下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- British school and neoliberal institutionalism，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了英国学派与新自由制度主义。英国学派和新自由制度主义是国际关系中两个学术传统与研究风格迥异的理论流派，虽然两者在国际无政府状态、国际政治行为体、国际秩序及国际制度等问题的认识上有相似之处，但它们在有关国际体系的本质的认识、涉及的制度类型以及对国际制度的形成和作用所作的解释等方面仍然存在重大的差别。
Firstly, both the British school and neoliberal institutionalism regard international anarchy as the starting point of their theoretical research, and their understanding of the meaning of anarchy is basically the same. Martin think white, although international politics is anarchy, anarchy but does not mean that the chaos and disorder, but there is still a diplomatic system, international law and international rules and make the operation of the power politics moderate or complicate the international system, has the certain social order among countries, namely "anarchy society"; Anarchy simply means that the international community lacks a common government. Robert keogh han also points out that although world politics are centralized, decentralized, but a lack of organization and anarchy does not mean that the world political order, doesn't mean that world politics is the endless war, but only refers to the lack of a common world politics government to implement the rules. Keohan believes that although there is no common authority in world politics, there is still limited cooperation between countries and certain rules, norms and agreements exist, such as diplomatic recognition, judicial immunity and the structure of the agenda of multilateral organizations. However, the anarchic structure of world politics means that cooperation cannot rely on obedience to hierarchical authority, nor on centralized coercive forces, but only on mutual interests or reciprocity between states.
Secondly, both the British school and the neoliberal institutionalism adhere to the "state-centered theory" on the behavior of international politics. White and headley bull believed that the state is the main and direct member of the international community, and that modern states, regardless of their differences with each other, are united by the belief that they are the main actors in world politics and the main bearers of rights and obligations. Although keohan emphasized the importance of non-state actors in power and interdependence, he later realized that non-state actors were still subordinate to state actors, and transnational actors were usually managed by people from specific countries, so he returned to the theory of state center. Keohan believes that there are various actors in world politics, but only the state is the most important actor in world politics. Therefore, when analyzing problems of international cooperation and international mechanism, the state should be placed at the center of analysis. Moreover, neoliberal institutionalism regards the state as a single, rational and self-interested actor. Since the state is single and rational, it needs an international order, a reasonable resolution of conflicts, and the ability to consider maximizing benefits at the lowest cost.
Thirdly, the central problem of the British school and neo-liberal institutionalism theory is to discuss how the international order is acquired under anarchy, and both emphasize the core role of rules and institutions in maintaining the international order. International order is the focus of Boolean theory. For him, the central task of international relations theory was to determine how order is acquired in anarchy: what is order? How is order maintained in international politics? Is the world political order best maintained by sovereign society, or by some other political organization? Keohan also took world political order as the central task of his theoretical research. We study international institutions because we are interested in understanding the world political order. Conflict may be a natural law, and if so, it is particularly important to explain the institutionalized pattern of cooperation. That is to say, in order to seek order in world politics, we need to study international system and mechanism, because international system is an important mode of world political order, which limits and guides state behavior according to common rules and principles, thus forming an orderly behavior mode. However, the maintenance of any social order requires not only a concept of common interests to create order or avoid disorder, but also a detailed description of the rules of orderly behavior. Boolean that rule is required or permitted one person or group in a particular way generally mandatory principle of action, these rules including international law, ethics, habits or practices, operating rules or "game rules", etc., and the important role of system through the elaboration, convey, management, implementation, interpretation, legal and applicable way, to ensure that the rules for the international community members abide by it. Keohan emphasized that international mechanisms include four elements: principles, rules, norms and decision-making procedures, and believed that they all have the meaning of prohibition on state behavior: they restrict specific actions and prohibit other actions. He defined the international mechanism as: "a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures gathered from the desires of actors in a certain field of international relations. The so-called principle refers to the belief in fact, causality and honesty. The so-called norm refers to the standard of conduct established by means of rights and obligations. The so-called rules refer to the special provisions and prohibitions on actions; The decision-making process refers to the prevailing practice of deciding and implementing collective policy choices.
Although the British school and neoliberal institutionalism emphasize the role of rules and institutions in restraining state behavior, they all recognize that the rules and institutions of the international community cannot be as highly binding and mandatory as the institutions and laws of the domestic society. Because there is a unified government in the domestic society, it is highly institutionalized and centralized, and individuals are restricted by basic rules and subordinate rules. However, the international community is a pluralistic and decentralized multicultural system. Due to the lack of a central authority, the basic rules involved by the international community are to manage the appropriate behavior of the state and prevent the emergence of any centralized rules to control subordinate rules. That is, in a well-organized domestic society, the units of action operate within the framework of a constitutional principle that defines property rights, defines who may control the state, and defines the conditions under which citizens must submit to government control. However, world politics is not centralized and decentralized. The principle of sovereignty and self-help means that the international community lacks a mandatory authority to implement rules, so the principles and rules in the international mechanism are necessarily more fragile than those in the domestic society. Because under the anarchy, the international mechanism can only on the basis of national voluntary establish, maintain and comply with, as a result, the international mechanism should not be seen as above constitute a beyond the sovereign state of the elements of a new international order, but only as a national power structure and between state and non-state actors "adjustment factor" and "intervening variables". Obviously, the anarchic nature of the international political structure determines that the autonomy and coerciveness of the international system are weaker than the domestic political system.
The community is built on the basis of "common feelings, experiences and identity bonds". It is an organic unity linked by common loyalty, value and blood relationship between individuals, and it is a unity of perfect will of people in a primitive or natural state. Society, on the other hand, is a purposeful association, which results from the planned coordination of many individuals' thoughts and behaviors. Individuals, out of the common need to achieve a specific purpose, gather together to act together. That is to say, society represents a rational, contractual and modern way of organizing human activities; However, community represents an organic, pre-modern and small-scale way of organizing human life. Community not only means to recognize the identity of group members, but also means to assume responsibilities to other members of the group. In Chris Brown's words, community is the idea that the existence of order requires a normative basis, based on the idea that people form a network of mutual demands, rights, responsibilities and obligations. Community means common interests and common identity. The concept of the world community implies a belief in the cosmopolitanism of human unity, the core of which is an idea of unity based on the concept of brotherhood. And the society is a union that has normative form of governance, but norms develop from the need of social cooperation, it does not necessarily require people to recognize any common program, common interest or common identity except the requirement of social coexistence. Moreover, the norms that make up society are also different from those that make up the world community. They are basically norms for countries to successfully seek peaceful coexistence, but the norms of the world community are not limited to the goals of coexistence or the relations between countries.
Secondly, the difference between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism is also reflected in the types of institutions they involve. Keohan defined the international system as a set of continuous and interrelated formal and informal rules system, which can define norms of behavior, restrict the activities of actors and form expectations of actors. However, the international system concerned by neoliberal institutionalism was actually focused on specific institutions and practices established for specific purposes, and he emphasized international mechanisms and formal international organizations. The system involved by the British school is quite different from neoliberal institutionalism. By international system, he does not necessarily mean the organization or management mechanism, but a set of habits and practices that tend to achieve common goals. These customs and practices come from the long-term practice of sovereign states, which restrict and shape the formation, development and extinction of many specific systems. Therefore, the international system studied by the British school mostly involves the normative structure, practices and common cultural factors constructed in history, which are mainly reflected in the basic systems of the international community, such as balance of power, international law, diplomatic mechanism, great power management and war, etc. These basic systems do not deny the central role of the state in realizing the political functions of the international community, nor do they act as the central authoritative agency of the international system. They symbolize the existence of the international community, demonstrate the substantive and lasting nature of the cooperation between states in the exercise of their political roles, and help mitigate the tendency of member states to ignore common interests. In other words, sovereignty, balance of power, international law and diplomatic mechanisms represent the preconditions for the sharing of understanding among the subjects of meaningful state actions. They make state actors the subjects of international life and enable meaningful interactions between states. In terms of the role of international institutions in the international community, the British school mainly focuses on the ways in which international institutions construct national practice and the ways in which these institutions construct or regulate the interaction between countries. Neoliberal institutionalism mainly focuses on the way in which international institutions organize state practices, that is, under an established international institutional environment, international institutions limit the scope and mode of action of states in international relations. Obviously, the specific understanding of the British school on the international system is one of the important contents that distinguishes it from neoliberal institutionalism.
Finally, the difference between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism is also clearly reflected in their interpretation of the formation and role of the international system. Is the system the result of the rational choice of the agent, or is the agent regarded as the construction of the sovereign system? The British school and neoliberal institutionalism have different answers to this question. The international system research of neoliberal institutionalism takes the rational choice theory as the main basis to explain the international cooperative behavior, regarding the identity and preference of actors as established, and tries to explain that self-interested countries are very different from the United States in the anarchy. Britain's international relations discipline is rooted in the traditional philosophy, history and legal research, university education attaches great importance to the communication and exchanges between the various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, many scholars engaged in the teaching of international relations history is acceptable for the initial training, they emphasize the history knowledge as the basis of contemporary research and theoretical analysis of value, believe that good international relations scholars need to be familiar with at least 1648 years since the change of the state system, especially the grasp of the 20th century, as well as many detailed knowledge of a particular period, therefore, the British scholars generally advocated by classical method rather than using quantitative data as the basis of the international relations research. In addition, the system of academic scholars have published works without rigid requirements, the activities of the scholar is basically not influenced by government policy, under the background of the academic environment enables scholars have ample time and freedom from the perspective of macro international system and international society of the whole international system and the study of history, rather than focusing on contemporary international organizations and international institutions.
Third, a more important reason for the differences between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism in the study of international order and international system is the difference in the historical status and problems faced by Britain and the United States in the international system after the war. Britain has a long tradition of taking an active part in the affairs of other parts of the world. However, after World War II, Britain became a general power and its role in world affairs declined. The problem it faced was how to maintain its status as a major power in the international system and participate in the European integration process. Although the United States became the hegemonic power of the international system after the war, its hegemonic position was constantly challenged by the Soviet union. Therefore, the problem it faced was how to maintain its leading position in the post-war international system and ensure the order and stability of the hegemonic system. The positioning of this space-time coordinate has exerted a great influence on the theoretical study of international politics in Britain and the United States. To a large extent, it makes Americans pay more attention to the international system, hegemonic protection and soft and hard power, and makes British people pay more attention to the international community, its construction and operation as well as relevant norms and systems. Despite the relative decline of American power after the 1970s, neoliberal institutionalism has not paid as much attention to power and international system as realism and neorealism, but its theoretical focus is still the maintenance of international mechanism after the decline of American hegemony. In their view, international mechanisms affect the information and opportunities available to governments, and the damage to their reputation resulting from the destruction of the government's commitment to support such international systems changes the government's estimation of their interests or favorable position. In order to investigate the great influence of international mechanism on state behavior, they regard contemporary international organization and international mechanism as the main content of their theoretical research. However, Britain, which has no chance of hegemony, is unable to focus on the hegemonic system like American scholars because of its positioning in historical and realistic coordinates. It can only focus on the essence and role of the international community and its historical development. At the same time, the basic situation of Europe after the war was to try to overcome the tragedy of the traditional great powers and establish a supranational civil society in the institutional framework. As a result, the school of international society in the British international political field has finally become an important school of international political theory recognized globally through the efforts of several generations of scholars.
Thus, it can be seen that the differences in epistemology and methodology between British and American academic circles, the differences in academic traditions and environments between the two countries, as well as the differences in the historical status and problems faced by the post-war international system are the basic reasons for the differences between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism in the study of international system.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
Firstly, both the British school and neoliberal institutionalism regard international anarchy as the starting point of their theoretical research, and their understanding of the meaning of anarchy is basically the same. Martin think white, although international politics is anarchy, anarchy but does not mean that the chaos and disorder, but there is still a diplomatic system, international law and international rules and make the operation of the power politics moderate or complicate the international system, has the certain social order among countries, namely "anarchy society"; Anarchy simply means that the international community lacks a common government. Robert keogh han also points out that although world politics are centralized, decentralized, but a lack of organization and anarchy does not mean that the world political order, doesn't mean that world politics is the endless war, but only refers to the lack of a common world politics government to implement the rules. Keohan believes that although there is no common authority in world politics, there is still limited cooperation between countries and certain rules, norms and agreements exist, such as diplomatic recognition, judicial immunity and the structure of the agenda of multilateral organizations. However, the anarchic structure of world politics means that cooperation cannot rely on obedience to hierarchical authority, nor on centralized coercive forces, but only on mutual interests or reciprocity between states.
Secondly, both the British school and the neoliberal institutionalism adhere to the "state-centered theory" on the behavior of international politics. White and headley bull believed that the state is the main and direct member of the international community, and that modern states, regardless of their differences with each other, are united by the belief that they are the main actors in world politics and the main bearers of rights and obligations. Although keohan emphasized the importance of non-state actors in power and interdependence, he later realized that non-state actors were still subordinate to state actors, and transnational actors were usually managed by people from specific countries, so he returned to the theory of state center. Keohan believes that there are various actors in world politics, but only the state is the most important actor in world politics. Therefore, when analyzing problems of international cooperation and international mechanism, the state should be placed at the center of analysis. Moreover, neoliberal institutionalism regards the state as a single, rational and self-interested actor. Since the state is single and rational, it needs an international order, a reasonable resolution of conflicts, and the ability to consider maximizing benefits at the lowest cost.
Thirdly, the central problem of the British school and neo-liberal institutionalism theory is to discuss how the international order is acquired under anarchy, and both emphasize the core role of rules and institutions in maintaining the international order. International order is the focus of Boolean theory. For him, the central task of international relations theory was to determine how order is acquired in anarchy: what is order? How is order maintained in international politics? Is the world political order best maintained by sovereign society, or by some other political organization? Keohan also took world political order as the central task of his theoretical research. We study international institutions because we are interested in understanding the world political order. Conflict may be a natural law, and if so, it is particularly important to explain the institutionalized pattern of cooperation. That is to say, in order to seek order in world politics, we need to study international system and mechanism, because international system is an important mode of world political order, which limits and guides state behavior according to common rules and principles, thus forming an orderly behavior mode. However, the maintenance of any social order requires not only a concept of common interests to create order or avoid disorder, but also a detailed description of the rules of orderly behavior. Boolean that rule is required or permitted one person or group in a particular way generally mandatory principle of action, these rules including international law, ethics, habits or practices, operating rules or "game rules", etc., and the important role of system through the elaboration, convey, management, implementation, interpretation, legal and applicable way, to ensure that the rules for the international community members abide by it. Keohan emphasized that international mechanisms include four elements: principles, rules, norms and decision-making procedures, and believed that they all have the meaning of prohibition on state behavior: they restrict specific actions and prohibit other actions. He defined the international mechanism as: "a set of implicit or explicit principles, norms, rules and decision-making procedures gathered from the desires of actors in a certain field of international relations. The so-called principle refers to the belief in fact, causality and honesty. The so-called norm refers to the standard of conduct established by means of rights and obligations. The so-called rules refer to the special provisions and prohibitions on actions; The decision-making process refers to the prevailing practice of deciding and implementing collective policy choices.
Although the British school and neoliberal institutionalism emphasize the role of rules and institutions in restraining state behavior, they all recognize that the rules and institutions of the international community cannot be as highly binding and mandatory as the institutions and laws of the domestic society. Because there is a unified government in the domestic society, it is highly institutionalized and centralized, and individuals are restricted by basic rules and subordinate rules. However, the international community is a pluralistic and decentralized multicultural system. Due to the lack of a central authority, the basic rules involved by the international community are to manage the appropriate behavior of the state and prevent the emergence of any centralized rules to control subordinate rules. That is, in a well-organized domestic society, the units of action operate within the framework of a constitutional principle that defines property rights, defines who may control the state, and defines the conditions under which citizens must submit to government control. However, world politics is not centralized and decentralized. The principle of sovereignty and self-help means that the international community lacks a mandatory authority to implement rules, so the principles and rules in the international mechanism are necessarily more fragile than those in the domestic society. Because under the anarchy, the international mechanism can only on the basis of national voluntary establish, maintain and comply with, as a result, the international mechanism should not be seen as above constitute a beyond the sovereign state of the elements of a new international order, but only as a national power structure and between state and non-state actors "adjustment factor" and "intervening variables". Obviously, the anarchic nature of the international political structure determines that the autonomy and coerciveness of the international system are weaker than the domestic political system.
The community is built on the basis of "common feelings, experiences and identity bonds". It is an organic unity linked by common loyalty, value and blood relationship between individuals, and it is a unity of perfect will of people in a primitive or natural state. Society, on the other hand, is a purposeful association, which results from the planned coordination of many individuals' thoughts and behaviors. Individuals, out of the common need to achieve a specific purpose, gather together to act together. That is to say, society represents a rational, contractual and modern way of organizing human activities; However, community represents an organic, pre-modern and small-scale way of organizing human life. Community not only means to recognize the identity of group members, but also means to assume responsibilities to other members of the group. In Chris Brown's words, community is the idea that the existence of order requires a normative basis, based on the idea that people form a network of mutual demands, rights, responsibilities and obligations. Community means common interests and common identity. The concept of the world community implies a belief in the cosmopolitanism of human unity, the core of which is an idea of unity based on the concept of brotherhood. And the society is a union that has normative form of governance, but norms develop from the need of social cooperation, it does not necessarily require people to recognize any common program, common interest or common identity except the requirement of social coexistence. Moreover, the norms that make up society are also different from those that make up the world community. They are basically norms for countries to successfully seek peaceful coexistence, but the norms of the world community are not limited to the goals of coexistence or the relations between countries.
Secondly, the difference between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism is also reflected in the types of institutions they involve. Keohan defined the international system as a set of continuous and interrelated formal and informal rules system, which can define norms of behavior, restrict the activities of actors and form expectations of actors. However, the international system concerned by neoliberal institutionalism was actually focused on specific institutions and practices established for specific purposes, and he emphasized international mechanisms and formal international organizations. The system involved by the British school is quite different from neoliberal institutionalism. By international system, he does not necessarily mean the organization or management mechanism, but a set of habits and practices that tend to achieve common goals. These customs and practices come from the long-term practice of sovereign states, which restrict and shape the formation, development and extinction of many specific systems. Therefore, the international system studied by the British school mostly involves the normative structure, practices and common cultural factors constructed in history, which are mainly reflected in the basic systems of the international community, such as balance of power, international law, diplomatic mechanism, great power management and war, etc. These basic systems do not deny the central role of the state in realizing the political functions of the international community, nor do they act as the central authoritative agency of the international system. They symbolize the existence of the international community, demonstrate the substantive and lasting nature of the cooperation between states in the exercise of their political roles, and help mitigate the tendency of member states to ignore common interests. In other words, sovereignty, balance of power, international law and diplomatic mechanisms represent the preconditions for the sharing of understanding among the subjects of meaningful state actions. They make state actors the subjects of international life and enable meaningful interactions between states. In terms of the role of international institutions in the international community, the British school mainly focuses on the ways in which international institutions construct national practice and the ways in which these institutions construct or regulate the interaction between countries. Neoliberal institutionalism mainly focuses on the way in which international institutions organize state practices, that is, under an established international institutional environment, international institutions limit the scope and mode of action of states in international relations. Obviously, the specific understanding of the British school on the international system is one of the important contents that distinguishes it from neoliberal institutionalism.
Finally, the difference between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism is also clearly reflected in their interpretation of the formation and role of the international system. Is the system the result of the rational choice of the agent, or is the agent regarded as the construction of the sovereign system? The British school and neoliberal institutionalism have different answers to this question. The international system research of neoliberal institutionalism takes the rational choice theory as the main basis to explain the international cooperative behavior, regarding the identity and preference of actors as established, and tries to explain that self-interested countries are very different from the United States in the anarchy. Britain's international relations discipline is rooted in the traditional philosophy, history and legal research, university education attaches great importance to the communication and exchanges between the various disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, many scholars engaged in the teaching of international relations history is acceptable for the initial training, they emphasize the history knowledge as the basis of contemporary research and theoretical analysis of value, believe that good international relations scholars need to be familiar with at least 1648 years since the change of the state system, especially the grasp of the 20th century, as well as many detailed knowledge of a particular period, therefore, the British scholars generally advocated by classical method rather than using quantitative data as the basis of the international relations research. In addition, the system of academic scholars have published works without rigid requirements, the activities of the scholar is basically not influenced by government policy, under the background of the academic environment enables scholars have ample time and freedom from the perspective of macro international system and international society of the whole international system and the study of history, rather than focusing on contemporary international organizations and international institutions.
Third, a more important reason for the differences between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism in the study of international order and international system is the difference in the historical status and problems faced by Britain and the United States in the international system after the war. Britain has a long tradition of taking an active part in the affairs of other parts of the world. However, after World War II, Britain became a general power and its role in world affairs declined. The problem it faced was how to maintain its status as a major power in the international system and participate in the European integration process. Although the United States became the hegemonic power of the international system after the war, its hegemonic position was constantly challenged by the Soviet union. Therefore, the problem it faced was how to maintain its leading position in the post-war international system and ensure the order and stability of the hegemonic system. The positioning of this space-time coordinate has exerted a great influence on the theoretical study of international politics in Britain and the United States. To a large extent, it makes Americans pay more attention to the international system, hegemonic protection and soft and hard power, and makes British people pay more attention to the international community, its construction and operation as well as relevant norms and systems. Despite the relative decline of American power after the 1970s, neoliberal institutionalism has not paid as much attention to power and international system as realism and neorealism, but its theoretical focus is still the maintenance of international mechanism after the decline of American hegemony. In their view, international mechanisms affect the information and opportunities available to governments, and the damage to their reputation resulting from the destruction of the government's commitment to support such international systems changes the government's estimation of their interests or favorable position. In order to investigate the great influence of international mechanism on state behavior, they regard contemporary international organization and international mechanism as the main content of their theoretical research. However, Britain, which has no chance of hegemony, is unable to focus on the hegemonic system like American scholars because of its positioning in historical and realistic coordinates. It can only focus on the essence and role of the international community and its historical development. At the same time, the basic situation of Europe after the war was to try to overcome the tragedy of the traditional great powers and establish a supranational civil society in the institutional framework. As a result, the school of international society in the British international political field has finally become an important school of international political theory recognized globally through the efforts of several generations of scholars.
Thus, it can be seen that the differences in epistemology and methodology between British and American academic circles, the differences in academic traditions and environments between the two countries, as well as the differences in the historical status and problems faced by the post-war international system are the basic reasons for the differences between the British school and neoliberal institutionalism in the study of international system.
想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。
51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます