…I argue that it was the interaction of three factors — the “cognitive priors” (Acharya, 2012: 194) of the Mughal elite, strategic geography, and the politico-military interaction capacity in Islamicate Asia (stretching from Turkey to the Indian Ocean/South-east Asia) — that led to the emergence of South Asia as a region of this system. I use the English School’s “structural account” (Buzan and Lawson, 2017; Schouenborg, 2011) to demonstrate this “cognitive-strategic” regionalization of South Asia through the practices associated with four “primary institutions” (Bull, 2012: 71; Wight, 1979: 111–112) — warfare, great power management, diplomacy, and political economy — that were co-constituted with Mughal hegemony in South Asia, and marked it off as a distinct region of Islamicate Asia.…”

“…As an “empirical IR theory,” structural English School approaches “generate concepts, construct typologies, and provide historically grounded explanations” (Buzan and Lawson, 2017: 5). My empirical analysis has two major theoretical implications.…”

“…Second, I advance the debate on balance of power versus hegemony by providing a historically grounded explanation that demonstrates why the injection of extra-regional resources into early modern South Asia produced hegemony while fostering systemic balancing behavior in Europe (post-1500). The English School inclines toward such “grand narratives” rather than “regularity-deterministic accounts,” which are nevertheless “testable” through “historical-interpretative modes of inquiry” (Buzan and Lawson, 2017: 3, 6, 17–18).…”