Within international relations, it is not rare to find theories that share similarities with each other, as the study as a whole is constantly evolving and building upon itself. This can be seen in the close relationship between structural realism and classical realism, as well as structural liberalism and classical liberalism. However, these theories developed from the same initial concepts with most assumptions staying consistent, which does not remain true when comparing the theories of constructivism and the English School. Constructivism and the English School share a number of similarities regarding topics such as human rights and international institutions, even though they have developed in different circumstances, with different perspectives, and different assumptions. On one hand, constructivism came about as a response to american behaviourism, whereas the English School was developed due to the rejection of British academia to incorporate behaviourist thought and became a mixture of classical realism and classical liberalism. However, both managed to view the concepts of normative frameworks, values, and human behaviour as significant in developing their perspectives. Although, there are still a number of differences between the two, especially when regarding the enforcement of the international human rights regime, as the English School typically discusses the development of an international society and international law, whereas constructivism focuses more on the actor values, beliefs, and behaviours within the international system when discussing international human rights.
Both theories are relatively modern developments within the field of international relations and are unique in their approach to the study of international politics. The English School is best understood as a midway between classical realism and classical liberalism. Rather than aim towards the behaviourist thought that is quite significant to the development of American international relations thought, the English School upholds values, norms, and interpretive judgement as the foundations of its perspective. Its view on international relations is based upon the key assumptions that the proper reference frame is the global political system (which would include both state and non-state actors, similar to liberalism), that humans are significant participants in the global political system and their behaviour is central to both domestic and international politics, that historical context must always be assessed, that values of the system, its actors, and its researchers are significant, that the behaviours and interactions between diplomats can make an impact on international politics, and finally that violence is inherent to international relations (similar to classical realism), bu that international law and morals can restrain conflict. The English School can thus be simply summed up as a belief that there is “More to IR than realists suggest, but less than what liberalists believe”. When combining these fundamental pillars, the English School begins to focus on what can be described as the “international society”, of which there are two variants: the Pluralist International Society and the Solidarist International Society. These camps of thought within the English School tend to differ in regards to international law and its place in the current Westphalian system of international relations. Pluralists believe that the norms of sovereignty and non-interference are key to a stable, functional international society, and that individuals are constituent members of the world society being represented by their respective states, and thus international law in conjunction with the norms of state sovereignty and non-interference best uphold values such as human rights. On the other hand, the Solidarists believe that there should be a greater world society that should modify the norms of the Westphalian system in regards to state sovereignty and non-interference, in order to better uphold basic human rights of all individuals. Solidarists believe that this can only be done in an expanded system of international law where state institutions are not significant actors in comparison to the international law system in regards to human rights.
In contrast, constructivism focuses completely on the social dimension of international politics. The most simple summary of this perspective is through the title of the book written by Alexander wendt: “Anarchy is What the State Makes of It”. Constructivism resembles this quote as it does not inherently hold any assumptions to what the international system entails, but rather the international system is determined by the actor values, beliefs, and behaviour at the time. This creates a dynamic definition of the international system that does not define whether or not the international system is inherently violent or peaceful, but rather the system is the sum of its parts. The theory does have its own unique assumptions, but these are more geared toward normative and ideational structures that impact actor identities. The assumptions are that actor’s imaginations impact their action as their view on what is possible will influence what actions they will undergo, that communication is necessary in justifying action and that norms are usually referred to when justifying actions within international politics, and that the need to justify actions serves as a constrain on actor behaviour, as the lack of feasible justification disincentivizes non-conforming actions in the international system. There is also the assumption that hard power and other material structures only have meaning from the social construction around these resources, which can be explained through the different weightage between the use of conventional weapons versus nuclear weapons. Although the use of a large number of conventional weapons may match or exceed that of a single nuclear weapon, the understanding of nuclear weapons is far different than that of conventional weaponry due to social constructs. Lastly, there are the assumptions that agents and structures are mutually constituted and that norms and ideational structures are equally as significant as material resources and structures. Like the English School, there are two main camps within constructivist thought: rationalist constructivism and consistent constructivism. Rationalist constructivism utilizes the rational actor model but understands rationality to be derived from social context and social interaction. This would mean that an actor’s development of rationality is influenced by interaction between actors, shared values, norms within the system, their own identity, historical context, and other normative ideas, rather than a cost-benefit analysis. Rationalist constructivism also emphasizes that all facts are social facts that are given meaning by actors within the system and the social contexts that they are placed in. On the other hand, consistent constructivism critiques the scientific method and focuses more on the role of language and reason. It holds that cause-effect relationships are meant for natural sciences and instead replaces it with the idea of causation. Causation is said to be understood only in the social context of the action, actors, or behaviours, rather than in a consistent formulaic approach like cause and effects. This would result in different actions by different actors in different times to be rationalized in different ways, as their rationalization depends on the norms of the social context they are presented in, thus the example of the US invasion of Iraq in fear of the construction of weapons of mass destruction may not have been rationalized in a different time period or by different actors even at the same time.
In terms of similarities, there are a host of conclusions that each theory both reach. Both view normative and ideational structures to be significant within the study of international politics, a view that is typical of more modern theories of international relations. Both theories also focus heavily on the interaction between actors in the international system as they believe that such interactions form norms in which international theory is to be practiced. With greater interaction comes greater communication towards peace and greater shared values and norms within the international system according to both of these theories. Other similarities are found when analyzing how each theory would view the problem of enforcing the international human rights regimes. As both systems value norms and ideological institutions, it would not be surprising to see both theories support a large role for international law. Although typically associated with the English School, international law and enforcement institutions can be seen as beneficial for international human rights as such institutions would be able to increase communication between actors and set behavioral and acationable norms. If an international law institution were to have enforcement to back up the jurisdiction of the courts, it would clearly signal to other actors that certain behaviours are looked down upon while others are socially acceptable. This would further strengthen the international human rights regime as jurisdictions on human rights violations would incentivize actors to uphold the norm of human rights as significant actors in the international society, and thus have rights that should be protected. The English School would support this theory as both solidarists and pluralists believe that international law has a role in protecting human rights and that shared norms can come from internationaal jurisdictions. Constructivism would support this line of reasoning for the same reason, that shared norms would be the product, and thus the social context in which human rights would be considered would strengthen their significance.
However, these theories are not identical as they do have a host of differences mainly regarding their assumptions. The English School holds that conflict is inherent in the international system, but believes that actors and norms are able to constrain such conflict and create a peaceful international society. On the other hand, constructivism believes that the international system is neither inherently peaceful or violent, but rather suggests a more dynamic system, in which the actor’s beliefs, values, and behaviours determine whether or not the system will be violent or peaceful. This difference is best understood in the context of the Responsibility to Protect. The Responsibility to Protect is understood as a Solidarist English School creation that modifies the concept of sovereignty by justifying humanitarian intervention in the affairs of other states as an obligation of all states in order to uphold international human rights. Although it focuses on developing normative frameworks in the international society, the fact that it aims to develop and uphold such norms is where the constructivism view would not fully support such a doctrine. The issue from the constructivist point of view, is that when developing norms in the international society, they must come organically from shared values, interaction between states, and the understanding of actor’s values, behaviours, and beliefs. These of course all differ over the course of time for actors, which constructivism believes actually make up the system itself. For example, the Responsibility to Protect cannot exist in a self-help system, which the English School does not necessarily believe the system is. However, constructivism believes that actor values, beliefs, and behavior may all change in the future, and thus a self-help system would be possible, and thus this doctrine could not be upheld in such a social context. Thus, from a constructivist point of view, the Responsibility to Protect cannot be an obligation on all actors to intervene in a human rights disaster, as the social context may vary, even if all states technically agree to follow it. The English School however, would view the Responsibility to Protect as creating a norm in which the international society would be incentivized to follow. Although states at time may not abide by the Responsibility to Protect, its very existence may allow it to act as a restraint on states as it could act as a norm of the international society. In simpler terms, constructivists would critique the Responsibility to Protect as being a baseless norm, as the significance of norms can only come from their social contexts. The very fact that numerous states do not embrace the Responsibility to Protect, such as Venezuela, Egypt, and India, means that it is not a shared value or norm in the current social context, yet it is still being pushed onto the system by institutions such as the United Nations, rather than the system organically developing it and adopting it. This is not to say that constructivism does not embrace the Responsibility to Protect, but rather the method in both it and the English School theorists that created it, attempted to bring about the norm international human rights. This same explanation can be used on a host of ideas created by English School theorists, such as universal jurisdiction, which similarly attempts to modify state sovereignty and the norm of non-interference in the hopes of upholding the international human rights regime. Although constructivism may agree that such norms should be discussed and would support such a norm, the social context must allow for its organic upbringing, rather than its forced placement as a norm to restrain the actions of actors in the international society.
What should be understood of the characterizations of both theories is that each view international politics in their own unique methods, however, they both tend to result in the same conclusions, especially when regarding normative frameworks and ideological institutions such as human rights. The similarities in their conclusions most likely stems from their shared attempt to avoid American behaviorism and subsequent focus on norms, values, beliefs, and other specificities unique to actors within the international society. With this great similarity, it is no surprise that they each place a greater value on the creation of an international system that is developed from shared norms and values of all actors, rather than on material institutions/resources or hard power, although they believe that such concepts do have a place in international relations thought. However, their similarities should not overlook their unique views on the international system, as ideas such as pluralist or solidarist international society greatly differ from that of rationalist or consistent constructivism. The ideas of social context and social facts are specific to constructivism, whereas the English School prides itself on ideas such as the development of the international society and international law. Overall, both theories are useful in viewing the realm of international politics from a normative perspective and appreciating a more modern view of who and what are significant within international relations.