Chapter 5 Review questions

International Society

What is most distinctive about the International Society approach to the study of international relations?
The international society tradition is said to be 'a middle way in classical IR scholarship'. What does that mean? Is it the only ‘middle way’?
Review the international society concepts of realism, rationalism and revolutionism and explain the nature of their relationship. Which one of these concepts do international society scholars emphasize most?
How far do modern international organizations, such as the United Nations, reveal the validity of the international society approach to IR?
Does the general weakness of international law undermine the strength of the international society approach to IR?
Does it make sense to conceptualize international relations as a 'society'? Explain.
If you were obliged to choose between order and justice in international relations, which value would you choose? State the reasons for your choice.
Outline Hedley Bull's conception of war as an institution. How valid is it? What would classical realists say about it?
Review the three dimensions of responsible statecraft. Are some of these responsibilities more important than others? How far does the answer depend on one's approach: i.e. whether the approach is realist or rationalist or revolutionist?
Review the solidarist critics of international society. Do they have a good case? Which of the critics has the best case?
What – according to Barry Buzan – is the difference between ‘state-centric’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ solidarists? Which group is closer to pluralism and why?
What are Adam Watson’s claims about balance of power and hegemony in prior historical state systems? Explain the notion of ‘Time’s Pendulum’ (see Figure 5.1).
How do International Society scholars use history in their analyses?
Why has the influence of the International Society approach been relatively limited in American IR?