Linklater, Andrew. “The Argument of the English School”. In The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, by Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, 43-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Linklater, Andrew. “The Argument of the English School”. In The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment, by Andrew Linklater and Hidemi Suganami, 43-80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

• Source mine of seminal texts of the English School of IR theory on page 43. 
• An essential tenet of the English School, called 'Rationalism' is that relations between states are mediated by certain rules, making states act in a more orderly than would be expected under total anarchy. The actual content of these rules and which states are 'great powers' are all socially constructed (44).
• Hedley Bull identifies five essential institutions which constitute the basis of international society and enforce and regulate its rules: the balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war, and a concert of great powers (46, 51).
• While Charles Manning reduces these rules down to international law, Dr. Bull contends that international is simple one form that these rules can take; international law is the contemporary form that this order takes as the result of a historical process, it was not like this in the past and may be different in the future (49-50).
• The English School strongly disagrees with the use of analogies of domestic politics to explain international relations since the relations between states in a international system are totally different than any other system due to anarchy. Continuing to use domestic analogies is harmful to properly understanding the distinct origins and functions of the international system (45-46). 
• Charles Manning provides a solution to the tension between state sovereignty and obligations under international law. Dr. Manning holds that members in international society gain rights, like recognition of sovereignty, and duties in that society, meaning that legal obligation under international law is a core component of membership in international society (47-48).
• This is not a natural order intrinsic to states, but a socially constructed order which resulted from the same unique historical process that produced the contemporary international society of European states (48).
• In the anarchic environment of international relations, it is states themselves that are responsible for creating and effectively enforcing the rules of international society (52).
• Since states make up common rules of conduct in international society and then enforce and treat them as if they were real things, there is a significant danger in IR that states will just stop behaving or that international society will collapse into another form, since there is nothing prevent this except state behavior (52-53).
• Dr. Bull asserts that human society is created to 'order' people and that this order has three basic goals: limiting violence; holding people accountable for agreements or contracts; and protecting property rights, either public, private, or communal. Similarly, international society serves to promote six goals: preserving that form of international society, maintaining sovereignty, making peace the default of international society, limiting interstate war, observing interstate agreements, and preserving the stability of state borders (56-57).
• The claim that all human societies share those three basic goals, and that these goals define the 'orderliness' of a society, are not substantiated by anthropological evidence, instead they are simply claims by Dr. Bull. This puts his claims regarding societal and international order on shaky grounds (58-59).
• One of the primary aims of the English School is the examination of the institutions underlying the contemporary international society and global order, and comparing this system with other possible systems to determine whether a different international order could produce better results for humanity (56). 
• Dr. Bull examines two contrasting legal traditions -- legal pluralism, represented by Max von Oppenheim, and legal solidarism, represented by Hugo Grotius -- to determine which one better supports the maintenance of international order (59-60).
• He asserts that under solidarism, states are united against violators of the international order (60). Additionally, solidarism has an expansive idea of just war theory covering jus ad bellum and jus in bello and punishes unjust wars (61-62), holds that laws are 'natural' or divinely-ordained (63), and believes that international law applied to all aspects of human society, not just states (63-64).
• The author notes that the belief of Hugo Grotius in a system of 'natural' international law resulting from divine command was a belief of his time period. Not all solidarists need to be believe this, nor are all does who believe in 'natural' law solidarists (63).
• Hugo Grotius's belief that divine natural law bound all humans informed his belief that international law applied to all human enterprises. Moreover, while it is possible to assert that states' rights supersede human rights, Mr. Grotius's explicitly rejected this idea and placed human concerns at the heart of the international legal order (64).
• Dr. Bull claims that pluralism does not share the basic unity of states against violations of the international order and has much weaker controls on states (60). Additionally, states are relatively free to make war, with international law only regulating conduct in war, jus in bello, and there are not legal distinctions between different kinds of wars (61-62); also, laws are only the result of custom or treaty, without an a priori system of 'natural' international law (63), and states are the only subjects of international law (63).
• By only recognizing states as the subjects of international law, Mr. von Oppenheim specifically rejects the idea of justified or mandated humanitarian intervention in other countries under international law. Since human beings have no legal status in the pluralist system, this is simply another war between states (64-65).
• Dr. Bull concluded that during his contemporary period [1960s], pluralism was the superior position as far as maintaining a minimum level of peace between states, whereas solidarism threatened to cause war through humanitarian interventions. As the post-war order strengthened, Dr. Bull and other English School theorists, like John Vincent, began advocating limited solidarism as the better approach because it allowed justice to exist and just systems were less prone to collapse (66-67).
• Nicholas Wheeler provides a different definition of the distinction between solidarism and pluralism, asserting that pluralism is concerned narrowly with the prevention of inter-state war, whereas solidarism is concerned with general human welfare and human rights (71-72).
• Dr. Bull measured the success of different international societies by their ability to achieve the goals of peace and security, economic and social justice, and environmental protection (68).
• Dr. Bull rejected the idea of a world government, neo-medievalism, or any other alternative system because they did not provide advantages over the system of national states, which were effective enough and provided the stability necessary to pursue social justice and environmental protection (69).
• Some changes were seen as necessary to the achievement of these goals under the states system, however, namely the expansion and transformation of international society to include the perspectives and interests of Asians, Africans, and South Americans. The states system was acceptable, but not a system of Western states (70).
• Andrew Linklater, another scholar of the English School, has argued that the neo-medievalism is a superior form of organizing the world for achieving the goals set out by Dr. Bull (78).
• Martin Wight identified three historical instances of an international society existing: the contemporary Western system of nation-states, the Hellenic system in the Middle East following Alexander the Great's conquests, and the inter-state system existing in China during the Warring States period (74).
• Dr. Wight observed that these cases evolved out of areas of substantial cultural uniformity and similarity. The current global international system embodied in the UN is unique in that its members come from different cultural backgrounds. Dr. Wight notes, however, that the basis of this system comes from European experiences and was imposed on other states through coercion (75).
• The English School holds that the study of history is essential to understanding contemporary international relations and global politics. Other schools, like neorealism, are critiqued for this omission (76).