ABSTRACT

Introduction In Chinese discussions about International Relations (IR) theory, the ‘Chinese School’ and the English School are often mentioned in the same breath (Zhang 2003; Pang 2003; Ren 2003, 2009a; Callahan 2004b; Shih 2005b; Wang, C. 2005; Wang, Z. 2012). The obvious reason for this is that their names seem to validate national approaches to IR theory. The less obvious, but no less important reason, is that both are positioned as challengers to mainstream IR theory – particularly realism/neorealism and liberalism/neoliberalism – which is largely American-based, but does not carry the label ‘American School’. It hence seems worthwhile to conduct a comparison to see what lessons the English School might or might not offer to those working to construct a Chinese School and to those seeking to develop IR theory in China more generally. Having been in existence for more than half a century, the English School has a clear and widely accepted identity and a long track record (Dunne 1998; Buzan 2014). The idea of a ‘Chinese School’ is much newer and still hotly contested. The first problem with this exercise, therefore, is to determine exactly what is being compared. The English School does not represent the totality of IR in Britain, but is just one well-established body of thought that operates within Britain and in the global IR community. It is aimed at system level IR theory, and despite the label has little interest in pursuing foreign policy theory. The picture on the Chinese side is quite different. The term ‘Chinese School’ has been used to promote the development of theoretical IR thinking within China about systemic IR theory and foreign policy theory for China. The context for the emergence of the Chinese School is one where China needs to find its feet as a major power in a global international system, and in which the whole field of IR in China is relatively new and needs to establish its voice in a well-developed global IR community. Given the lively and diverse IR debates in China, it seems highly unlikely that a single monolithic ‘Chinese School’ will come to dominate IR thinking there. From present developments, a more likely outcome seems that of ‘Chinese Schools’ in which there might be two or more lines of theory development that are ‘Chinese’ in the sense of drawing on distinctive elements of Chinese history, culture and philosophy. In addition to this, there are already

‘IR Schools in China’, in the sense that Chinese IR scholars identify themselves with existing theoretical approaches to IR, such as realism, liberalism, constructivism, Marxism and indeed the English School. The label ‘Chinese School’ might well disappear if emergent lines of IR theory acquire more specific names, as the Tsinghua Approach seems keen to do. The lesson from both the English School and the Copenhagen School is that names are given by others, often those opposed to such development. We will nevertheless use the term ‘Chinese School’ in the discussion that follows, but will differentiate it where appropriate, and readers should keep in mind the diversity that this represents. In the longer run, Chinese IR might well look somewhat like IR in Britain, with a mixture of theoretical approaches and schools, some global and some reflecting indigenous developments. It might be argued that it is too early to compare the well-developed English School with a diverse Chinese development still in its formative stages. But the comparison is already being made, and therefore needs authoritative discussion. And the history of the English School can still offer insights to those in China trying to become differentiated from mainstream IR. There is indeed concrete content in various ‘Chinese Schools’ to compare, so although the different stages of development might be a problem, they also constitute an opportunity. In this chapter we focus on academic histories, comparing Chinese IR theory developments and the English School in six dimensions: origins, founders and organization; naming; context; aims/intentions; theoretical sources; and historical projects. The opportunity, therefore, is to apply the experience of the English School to the formative process of Chinese IR theory, at the same time making clear the considerable differences that time, place and circumstance make to the two projects. The chapter concludes by looking at possible lessons for Chinese IR, both from what the English School has done well and from things for which it has been criticized, and at the utility of the comparison.