Evaluating the Policy of ‘Global Britain’ in the Post-Brexit Era based on the English school of International Relations

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Extended abstract  
Introduction
Brexit is generally seen as a move to focus more on national borders and British sovereignty; but it should be remembered that this issue also strongly affects Britain's international approaches. One of the policies that was particularly highlighted by the British government after Brexit was the "Global Britain" policy, which seeks to expand Britain's influence globally. "English School of International Relations" has a good capacity to explain the approach of global Britain in the post-Brexit era. In the theory of the English school, there are three important issues and bases on which the approach of global Britain in the post-Brexit period can be examined. These three important issues include "pluralism and solidarity", "primary institutions and secondary institutions" and "great power and hegemonic power". Based on these three pillars, which almost form the main foundations of English school theory, the analysis of British global policy will become more logical and scientific in the post-Brexit period. This article evaluates the hypothesis that the approach of global Britain in the post-Brexit period expresses the trend of British foreign policy from solidarity to pluralism, paying more attention to primary institutions, restoring the status of Great Britain and strengthening it in line with the special relationship with America. By adopting a theoretical approach and using the library method, this article evaluates the impact of Brexit on British international policies based on the theory of the English school. It is believed that the English school is one of the main intellectual bases in the theories of international relations and one of the theories developed in Britain. Wilson and Oliver believe that while the theory of the English school initially did not pay attention to the issues of integration and the level of regional analysis in general, but have also been paid attention to integration and divergence in the process of evolution of its concepts.
Methodology
The purpose of this article is to examine the approach of global Britain in the foreign policy of this country and specifically to analyze Brexit based on the important components of the theory of the English school. The main question here is that, what international effects has the "Global Britain" approach in Britain's foreign policy, especially after Brexit? Theoretically, this article is based on the English school in three areas of tension between the concepts of "pluralism-solidarity of the international community", "the nature and role of primary-secondary institutions" and the importance of the position of "great power-hegemony".
Findings
It seems that based on the central concepts of the English school, such as the dualism of solidarity-pluralism, primary institutions-secondary institutions, and great power-hegemonic power, it is possible to better and more operationally evaluate British global approach, especially after Brexit.
Analyses
Pluralist approach and Brexit: Britain's post-Brexit global approach can be seen from three angles: Britain's relations with European countries (within the framework of pluralism in bilateral relations and solidarity on security issues), Britain's role in the United Nations (focusing on thematic pluralism and Euro-Atlantic solidarity on security issues), and greater influence on the Commonwealth of Nations (within the framework of the pluralist approach). Indeed, Britain's post-Brexit global approach has prompted a review of Britain's foreign policy strategy including its implications for Britain's place in Europe.
The British tendency to maintain borders and national sovereignty as primary institutions using the principle of primary and secondary institutions: this section argues that Britain's withdrawal from the European Union is not only a violation of Britain's commitment to the principle of primary institutions, but also a protest and challenge to the EU as a secondary institution. On the other hand, Britain's increasing commitment and willingness to join other institutions, such as the Commonwealth of Nations and NATO, shows that Britain still believes in secondary institutions, but that what distinguishes Britain from the European Union is its solidarity functions.
Britain wants to be a "great power: The "great power" principle can also explain the post-Brexit approach of global Britain. For various reasons (such as the egalitarian structure of the Union and the lack of recognition of British supremacy, cumbersome dependency rules, etc.), Britain sees its membership of the European Union as a hindrance to achieve great power status. For this reason, Britain has sought to strengthen its position as a great power in world politics by leaving the European Union (Garnett et.al, 2018). Britain's attempt to gain the status of a great power can be analyzed into components such as Britain's high capabilities compared to other European countries, strengthening the special relationship with the United States, and exercising more power and dominance over the Commonwealth of Nations.
Conclusions
In general, based on the findings of this research, the approach of Global Britain in the post-Brexit period is: the trend of British foreign policy from solidarity to pluralism, paying more attention to primary institutions, restoring Britain's great power status and strengthening it in line with the special relationship with America as the hegemonic power. In other words, within the framework of the 'Global Britain' approach to foreign policy, especially after Brexit, the UK plans to continue to play the role of a great power and follow the hegemon at the international level.
 Finally, it should be noted that while the costs of Britain's exit from the European Union are significant, the long-term systemic consequences for the European Union will not be far-reaching. In fact, the main consequence of Brexit is the expression and emphasis of Britain's role as a great power. On the other hand, the expansion of Britain's actions and spheres of influence has become more evident in its greater adherence to America. Therefore, although according to the three key concepts of the English school (pluralism, primary institutions and great power), Brexit does not have a profound effect on the continuation of European integration, but its effects and changes are evident in the political-international approach of Britain as a global Britain.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. References

    1. Aghaei, S. D; Rasouli, R. (2023). "The influence of British political culture on leaving the European Union", Policy Quarterly, Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of Tehran University, Volume 53, Number One, pp. 53-81.ut.ac.ir/article_93712_ 0250f4235ef06779da6e5037670e667b.pdf. [In Persian]
    2. Anadolu Agency. (2020).“Britain's membership of the European Union ended after 47 years”, Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/fa (Accessed on 28.07.2024)
    3. Applebaum, A; Ford, R; and et.al .(2017). “Britain After Brexit, journal of democracy”, Volume 28, Number 1. Available at: https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2017/01/04_ 1_Ford-Goodwin-pp-17-30.pdf. (Accessed on 28.7.2024)
    4. Bagheri, R; Kazemi, A (2023). "Re-securitization of Russia by NATO and Western countries based on the theory of collective security", Journal of Country Studies, Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran, Volume 1, Number 4, pp. 607-630. article_94136_ pdf (ut.ac.ir). [In Persian]
    5. Bain, W (2010). “The Pluralist–Solidarist Debate in the English School”, international studies association and Oxford University press, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.342.
    6. Bain, W (2020) “Pluralism and Solidarism, Trends in European IR Theory”, Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-56055-3_7 (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    7. Balkan, D; Patrick, J (2005). “The English School, International Relations and Progress”, International Studies Review Available at:file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/The_English_School_International_Relations_and_Pro.pdf (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    8. Beisner , R ( 2006 ). “Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War” , Oxford University Press, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 001.0001 (Accessed on 28.07.2024)
    9. Brown, f; Scott, J (2024). “Rishi Sunak: What you need to know about the UK's first British Asian prime minister”, Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/who-is-rishi-sunak-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-uks-first-british-asian-prime-minister-12729190 (Accessed on 28.07.2024)
    10. Bull, H (1966). “The Grotian conception of international society”, In Diplomatic investigations: essays in the theory of international politics, eds. H. Butterfield and M. Wight, London: George Allen and Unwin, Available at: The Grotian Conception of International Society (1966) | SpringerLink (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    11. Bull, H (1977). “The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics”, London: Macmillan, Available at: The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics | SpringerLink (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    12. Bull, H (1982). “Civilian Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 21(2), 149-170. doi:1111/j.1468-5965.1982.tb00866.x.
    13. Bull, H (2002). “The Anarchical Society A Study of Order in World Politics”, Third Edition, Columbia University Press, Palgrave.
    14. Bull, H; Watson, A (Eds) (1984). “The expansion of international society”, Oxford University Press, USA, doi:2307/20042191
    15. Buzan, B; Hansen, L (2009). “The evolution of international security studies”, Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511817762
    16. Buzan, B; Hansen, L (2010). “China in International Society: Is ‘Peaceful Rise’ Possible?” Chinese Journal of International Politics 3 (1): 5-36, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pop014
    17. Buzan, B; Hansen, L (2014). “An Introduction to the English School of International Relations”, Cambridge: Polity Press, doi:1177/ 0010836715610595
    18. B; Pelaez, A.G (2004). “From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalization”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-511-18590-8 doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759270560014X
    19. B; Pelaez, A.G (2004). “International Society and the Middle East”, English School Theory at the Regional Level, Palgrave Macmillan.
    20. Centre for international Government Innovation, (2022). “Brexit: The International Legal Implications” Available at: https://www.cigionline. org/series/brexit-international-legal (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    21. Cristina C (2020). “How the EU has applied the 'exit' clause”, European Parliamentary Research Service, November, Avalible at: Article 50 TEU in practice: How the EU has applied the 'exit' clause | Think Tank | European Parliament (europa.eu) (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    22. Diez, T; Whitman, R (2002). “Comparing Regional International Societies: The Case of Europe”. Paper for presentation at the ISA Annual Convention, New Orleans, Available at: Comparing Regional International Societies: The Case of Europe — University of Birmingham (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    23. Dunne, T (1995). “International Society: Theoretical Promises Fulfilled?” Cooperation and Conflict, 30 (2), pp. 125-154, Available at: International Society: Theoretical Promises Fulfilled? on JSTOR(Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    24. Edmunds, T; and et.al. (2014). “British Foreign Policy and the National Interest Identity”, Strategy and Security, Palgrave, Macmillan, Available at: British Foreign Policy and the National Interest: Identity, Strategy and Security | SpringerLink (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    25. Garnett, M; Madon, S; Smith, R (2018). “British Foreign Policy since 1945”, Routledge, New York.
    26. J; Ralph. J (2019). “Global Britain in the United Nations” https://una.org.uk/sites/default/files/UNA-UK_GlobalBritain_20190207d.pdf. (Accessed 21 Mar 2024).
    27. Hughes, L; Foy, H (2022). “Global Britain’ seeks to show its military worth in Ukraine”, Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/5b68d1a1-ed2d-4d65-b8ba-38c3fde0227f (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    28. Johnson, B (2016). “Beyond Brexit: a Global Britain, Foreign Secretary delivers first major policy speech at Chatham House”, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/beyond-brexit-a-global-britain (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    29. Johnson, B (2019). “First Speech as PM in Full”, Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49102495 (Accessed 11 May 2024).
    30. Lawless, J (2023). “Britain’s MI6 chief says his spies are using AI to disrupt flow of weapons to Russia”, Available at: https://apnews.com/ article/mi6-spy-chief-moore-prague-russia-iran-cfb837ebdfa3db8043dc655cbf3573d5 (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    31. Maryna, V (2021). “Security Cooperation between Ukraine and the UK”, 10 November, Available at: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/ publications/commentary/uk-ukraine-security-cooperation (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    32. May, T (2016). “Britain after Brexit”, A vision of a Global Britain May’s Conference speech: full text, Available at https://conservativehome.com/2016/10/02/britain-after-brexit-a-vision-of-a-global-britain-theresa-mays-conservative-conference-speech-full-text/ (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    33. McBride, J (2020). “The Commonwealth of Nations: Brexit and the Future of Global Britain”, Council on Foreign Relations, doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00489-x Available at: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/global-britain-and-commonwealth-nations (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    34. Molesworth, T; Hug, A (2021). “Understanding UK Engagement in FCACs, In a Force for Good? Examining UK Engagement in Fragile and Conflict Affected Countries”, the Foreign Policy Centre, Available at: A ‘Force for Good’?: Examining UK engagement in Fragile and Conflict Affected Countries - The Foreign Policy Centre (fpc.org.uk) (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    35. Morris, J (2011). “How Great Is Britain? Power, Responsibility and Britain’s Future Global Role”, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13 (3), 326–347. doi:1111/j.1467- 856X. 2011.00450.x.
    36. Owen, D; Ludlow. (2017). “British foreign policy after Brexit”, London: Biteback, Available at: British Foreign Policy Post-Brexit: Pursuing a New Role for 'Global Britain'? (lse.ac.uk) (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    37. Raab, D (2020). “Global Britain, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State”, Volume 671, Available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/20200203/ debates/2002039000001/GlobalBritain (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    38. Ranke, L (1988). “The Great Powers”, Edited by Georg G. Iggers (2010), Routledge University Press Available at: https://www.taylorfrancis. com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203839195/theory-practice-history-leopold-von-ranke-georg-iggers?context=ubx&refId=38256f2f-fecc-4efa-99ca-bb13c0a9ca51 (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    39. Sabbaghian, A; Bagheri, A. (2016). "Structured analysis of British and European Union relations from membership to Brexit: based on approaches between governmentalism and transnationalism", Policy Quarterly, Journal of Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 968-949.[In Persian]
    40. Saul, R (2010). “Hegemony and the Global Political Economy”, Available at: https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-208 (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    41. Seagle, A (2014). “The European Union: A Regional International Society from the Point of View of the Romanian Governmental Elites”, SSRN Electronic Journal, doi: 2139/ssrn.2491417.
    42. Stivachtis, Y (2018). “Introducing the English School in International Relations Theory”, FEB 23, Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/23/introducing-the-english-school-in-international-relations-theory/ (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    43. Suganami, H (2010). “The English School in a Nutshell”, Corpus ID: 158860957, Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-English-School-in-a-Nutshell-Suganami/e39e95d37c617534d000e8898c274d9413a10e82 (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    44. UK Parliament. (2021). “International affairs and defence: Parliamentary debates and statements in the 2019-21 sessions”, House of Commons Library, Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8984/?_gl=1*1kxn6kl*_up*MQ..*_ga*MzgzMjg5 *_ga_14RSNY7L8B*MTcxNDk4NjE5NS4xLjAuMTcxNDk4NjE5NS4wLjAuMA (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    45. Watson, A (2007). “Hegemony and History”, London: Routledge, doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203607060
    46. Whitman, G; Hadfield, A (2023). “The diplomacy of ‘Global Britain’: settling, safeguarding and seeking status”, International Politics Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00489-x (Accessed on 28.07.2024).
    47. Wight, M (1991). “International Theory: The Three Traditions” (ed. G. Wight and B. Porter). Leicester: Leicester University Press, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2623218
    48. Wilson, P; Oliver, T (2020). “The International Consequences of Brexit: An English School Analysis”, Journal of European Integration, Loughborough University, doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337. 2019. 1665656
    49. Xuetong, Y; Haixia, Q. (2012). “Football Game rather Than Boxing Match: China–US Intensifying Rivalry Does not Amount to Cold War”, Chinese Journal of International Politics 5 (2): 105-127, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pos007
    50. ZongyiZhang, S.Y. (2001) “On Regional Inequality and Diverging Clubs: A Case Study of Contemporary China”, Journal of Comparative Economics, Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 466-484, doi: https://doi.org/ 1006/jcec.2001.1726