Through a critical evaluation of the works of Norman Angell and David Mitrany, this book explores the liberal roots of the academic discipline of International Relations (IR). Ashworth argues that, far from being the product of timeless realist truths, IR’s origins are rooted in liberal attempts to reform international affairs. Norman Angell’s work represents the first attempt to develop a comprehensive 'new liberal' approach to the problem of global governance, while David Mitrany’s exploration of the problems of international life led him to apply the left-liberal idea of functional government to global governance. Both writers demonstrated the extent to which early twentieth century liberal writers on international affairs had answered the critics of earlier nineteenth century liberal internationalists. The penultimate chapter argues that the realist-idealist 'Great Debate' never happened, and that liberal scholars such as Angell and Mitrany have been unfairly dismissed as 'idealists.' The final chapter evaluates the writings of Angell and Mitrany and claims that the works of both authors can be criticised for theoretical weaknesses common to the liberal paradigm.
International thought is the product of major political changes over the last few centuries, especially the development of the modern state and the industrialisation of the world economy. While the question of how to deal with strangers from other communities has been a constant throughout human history, it is only in recent centuries that the question of ‘foreign relations’ (and especially imperialism and war) have become a matter of urgency for all sectors of society throughout the world. This book provides the first comprehensive overview of the evolution of Western international thought, and charts how this evolved into the predominantly Anglophone field of International Relations. Along the way several myths of the origins of International Relations are explored and exposed: the myth of the peace of Westphalia, the myths of Versailles and the nature of the League of Nations, the realist-idealist ‘Great Debate’ myth, and the myth of appeasement. Major approaches to the study of international affairs are discussed within their context and on their own terms, rather than being shoe-horned into anachronistic ‘paradigms’. Written in a clear and accessible style, Ashworth’s analysis reveals how historical myths have been used as gatekeeping devices, and how a critical re-evaluation of the history of international thought can affect how we see international affairs today.
PLEASE NOTE THIS IS AN NJR AND BLURB SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ITS RAW FORM: From 1918 to 1945 the British Labour Party worked closely with some of the biggest names in international relations (IR) scholarship. Through such structures as the Advisory Committee on International Questions IR scholars were instrumental in the construction of Labour foreign policy, and the experience of working closely with Labour's leadership influenced the approach to IR taken by these scholars. One of the major effects of the collaboration of Labour with IR experts was a wealth of memoranda, reports and pamphlets written by IR scholars for the Party. This material, despite its relevance to the history of the discipline of IR, has received scant attention in modern IR scholarship. This study has three major goals. The first is to add to the literature on the study of Labour foreign policy by examining the crucial role played by IR theorists and writers. The Advisory Committee and its intellectual members did much to shape the foreign policy of the Party, giving it a coherent approach to international problems. The second is to put the international theories of five key writers - Leonard Woolf, H, N. Brailsford, Philip Noel Baker, Norman Angell and David Mitrany - into the context of both the development of Labour's international policy, and the evolution of the international environment between the wars. Although all five writers are acknowledged as key thinkers in this period, the memoranda on foreign affairs that they did for the Labour Party are little known within IR. The final goal is to demonstrate the inadequacy of the current interpretation within IR of the inter-war period. The obsession with the anachronistic division between realism and idealism - terms that had different connotations before the Second World War - masks both the very different debates that were going on at the time, and the changing international landscape of the inter-war period itself.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.