Diplomatic Investigations EssaysintheTheoryof
InternationalPolitics
Editedby HERBERTBUTTERFIELD and
MARTINWIGHT
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©T&FexceptIntroduction©TimDunne&IanHall2019
PublishedbyarrangementwithRoutledge,animprintofthe Taylor&FrancisGroup,anInformabusiness.AllRightsReserved. Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019941463
ISBN978–0–19–883646–9
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Preface
Thepaperscomposingthisvolumehavebeenchosenfromanumber, writteninrecentyears,byagroupofscholarsandotherswithanofficial orprofessionalinterestinthetheoreticalaspectsofinternationalpolitics.
Thecircleforwhichthepaperswerewrittenhaditsoriginintheenterprise andliberalityoftheRockefellerFoundation.In1954tworepresentativesof theFoundation,MrDeanRuskandDrKennethW.Thompson,conveneda committeeofAmericanswhowereinterestedintheoreticalquestionsabout internationalrelations.Theyincludedpublicists,universityprofessors,and formermembersofthepolicyplanningstaffoftheStateDepartment.They metprincipallyatColumbiaUniversity,andtheirdiscussionsledtopublication.¹ThesuccessoftheAmericangrouppromptedDrThompsonto suggestthatthereshouldbeasimilarcommitteeinEngland.In1958the editorsofthepresentvolumeactedupontheproposal,andinvitedcolleagues whosharedtheirinterestinthetheoryofinternationalpoliticstoapreliminarytalk.Itwasthebeginningofregularweekendmeetings,threetimesa year,inPeterhouse,Cambridge,underthechairmanshipoftheMaster. Besidesthecontributorstothisvolume,SirWilliamArmstrong,Donald McLachlan,AdamWatson,andDesmondWilliamshavebeenmembers. Ononeoccasion,KennethThompsonwasabletocometoameeting;on anotheroccasionSirPiersonDixonwasaguest.
TheRockefellerFoundationgavethegroupthenameoftheBritish CommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalPolitics. ‘Thetheoryofinternationalpolitics’ isaphrasewithoutwidecurrencyorclearmeaninginthis country.Thegrouptookittocoverenquiryintothenatureoftheinternationalstates-system,theassumptionsandideasofdiplomacy,theprinciplesofforeignpolicy,theethicsofinternationalrelationsandwar.Thisisa regionthatstillcallsfornewapproachesandforacademictreatment.²It marcheswiththedomainsofthepoliticaltheorist,theinternationallawyer,
¹ TheoreticalAspectsofInternationalRelations, ed.W.T.R.Fox(UniversityofNotreDame Press,1959).
² ‘WhatIdoregretisthatwehavefailedtoestablish,alongsideinternationallaw,aparallel andarticulatescienceofinternationalethics,’ D.H.N.Johnson, TheEnglishTraditionin InternationalLaw,aninaugurallecture(Bell,fortheLondonSchoolofEconomics,1962), pp.26–7.
thediplomatichistorian,thestudentofinternationalrelations,andthe strategicanalyst.Witheachoftheseitblends,butitissomethingdifferent fromallofthem.TheCommitteehavenothadtheintentionofundertaking thekindofdiscussionspromotedbyChathamHouseortheInstitutefor StrategicStudies,andbelievethatnootherbodyinEnglandhasmadethe theoreticalaspectsofinternationalpoliticsitscentralconcern.
ItsoonbecamecleartothemembersoftheBritishCommitteethatwithin thisill-defined fieldtheyhaddifferentinterestsfromtheirAmericancolleagues.Theconnoisseurofnationalstylesmaynoticethecontrasts.The Britishhaveprobablybeenmoreconcernedwiththehistoricalthanthe contemporary,withthenormativethanthescientific,withthephilosophical thanthemethodological,withprinciplesthanpolicy.Butthediscussionsof theAmericancommitteewerethemselvesinsomerespectstraditionalcomparedwiththe flourishingcontemporaryschoolofAmericanandAustralian internationaltheoryandsystemsanalysis.HeretheBritishCommitteehave beenconsciousoftheantithesistotheirownapproach.Someoftheirpapers examiningthedifferencesbetweenthemmayformthebasisofasecond volumewhichisincontemplation.Meanwhile,attentionmaybedrawnto someofthecharacteristicsofthepresentcollection.Thesewerenotdesigned beforehand,butemergedbycommonconsentasthediscussionsproceeded.
First,theframeofreferencehasbeen,notthelimitsandusesofinternationaltheory,northeformulationofforeignpolicy,butthediplomatic communityitself,internationalsociety,thestates-system.TheCommittee foundthemselvesinvestigatingthenatureanddistinguishingmarksofthe diplomaticcommunity,thewayitfunctions,theobligationsofitsmembers, itstestedandestablishedprinciplesofpoliticalintercourse.Thelongest essayinthebookexamineswhetherthereisadistinctWesterntradition ininternationalrelations.Thelastthreeessaysdiscussaspectsofconflictand changewithininternationalsociety,andlooktowhatmightbetheproblems ofafuturedisarmedworld.
Secondly,theCommitteehavenotbeenconcernedwithanall-embracing theoreticalframework,ageneraltheory,forinternationalpolitics.Their procedurehasbeen,rather,empiricalandinductive.Theirpointofview hasonthewholebeenhistorical.Theyhavetendedtosupposethatthe continuitiesininternationalrelationsaremoreimportantthantheinactions;thatstatecraftisanhistoricaldepositofpracticalwisdomgrowingvery slowly,thatthepolitical,diplomatic,legal,andmilitarywriterswhomight looselybetermed ‘classical’ havenotbeensupersededasaresultofrecent developmentinsociologyandpsychology,andthatitisausefulenterpriseto
explorethecorpusofdiplomaticandmilitaryexperienceinordertoreformulateitslessonsinrelationtocontemporaryneeds.
Thirdly,itmightbeclaimedthatthesepapershaveapervadingmoral concern.IntheirdiscussionstheCommitteehavenotbeenabletoforgetthat foreignaffairsandinternationalrelations,howevertheymaybestudiedor analysed,areinthemselvesnotaclosedtheoreticalsystem.Theyarethe politicalregionpre-eminentlyofthecontingentandtheunforeseen,inwhich thesurvivalofnationsmaybeatstake,andagonizingdecisionshavetobe made.Theunderlyingaimofthepresentcollectionistoclarifytheprinciples ofprudenceandmoralobligationwhichhaveheldtogethertheinternational societyofstatesthroughoutitshistory,andstillholdittogether.
TobeginwiththeCommittee’sdiscussionswerediscursiveratherthan systematic.The firstpaperprintedherewasalsothe firstpaperofferedtothe group;itstitlewasintendedtobeprovocative.Atthesame firstfullmeeting,in January1959,DonaldMacKinnonreadapaperentitled ‘WhatIstheAttractionofCommunismToday?’ Thuslaunched,thediscussionstooktheirown course,followingthewindoftheargument.Arecordofthediscussionswas madeandcirculatedafterwards.Subsequentpapersaroseoutofthediscussions.Sometimestwoindependentpapersonthesametopicwereofferedfor discussionatthesamemeeting;sometimesonetreatmentofathemeevokedan alternativetreatmentlater thusthetwoessayson ‘TheBalanceofPower’ .
Aftersometimeitwasseenthatthepapers,thoughnotsystematically planned,hadacommunityofassumptionsandtreatmentthatmightmake themofinteresttoawidercircleofreaders,andoneoftheeditorsmadea selectionforpublication.Eachcontributorhashadtheopportunitytorevise hispapertowhateverextentthediscussionsuponitandfurtherreflection haveseemedtohimtorequire.Theeditorshavetriedtorespectthevaried lengthandnatureofthepapers,buttogivethemsomeuniformityby bringingthemuptodateandsupplyingreferencessofaraspossible.Only oneessay,thaton ‘ThreatsofForceinInternationalRelations’,hasbeenleft entirelyasitwaswritteninApril1961.
Thepaperentitled ‘WhyIsThereNoInternationalTheory?’ hasalready beenpublishedin InternationalRelations,vol.ii,no.I,April1960.Wethank theeditorofthatjournalforpermissiontoreprintit,withsomechangesand additions.Itremainsfortheeditors,onbehalfofallthemembersofthe Committee,toexpresstheirgratitudetotheRockefellerFoundationforthe grantthatmakepossibletheirmeetingsanddiscussions.
H.Butterfield M.Wight
ListofContributors xi
IntroductiontotheNewEdition1
IanHallandTimDunne
1.WhyIsThereNoInternationalTheory?37 MartinWight
2.SocietyandAnarchyinInternationalRelations55 HedleyBull
3.TheGrotianConceptionofInternationalSociety71 HedleyBull
4.NaturalLaw95 D.M.MacKinnon
5.WesternValuesinInternationalRelations111 MartinWight
6.TheBalanceofPower154 HerbertButterfield
7.TheBalanceofPower171 MartinWight
8.CollectiveSecurityandMilitaryAlliances198 G.F.Hudson
9.TheNewDiplomacyandHistoricalDiplomacy203 HerbertButterfield
10.WarasanInstrumentofPolicy215 MichaelHoward
11.ThreatsofForceinInternationalRelations223 G.F.Hudson
12.ProblemsofaDisarmedWorld228
MichaelHoward
Index 237
IntroductiontotheNewEdition
IanHallandTimDunne
Onlyafewbooksinthe fieldofInternationalRelations(IR)canbecalled iconic. DiplomaticInvestigations isoneofthem.EditedbyHerbertButterfield andMartinWight,itbringstogethertwelvepapersdeliveredtoearlymeetingsoftheBritishCommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalPolitics, includingseveralclassicessays:Wight’ s ‘WhyIsThereNoInternational Theory?’ and ‘WesternValuesinInternationalRelations’,HedleyBull’ s ‘SocietyandAnarchyinInternationalRelations’ and ‘TheGrotianConceptionofInternationalSociety’,andthetwocontributionsmadebyButterfield andbyWighton ‘TheBalanceofPower’.Individuallyandcollectively,these chaptershaveinfluencednottheEnglishschoolofinternationalrelations,¹ butalsoarangeofotherscholarsacrossthe fieldofIR.²
DiplomaticInvestigations was firstpublishedatacriticaljuncture,inthe mid-1960s.Atthattime,argumentswereragingonbothsidesofthe Atlantic andacrossit abouthowinternationalrelationsshouldbe approachedbyscholars.Thetraditionalview,establishedduringtheinterwaryearsandheldbybothrealistsandliberals,wasthatinternational relationsconstitutedarealmofsocialinteractiondistinctfromothers andespeciallyfromdomesticpolitics.Assuch,ithaditsownpractices,rules, andnorms,oughttohaveitsownbodyoftheory,anddeservedtobethe
¹OntheevolutionandtheargumentsoftheEnglishSchool,seeespeciallyTimDunne,Inventing InternationalSociety:AHistoryoftheEnglishSchool (Basingstoke:Macmillan,1998),Brunello Vigezzi, TheBritishCommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalPolitics(1954–1985):TheRediscovery ofHistory (Milano:EdizioniUnicopli,2005),AndrewLinklaterandHidemiSuganami, TheEnglish SchoolofInternationalRelations:AContemporaryReassessment (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2007)andBarryBuzan, AnIntroductiontotheEnglishSchoolofInternationalRelations: TheSocietalApproach (Cambridge:Polity,2014).
²Take,forexample,Wight’ s ‘WhyistherenoInternationalTheory?’,whichhasprovokeda seriesofsimilararticlesexploringotherareasofpastandpresentinternationalthought, includingJustinRosenberg, ‘WhyistherenoInternationalHistoricalSociology?’ European JournalofInternationalRelations 12(3)(2006),pp.307–340;YaqingQin, ‘Whyisthereno ChineseInternationalRelationsTheory?’ InternationalRelationsoftheAsia-Pacific 7(3)(2007), pp.313–40;andCynthiaWeber, ‘WhyIsThereNoQueerInternationalTheory?’ European JournalofInternationalRelations 21(1)(2015),pp.27–51.
focusofitsownacademicdiscipline,oratleastarecognizedsub-discipline withinpoliticalscience.Thetraditionalistsdisagreedamongthemselves,of course,aboutwhethertheyoughttofocusonanarchy,states,andpower,as therealistsbelieved,oronorganizationsandinstitutions,asliberalsthought, buttheyagreedthatIRdidorshouldexistasanautonomousentitywiththe academy.³
Duringthe1950sand1960s,theseargumentsweresubjectedtointense criticismbybehaviouralists,whoarguedthatinternationalrelationsdidnot havepractices,rules,ornormsdifferentfromanyotherrealmofsociallife, andthatthesocialsciencesoughttobeunifiedwithacommonmethod and ideally ageneraltheoryofsocialbehaviour. ⁴ Inresponse,during whatbecameknownasthe ‘SecondGreatDebate’,classicalrealistsand liberals,includingpioneeringscholarsliketheFrenchmanRaymondAron andtheGerman-AmericanHansJ.Morgenthau,foughtalongrearguard actiontodefendtheautonomyofIRandtheirso-calledtraditionalist approachfromthebehavouralists,asthelattertriedtounifythesocial sciences,methodologicallyandtheoretically.⁵
DiplomaticInvestigations spokedirectlytothesedebates,weighingin onthesideoftraditionalists,whilekeepingadistancefromsomeaspects ofAmericantraditionalism,especiallyitspragmaticconcernwithpolicy relevance.⁶ Theeditorsknewboththetraditionalistandthebehavouralist
³ForcontemporaryviewsofthisdebateintheUnitedStates,seeespeciallyKlausKnorrand JamesN.Rosenau(eds), ContendingApproachestoInternationalPolitics (Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress,1969).Onbackgroundtothesedebates,seeBrianC.Schmidt, ThePoliticalDiscourseofAnarchy:ADisciplinaryHistoryofInternationalRelations (Albany, NY:SUNYPress,1998),pp.189–225.
⁴ InIR,advocatesofthisnewapproachincluded,intheUnitedStates,MortonKaplan, authorof SystemsandProcessinInternationalPolitics (NewYork:JohnWileyandSons,1957), andintheUnitedKingdom,theAustralianJohnW.Burton,whoseworksincluded InternationalRelations:AGeneralTheory (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1965).Seealso FrederickDunn, ‘ThePresentCourseofInternationalRelationsResearch’ , WorldPolitics 2(1) (1949),pp.80–95.
⁵ SeeespeciallyRaymondAron, PeaceandWar:ATheoryofInternationalRelations,trans. RichardHowardandAnnetteBakerFox(London:WeidenfeldandNicolson,1966),andfor HansJ.Morgenthau’sviewofbehaviouralism,see ‘CommonSenseandTheoriesofInternationalRelations’ , JournalofInternationalAffairs 21(2)(1967),pp.207–14.Onthetensions betweenpoliticalrealistsandbehaviouralists,seealsoNicolasGuilhot(ed.), TheInventionof InternationalRelationsTheory:Realism,theRockefellerFoundation,andthe1954Conferenceon Theory (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2011).
⁶ Onpolicyrelevanceandtheriseofpoliticalrealism,see interalia JoelH.Rosenthal, RighteousRealists:PoliticalRealism,ResponsiblePower,andAmericanCultureintheNuclear Age (BatonRouge,LA:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1991)andontheinfluenceof behaviouralism,seeDavidEaston, ‘PoliticalScienceintheUnitedStates:PastandPresent’ , InternationalPoliticalScienceReview 6(1)(1985),pp.137–41.
argumentswell,asbothButterfieldandWighthadbeeninvolvedsincethe late1940sinbothBritishandtransatlanticconversationsaboutIR,its statusasaacademicdiscipline,itsmethods,andthepressuresgenerated onthe fieldbygovernments. ⁷ TheyhadeachvisitedtheUnitedStatesona severaloccasions:Butterfielddeliveredapapertothegreatandthegoodof AmericanIRatColumbiain1956;Wightspentthe1956–7academicyear teachinginMorgenthau’splaceattheUniversityofChicagowhilethe lattertookleave.⁸ Now,inthemid-1960s,theyused DiplomaticInvestigations asameansoflayingouttheirpreferredunderstandingofwhatIR shouldlooklikeandhowitoughttobeapproachedatatimeatwhichnot onlywasthe fi eldunderbehaviouralistpressure,butalsoasinterestinIR wasgrowinginBritishuniversitiesamongbothstudentsandresearchers.⁹
ThebookwasthusconceivedasadefenceofwhatChrisBrownaptly termsthe ‘premisethatIRisadistinctive, suigeneris,discourse’ andofa traditionalistmodeofitsanalysis.¹⁰ ButterfieldandWightacknowledged thatthetheoryofinternationalpoliticswasa ‘regionthatstillcallsfornew approaches’,butarguedthat ‘traditionalism’ orthe ‘classicalapproach’ was stillthebestwaytostudythe field.¹¹Theycontrastedtheirstancewiththat laidoutbytheparallelAmericanCommitteeinanearliervolume, TheoreticalAspectsofInternationalRelations (1959),expressingconcernaboutwhat
⁷ OnButterfieldandWight’searlyviewsaboutIR,seeIanHall, ‘History,Christianityand Diplomacy:SirHerbertButterfieldandInternationalRelations’ , ReviewofInternationalStudies 28(4)(2002),pp.727–9andIanHall, TheInternationalThoughtofMartinWight (NewYork: Palgrave,2006),pp.88–97.
⁸ TherespondentforButterfield’ spaperon ‘MoralityandPoliticalProcessinInternational Affairs’ wasKennethN.Waltz(MichaelBentley, TheLifeandThoughtofHerbertButterfield: History,ScienceandGod (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2011),p.331.AtChicago, Wightgavethe firstversionofthe ‘InternationalTheory’ lecturessubsequentlylaudedatthe LondonSchoolofEconomicsandlaterreconstitutedandpublishedas InternationalTheory: TheThreeTraditions,ed.BrianPorterandGabrieleWight(London:LeicesterUniversityPress, 1990).
⁹ Onthedevelopmentofwhatwemightcallthepre-disciplineofIRinBritainduringthis period,seeIanHall, DilemmasofDecline:BritishIntellectualsandWorldPolitics,1945–1975 (BerkeleyandLosAngeles,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2012).
¹⁰ Incorrespondencewiththeauthors(16February2016),ChrisBrownobservedthat DiplomaticInvestigations ‘representedthebestthatscholarshiphastooffergiventhepremise thatIRisadistinctive, suigeneris,discourse andthusformsajumpingoffpointforthosewho wishtocontestthispremise’
¹¹HerbertButterfieldandMartinWight, ‘Preface’,thisvolumep.v.Theterms ‘traditionalism’ and ‘classicalapproach’ werealsoprominentinthesimultaneousdebatebetweenHedley BullandMortonKaplan.SeeHedleyBull, ‘InternationalTheory:TheCaseforaClassical Approach’ , WorldPolitics 18(3)(1966),pp.361–77,andMortonKaplan’ sresponse, ‘TheNew GreatDebate:TraditionalismversusScienceinInternationalRelations’ , WorldPolitics 19(1) (1967),pp.1–20.
theysawasthepragmatictendenciesofsignificantelementsofAmerican IR.¹²Butter fieldandWightdeclaredthattheywere ‘moreconcernedwith thehistoricalthanthecontemporary,withthenormativethanthescientific, withthephilosophicalthanthemethodological,withprinciplesthanpolicy’ . Thefocusoftheirresearchwasonwhattheycalledthe ‘diplomaticcommunity’ ofpractitioners,its ‘functions’ , ‘obligations’,and ‘testedandestablishedprinciplesofpoliticalintercourse’.¹³Their ‘procedure’ was ‘empirical andinductive ’ andtheir ‘pointofview’ was ‘historical’.Andthroughoutthe essays,therewasa ‘pervadingmoralconcern’.¹⁴
Theseviewsset DiplomaticInvestigations apartfrommuchAmerican scholarshipoftheperiodandhelpedtogroundtheEnglishSchoolasit evolvedintheyearsthatfollowed.Theyalsodistinguishedtheworkofthe book’scontributorsfromasignificantproportionofBritishacademicsofthe time.Fromthe1920sonwards,anumberofscholarsintheUnitedKingdom hadbeenexperimentingwithabroadrangeofnewsocialscientificmethods andtechniques,andthistrendcontinuedinthepost-warperiod.InIR,the mostprominentwereindividualssuchasC.A.W.Manning,theMontague BurtonProfessorofInternationalRelationsattheLondonSchoolofEconomics(LSE),andGeorgSchwarzenberger,professoratUniversityCollege, London,bothofwhompioneereddistinctivesociologicalapproachesto IR.¹⁵ Alongsidethemwereanumberofothersworkingwithalternative methodsandtheories,includingscholarsworkingonquantitativestudiesof inter-stateconflict,likeLewisFryRichardson,andbehaviouralistaccounts oftheinternationalsystem,likeJohnW.Burton.¹⁶
DiplomaticInvestigations wasamanifestoaimednotsimplyatAmerican IR,butalsoatthosepartsofBritishIRthatwereexperimentingwithnew approaches.Itaimedtohighlightthevirtuesof ‘traditionalism’ incontrastto
¹²ButterfieldandWight,'Preface',p.4.WilliamT.R.Fox(ed.), TheoreticalAspectsof InternationalRelations (NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1959).Thebook includedessaysbyPaulH.Nitze,HansJ.Morgenthau,W.T.R.Fox,KennethN.Waltz,Charles P.Kindleberger,ArnoldWolfers,andReinholdNiebuhr.
¹³ibid.,p.vi.¹⁴ ibid.,pp.vi–vii.
¹⁵ TheliteratureonManningisfairlylarge,butseeHidemiSuganami, ‘C.A.W.Manning andtheStudyofInternationalRelations’ , ReviewofInternationalStudies 27(1)(2001), pp.91–107.TheliteratureonSchwarzenbergeriscomparativelythin.Foradiscussionofhis work,seeHall, DilemmasofDecline,pp.41–3,46–7.
¹⁶ OnRichardson,seeOliverM.Ashford, Prophet orProfessor?TheLifeandWorkofLewis FryRichardson (Bristol:Hilger,1985),andonBurton,seeMartinGriffiths, ‘JohnBurtonversus InternationalRelations:TheCostsofCriticism’ , AustralianJournalofInternationalAffairs 67(1)(2013),pp.55–70. 4
thesemorenovelwaysofstudyingthe field.Thisshouldcomeasnosurprise: noneofthecontributorswerepoliticalscientists evenaspracticedin Britain orsociologistsoreconomists.Rather,mostofthemwerehistorians scepticalonthewholeaboutthesocialsciencesandaboutthesocialscientificapproachestothestudyofpoliticsandinternationalrelationsthat emerged,andgrewinstrength,inthe firsthalfofthetwentiethcentury.¹⁷
Tolocate DiplomaticInvestigations inthiswayisnot,however,tosuggest thatitisanantiquariancurio,stilllesssomekindofreactionaryscreed.The bookisiconicbecauseitaskeddifficultquestionsofIRatacrucialmoment, asthe fieldwasslowlycoalescinginBritainandchangingrapidlyonthe othersideoftheAtlantic.Itremainsrelevantbecauseitwasandremainsan inspirationtoscholarsalsoconvincedthatunderstanding ‘international society ’ requiresaninterpretiveapproachthatdelvesintothemeaningof socialactionsforthevariousagentsinvolvedininternationalpolitics,today andinthepast.
TheMakingoftheBook
DiplomaticInvestigations isacompilationofessayswrittenfortheBritish CommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalPolitics,agroupbroughttogether byHerbertButterfieldwithfundingfromtheRockefellerFoundation.¹⁸ ButterfieldbegantoconstructtheCommitteein1958andheledituntil hisretirementin1968.The firsttwomembersheinvitedtojoinwerehis formerstudent,DesmondWilliams,thenprofessorofhistoryatUniversity College,Dublin,andMartinWight,thenreaderintheDepartmentof InternationalRelationsattheLSE.Aftersomedebate,thesethreeagreed toinvolvethephilosopherandtheologianDonaldMacKinnon,whom Wighthadknownsincehisundergraduatedays,andthemilitaryhistorian andstrategist,MichaelHoward.ButterfieldthenaddedthediplomatAdam Watson,anotherofhisformerstudents,and foratime thecivilservant WilliamArmstrong.¹
¹⁷ IanHall, ‘TheEnglishSchool’sHistoriesandInternationalRelations’,inBrianSchmidt andNicolasGuilhot(eds) HistoriographicalInvestigationsinInternationalRelations (New York:Palgrave,2019).
¹⁸ ForanexhaustivestudyoftheworkingsoftheCommittee,seeVigezzi, BritishCommittee ontheTheoryofInternationalPolitics
¹⁹ Dunne, InventingInternationalSociety,p.91.
Notoriously,otherswhomButterfieldmighthaveinvited,giventheir expertiseinthearea,werenot.CambridgecolleaguesofButter fieldwith pastorpresentinterestsinIR,likethehistoriansE.H.Carrand F.H.Hinsley,wereexcluded.²⁰ SowasCharles(C.A.W.)Manning Wight’sheadofdepartmentandtheLSE’sMontagueBurtonProfessor andGeoffreyGoodwin,Manning’ssuccessorinbothroles.²¹Onlyone personfromStAntony’sCollege,Oxford,themaincentreforinternational historyandareastudiesattheUniversity,wasaskedtojointhegroup:the SinologistGeoffreyHudson.Oxford’sMontagueBurtonProfessorofInternationalRelations,thediplomatichistorianAgnesHeadley-Morley,was nevermentionedintheCommittee’ssurvivingcorrespondence.Nor,for thatmatter,wasGeorgSchwarzenberger,wholedthechargeinthepost-war yearsforsociologicalapproachestoIRfromUniversityCollege,London.²²It isalsosignificantthatnointernationallawyer,economist,orsociologistwas involved,atleastattheoutset,andthatnopoliticalscientistorpolitical theoristwasincluded.Itissignificanttoothattheacademicbackgroundsof thosewhowereinvitedwerepredominantlyinhistory.Butterfieldand Wight,inparticular,hadlongbeenconvincedthatIRshouldbeinformed byhistoryandhistorians,ratherthanbyothers.²³
ThisisnottosaythatButterfieldandtheothermembersoftheoriginal CommitteewantedthegrouptoconfineIRtohistoryorhistoricalstudies. Thechairmanwasclearonthispoint,insistinginanearlydiscussionofthe ‘objectsoftheCommittee’ thattheymusteschew ‘diplomatichistory’ ,as wellasavoiding ‘merejournalisticdiscussionofcontemporaryaffairs’.²⁴ The aimoftheCommitteewasdifferent:totrytoelucidatethe ‘fundamental principles’ ofinternationalrelations,bothpracticalandethical,usingthe techniquesandmindsetofthehistorian.Inotherwords,theywereto explorethenormativestructureofwhatWighttermed,inthatearly
²⁰ ButterfieldfeudedwithCarroveranumberofyearsandindeedovermanyissues,both personalandprofessional.Incorrespondence,ButterfielddescribedHinsleyas ‘abitheavyhanded’ and ‘theordinarykindofdiplomatichistorianwhorefusestoquestioncurrent assumptions’ (ButterfieldtoWilliams,28April1958, ButterfieldMS 531/W270).Theearly debatesovermembershiparechronicledinVigezzi, BritishCommitteeontheTheoryof InternationalPolitics,pp.111–16andpp.145–8.
²¹Dunne, InventingInternationalSociety,pp.92–4.
²²SeeGeorgSchwarzenberger’ s PowerPolitics:AStudyofInternationalSociety,2nded. (NewYork:FrederickA.Praeger,1951),aswellasHall, DilemmasofDecline,pp.41–4.
²³SeeBentley, LifeandThoughtofHerbertButterfield,pp.320–44;Hall, International ThoughtofMartinWight,especiallypp.87–110.
²⁴‘DiscussionontheObjectsoftheCommittee’,20September1959,BritishCommittee Papers5,ChathamHouse,London,p.1.
discussion, ‘internationalsociety’.²⁵ Thisimpliedanalysesofthetraditionsof internationalthought,pastandpresentdiplomaticpracticeandtheprinciplesunderlyingit,andtheethicsofinternationalpolitics.
Tocarryoutthesetasks,theBritishCommittee firstmetatPeterhouse, Butterfield’scollegeatCambridge,inJanuary1959,andthreetimesayear thereafter.Ateachmeetingbetweentwoandsixpaperswerecirculatedin advanceandpresentedbytheirauthors,eachaddressinganagreedtheme.²⁶ Onoccasion,guestswerealsoinvitedtodeliverpapersorsimplytoparticipateintheconversation.Butterfieldtookcopiousnotesofwhatwassaidat theearlymeetings.²⁷ Afterthe firstfew,duringwhichtherewerelengthy discussionsabouttheirsubject-matterandthepurposeoftheCommittee, themembersdecidedtheyneededaspecialistinIRafterall,andadded HedleyBull,anAustralianwhohadstudiedphilosophyatSydneyand Oxford,beforejoiningWighttoteachattheLSE.
By1961theBritishCommitteehadproducedenoughpaperstoconsider gettingthempublished,andthejobofeditingthemandsecuringacontract forabookwasgiventoButterfield,aschair.Unfortunately,heacquitted neitherexpeditiously.Butter field,thensixty-oneyearsold,washeavily involvedinbothuniversityadministrationandacademicintrigue,atboth ofwhichheexcelled.²⁸ Inadditiontohisprofessorialduties,in1955hehad becomemasterofPeterhouse,aposthehelduntilhisretirementin1968.In 1959,thesameyearinwhichheconvenedthe firstmeetingoftheBritish Committee,Butterfieldalsobeganatwo-yearstintasvice-chancellorofthe UniversityofCambridge.In1963,when DiplomaticInvestigations should haveappearedinprint,hewasappointedRegiusProfessorofHistory,apost thatcarriedadditionalresponsibilitiesintheHistoryFaculty.
Butterfield’stardinessingettingtheessayseditedandsubmittedtoa publisherannoyedtheauthorsandputatriskanewtrancheoffunding fromRockefellerforafurthersetofBritishCommitteemeetings.² ⁹ To Wight,inlateJanuary1964,Bullwascharacteristicallyvociferousand blunt,complainingthatButter fieldhad ‘behaveddisgracefullyoverthis volume’.BullurgedWightthatthetwoofthemconfronthimwithan
²⁵ ibid.,p.2.
²⁶ AvividpictureofCommitteeproceedingscanbefoundinMichaelHoward, Captain Professor:ALifeinWarandPeace (London:Continuum,2006),pp.159–60.
²⁷ ThepapersarelistedinVigezzi, BritishCommittee,pp.327–48,andsomeofButterfield’ s notesfromtheearlymeetingsarereprintedpp.357–97.
²⁸ SeeespeciallyBentley, LifeandThoughtofHerbertButterfield,pp.345–53.
²⁹ OnButterfield’sconcernsaboutfunding,seeDunne, InventingInternationalSociety, p.104.
‘ultimatum’ to ‘getonwithit,ortohavesomeoneelsedoso,orabandonthe projectandreleasethepapersforpublicationelsewhere’.³⁰
Intheevent,Butter fieldallowedWighttobecomehisco-editor,andthe manuscriptwassenttoCambridgeUniversityPressforconsideration.The processdidnotgowell.InAugust1965thecommissioningeditor, R.W.David,wrotetoButterfieldwithbadnews.Theanonymousreviewers didnotlikethemanuscript,withonesubmittingaroot-and-branchattack. ButterfieldsuspectedhisCambridgecolleagueF.H.Hinsleywasresponsible, attributinghiscolleague’shostilitytohisbeingin ‘acuriousstate’ , ‘impatient’ forapromotion, ‘veryconscious’ thathehadnotbeeninvitedto becomeamemberoftheBritishCommittee,anddogmaticabouthis preferredtheoryofinternationalpolitics.³¹However,itismoreplausible, thatthereviewerwaseitherAustralianJohnBurton,thenatUniversity College,London,orMichaelBanks,whohadjustjoinedtheLSE.³²Neither weresympathetictothe ‘traditionalism’ of DiplomaticInvestigations, favouringastheydidbehavouralistandMarxistapproaches.
Thereviewer’sreportimpliedtheessayswerestale,arguingthatifthey had ‘beenprintedwhentheywerewritten,onecouldhavebeenmore enthusiasticaboutthem’.Thissuggestionwassomewhatunfair,asthe editorsandauthorshadtakenpainstoensurethattheessayswerenot datedbydiscussionofcontemporaryhistory.Thereportalsocriticizedthe book’slackofengagementwiththecontemporaryliteratureontheirsubjects,especiallythatbeingproducedbyAmericanscholars.Thiswasamore reasonablecriticism,butonethatarguablymissedthepointofthebook, whichwastodemonstratethevalueoftraditionalism,nottocritique alternatives.³³Inanyevent,acontractwasnotofferedbyCambridge. Instead,Butter fieldandWightapproachedAllen&Unwin,whowere moreenthusiasticabouttheproject.
Theversionof DiplomaticInvestigations ButterfieldhadoriginallysubmittedtoCambridgeUniversityPresshadincludedseventeenoreighteen essays fiveorsixmorethanwerepublishedinthe finalbook.Twoessays
³⁰ HedleyBulltoMartinWight,31January1964, WightMS 2331/9,BritishLibraryof PoliticalandEconomicSciences,London.
³¹HerbertButterfieldtoMartinWight,13August1965, WightMS 248.
³²RogerEpp, ‘TheBritishCommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalPoliticsandCentral FiguresintheEnglishSchool’,inRobertDenemark(eds), TheInternationalStudiesEncyclopedia (Oxford:BlackwellPublishing,2010),onlineat:http://www.isacompendium.com/sub scriber/tocnode.html?id=g9781444336597_yr2014_chunk_g97814443365974_ss1-1.
³³R.W.DavidtoHerbertButterfield,11August1965, WightMS 248.Forthewiderstory, seeDunne, InventingInternationalSociety,pp.104–5.
onscienceandinternationalrelationsweredroppedpriortothesubmission ofthemanuscripttoAllen&Unwin,leaving fifteenorsixteen.³⁴ Asa conditionofcontract,thepublisherrequestedthatthemanuscriptbeshortenedfurther,andWighttookthedecisiontoexciseanotherfourchapters.³⁵ ThesewereMichaelHoward’spaperontheconceptof ‘VitalInterests’ , DonaldMacKinnon’sidiosyncraticallytitled ‘WhatIstheReal “Persona” oftheCommunityandWhatIstheMinimumRequiredtoMaintainIt?’ , AdamWatson’ s ‘InterestsofStateOtherThanVitalInterests’,andDesmondWilliams ’‘ThePrimacyofForeignPolicy’.Withthesecutsmade, Wightthendraftedthepreface,whichwasthenrevisedbyButterfield,and themanuscriptwassubmittedtothepublisherinOctober1965.
TheContributors
Between1959and1984theBritishCommitteewasdominatedbyhistorians, withsomeinvolvementfromphilosophers(likeMacKinnon)andpractitioners(likeWatson).Thisreflecteditschairman’ssuspicionofpolitical scientistsandpoliticaltheorists,specialistsinIR,andindeedcontemporary historiansworkingoninternationalrelations.Theauthors andtheBritish Committee werealsodominatedbyOxbridge:atthetime Diplomatic Investigations waspublished,twoofthecontributorsheldpostsatCambridge;theremainingfourhadstudiedortaughtatOxfordatsomepointin theircareers.Allofthemweremale;indeed,onlythreewomen CoralBell, AgnesHurewitz,andZaraSteiner evergavepapersatBritishCommittee meetings,andofthoseonlyBellbecameafullmemberoftheCommittee.³⁶
Theoldestcontributorto DiplomaticInvestigations ,HerbertButterfield (1900–79),hadreadhistoryatPeterhouse,Cambridge,justaftertheFirst WorldWar.Hebecomeafellowofthatcollegesoonaftercompletinghis degree,andthenprofessorofmodernhistoryin1944.Anadeptacademic politician,healsoservedasMasterofPeterhousebetween1955andhis retirementin1968andasvice-chancellorbetween1959and1961.In1963,
³⁴ ThetwoessayswereMichaelHoward’ s ‘ScientificDevelopmentandInternationalRelations’ andWight’ s ‘HasScientificAdvanceChangedtheNatureofInternationalPoliticsin Kind,notmerelyinDegree?’,bothpresentedatthefourthmeetingoftheCommittee,inJanuary 1960.SeeDavidtoButterfield,11August1965, WightMS 248,andVigezzi, BritishCommittee, p.174,note3.
³⁵ Vigezzi, BritishCommittee,p.175,note5.
³⁶ OnBellandhercontributiontoIR,seeespeciallyDesmondBallandSherynLee(eds), PowerandInternationalRelations:EssaysinHonourofCoralBell (Canberra:ANUPress,2014).
hewaselevatedtotheRegiusChairinHistory.Heretiredfrombothhis MastershipandhisChairin1968,sadlylapsingintoill-healthforthe final decadeofhislife,unabletocompleteaseriesofmajorprojects.³⁷
Butterfieldisbestknownforhisthirdbook,publishedearlyinhiscareer: hiselegantandelusiveessayon TheWhigInterpretationofHistory (1931), anattackonbothprogressivismandmoralisminhistoriography.Although hewrotemuchelse,heneverpublishedthegreatworkofanti-progressive, anti-moralistnarrativehistoryhearguablyshouldhavewritten,northe biographiesofthepoliticianCharlesJamesFoxandthehistorianHarold Temperleyherepeatedlypromised.Instead,hefocusedmostofhisefforts onaseriesofshort,beautifullywritten ‘littlegeneralbooks’,asheoncecalled them,³⁸ manyputtogetherfromlecturesortalksgivenatCambridgeand elsewhere.Theyincluded TheHistoricalNovel (1924), Napoleon (1939), The StatecraftofMachiavelli (1940), TheEnglishmanandhisHistory (1944), The OriginsofModernScience (1949), LibertyintheModernWorld (1951), ManonhisPast (1955)and GeorgeIIIandtheHistorians (1957),aswell astheposthumouslypublished TheOriginsofHistory (1981).Glimpsesof whatButterfieldcouldhavedonewithmoreconventionalhistoricalworks canbefoundintheforensic ThePeaceTacticsofNapoleon,1806 –1808 (1929)andthemorecontroversial GeorgeIII,LordNorth,andPeople, 1779–1780 (1949).
Butterfield’smostsignificantcontributionstothestudyofinternational relationswereaseriesofbooksbasedlargelyonseriesoflectures,including ChristianityandHistory (1949), HistoryandHumanRelations (1951),and Christianity,Diplomacy,andWar (1953),and InternationalConflictinthe TwentiethCentury (1960),aswellashisessaysin DiplomaticInvestigations and TheAberystwythPapers (1972),andhisMartinWightmemoriallecture on raisond’état.³⁹ Intheseworks,Butterfieldtriedtosketchoutanormative
³⁷ ThereareanumberofbiographiesofButterfield.Theyinclude:AlbertoR.Coll, The WisdomofStatecraft:SirHerbertButterfieldandthePhilosophyofInternationalPolitics (Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1985),KeithSewell, HerbertButterfieldandtheInterpretationofHistory (Basingstoke:Palgrave,2005),C.T.McIntire, HerbertButterfield:Historian asDissenter (NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,2008),KennethMcIntyre, HerbertButterfield:History,Providence,andSkepticalPolitics (Wilmington,DE:ISIBooks,2011),andBentley, LifeandThoughtofHerbertButterfield.
³⁸ HerbertButterfieldtoDonaldMacKinnon,17August1959, ButterfieldMS 531(ii)/M18a, CambridgeUniversityLibrary.
³⁹ SeeButterfield, ChristianityandHistory (London:G.Bell&Sons,1949); Historyand HumanRelations (London:Collins,1951); Christianity,DiplomacyandWar (London:The EpworthPress,1953); InternationalConflictintheTwentiethCentury:AChristianView (London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1960); ‘TheBalanceofPower’ and ‘TheNewDiplomacy
theoryofinternationalrelationsthatmightguidediplomaticpracticeinthe ColdWar,atheorythatwastruetohisChristianfaithandtruetohis philosophyofhistory,thatavoidedmoralism,andthatbuiltontheenduring wisdom(ashesawit)ofeighteenth-centuryWhiggism.⁴⁰ Butterfieldfeared anddeploredtheintrusionofmoralandideologicalintransigenceinto internationalrelations,andblamedWilsonianidealismanditspost-war anti-Communistsuccessors,aswellasCommunistinternationalism,for thefrequencyandbrutalityofmodernconflictandthedestabilizationof thefragilemodusvivendithatunderpinnedinternationalsociety.Onlya kindofenlightenedandsophisticatedMachivellianism,Butterfieldbelieved, couldrestoreandsustaininternationalorderandprovidethebasisfora measureofinternationaljustice.⁴¹
G.F.(GeoffreyFrancis)Hudson(1903–74)hadamorevariedcareerthan Butterfield.Anacademic,bureaucrat,andjournalist,heplayedakeyrolein advancingthestudyofEastAsiaattheUniversityofOxford.⁴²Electeda fellowofAllSoulsCollege,Oxford,in1926,heservedwiththeForeign OfficeResearchDepartmentduringtheSecondWorldWar,andin1954 movedtoStAntony’sCollegetodirectitsFarEasternStudiesprogramme, whichhediduntilhisdeathin1974.Hewasaprolificauthor,writingfor manynewspapersandmagazines,including TheEconomist,andpublishing anumberofbooks,amongthem TheFarEastandWorldPolitics (1936), The HardandBitterPeace (1967),and FiftyYearsofCommunism (1968).Like Butterfield,Hudsondislikedmoralisticandideologicalpolitics,especially Communism,andfearednuclearweaponsandwhattheymightimply.His HardandBitterPeace wasbothanarrativehistoryoftheColdWaranda
andHistoricalDiplomacy’,thisvolume,pp.154–170andpp.203–214; ‘Moralityandan InternationalOrder’,inBrianPorter(ed.), TheAberystwythPapers:InternationalPolitics, 1919–1969 (London:OxfordUniversityPress,1972),pp.336–60;and Raisond’état:The RelationsbetweenMoralityandGovernment (UniversityofSussex:MartinWightMemorial Lecture,1975).
⁴⁰ Hall, ‘History,ChristianityandDiplomacy’,especiallypp.727–34.SeealsoColl, Wisdom ofStatecraft;PaulSharp, ‘HerbertButterfield,theEnglishSchoolandtheCivilizingVirtuesof Diplomacy’ InternationalAffairs 79(4)(2003),pp.855–78;KarlW.SchweizerandPaulSharp, TheInternationalThoughtofHerbertButterfield (Basingstoke:Palgrave,2007).
⁴¹SeeespeciallyButterfield, ‘MoralityandanInternationalOrder’,butseealsotheearlier piece, ‘TheScientificversustheMoralisticApproachinInternationalAffairs’ , International Affairs 27(3)(1951),pp.411–22.
⁴²RoderickMacFarquharandStuartR.Schram, ‘GeoffreyHudson(1903–1974)’ , TheChina Quarterly 58(1974),pp.229–30.SeealsoRichardStorry, ‘GeoffreyHudson,1903–74’,inIan Nish(ed.), CollectedWritingsofRichardStorry (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2002), pp.281–84.
pleaforanovelmeansofaddressingthethreatofnuclearwar,arguingthat aninternationalinspectionregimeshouldbenegotiatedwiththeSovietsto lessentensionsandplacetheweaponsunderstrongercontrols. ⁴³
DonaldMackenzieMacKinnon(1913–94)wastheoddmanoutinthe earlyBritishCommittee.Aphilosopherandtheologian,hehadbeeneducatedatNewCollege,Oxford.Helaterbecamethe firstRegiusProfessorof MoralPhilosophyattheUniversityofAberdeenandthenNorris-Hulse ProfessorofDivinityatCambridge.Acharismaticandinfluentialteacher,he countedthenovelistIrisMurdochandtheerstwhileArchbishopofCanterburyRowanWilliamsamonghispupils.Hewastheauthorofanumberof books,including AStudyinEthicalTheory (1957)and TheProblemof Metaphysics (1974).⁴⁴ AsanundergraduateatOxford,hebecamefriends withMartinWight,hissponsorfortheBritishCommittee.Hiscontributions toitsmeetingswereidiosyncratic Howardlatercalledhim ‘acharmingman butonewhosediscourseIfoundalmostunintelligible’—andafterthe first coupleofmeetingsWightapparentlyexpressedsomeregretaboutsupporting hismembership.⁴⁵ Hegavepapersontopicslike ‘The “PhilosophyofHistory” andtheProblemsofInternationalRelationships’—aresponsetoWight’ s closingremarksin ‘WhyIsThereNoInternationalTheory?’—andthe ‘NotionoftheChristianStatesman’,aswellashispiecein DiplomaticInvestigations on ‘NaturalLaw’ . ⁴⁶ Arguablyhismostlastingcontributiontothinkingaboutinternationalrelations,however,ishisMartinWightMemorial Lectureon ‘PowerPoliticsandReligiousFaith’,inwhichhereflectedonthe ethicaldilemmasinherentinpoliticalaction,aswellasthethoughtofhis lifelongfriend.⁴⁷ Liketheotherauthorsin DiplomaticInvestigations,healso ponderedthechallengesposedbynuclearweapons,publishingabookonthe topicin1981.⁴⁸
⁴³G.F.Hudson, TheHardandBitterPeace:WorldPoliticssince1945 (London:PallMall Press,1967).
⁴⁴ StewartSutherland, ‘DonaldMackenzieMacKinnon,1913–1994’ , Proceedingsofthe BritishAcademy 97(1998),pp.381–9.
⁴⁵ Howard, CaptainProfessor,p.159;WilliamstoButterfield,13June1960, ButterfieldMS 531/W305.
⁴⁶ DonaldM.MacKinnon, ‘The “PhilosophyofHistory” andtheProblemofInternational Relationships’ (April1959)and ‘SomeNotesontheNotionofaChristianStatesman’ (October 1961),papersfortheBritishCommittee, ButterfieldMS 329.
⁴⁷ DonaldM.MacKinnon, ‘PowerPoliticsandReligiousFaith’,inhis ThemesinTheology: TheThree-FoldCord (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1987),pp.44–66.
⁴⁸ DonaldM.MacKinnon, CreonandAntigone:EthicalProblemsofNuclearWarfare (London:TheMenardPress,1981).
(RobertJames)MartinWight(1913–72)readhistoryatHertfordCollege, Oxford,andafterwardsworkedinvariouscapacities,asasellerofpacifist booksontheStrandinLondon,aresearcheratChathamHouse,andthena schoolteacheratHaileyburyCollege.Hestooddownfromthelastpost whenhisapplicationtoberecognizedasaconscientiousobjectorwas rejectedin1940,andfortheremainderoftheSecondWorldWarworked atOxfordonMargeryPerham’sprojectoncolonialconstitutions.Whenthe warended,hereturnedtoChathamHouse,wherehewrotethepamphlet PowerPolitics (1946).In1949,hejoinedManning’sDepartmentofInternationalRelationsattheLSEasareader.In1960,heleftLondontotakeupthe postofdeanofEuropeanstudiesandprofessorofhistoryatthenewUniversityofSussex.LikeMacKinnon,adeeplycommittedandinfluentialteacher, Wightpublishedlittleduringhisacademiccareer.Hisintellectualreputation restsmostlyonthreeposthumouslypublishedworks:anexpandedversion of PowerPolitics (1976),acollectionofessays, SystemsofStates (1977),andhis reconstituted InternationalTheory lectures(1990).
Sincetheirappearance,thesebookshavereinforcedthereputation Wightacquiredduringhislifetimethathewasanelusivebutintriguing theorist.⁴⁹ Hisinterestslayprincipallyintryingtodiscernthearguments andtheoriesthatinformedcertainpoliciesandpatternsofbehaviourin internationalrelations.Inthatsense,hisworkwasanextensionofthe older ‘ideasandinstitutions ’ schoolofpoliticalscience,inwhichtherewas afocusonthepoliticalideasofpastthinkersandthepoliticalinstitutions thattheirideassupposedlyinspiredorsimplyre fl ected. ⁵⁰ Buthenever speltoutanymethodassuch,andnordidheadvanceacleardoctrineor normativetheory;ratherhereaddeeplyandwidelyinthehistoryof Westernpoliticalthought,produceddenselyreferencedandcircumspect essays,andrefusedtomakeclearhisownpreferencesonmostmajor issuesinIR.
LikeButterfieldandWight,Michael(nowSirMichael)Howard(1922–) readhistoryasanundergraduate,attendingChristChurch,Oxford,after distinguishedservicewiththeRegimentofGuardsintheSecondWorld
⁴⁹ SeeespeciallyBrianPorter, ‘PatternsofThoughtandPractice:MartinWight’ s “InternationalTheory”’,inMichaelDonelan(ed.), TheReasonofStates:AStudyinInternational PoliticalTheory (London:Allen&Unwin,1978),pp.64–74.Foramorecriticalview,see MichaelNicholson, ‘TheEnigmaofMartinWight’ , ReviewofInternationalStudies 7(1), pp.15–22.
⁵⁰ Hall, InternationalThoughtofMartinWight,especiallypp.133–56.
