English School presents a unique paradigm: its basic units and method of analysis are both different from theories that emerged before. Horsti named international society theory, the most prominent theoretical contribution by the English school, as one of only two new paradigms among a myriad of theories that emerged during the interparadigm debate. I am very motivated to learn more about the English School because, in some aspects, it is even more realistic than realist theories. I will explain what I mean by realistic down below.

As Dunne has said, the English School contributions can be summarized in three words, agency, history, and morality. For example, English school theorists see the diplomats as the true agents in the international arena instead of states. Indeed, in conferences and organization meetings, it is the selected representatives that interact with each other; of course, they all carry their states’ interest, but one may expect that personality, behaviours, and idiosyncrasies may play at least a minor part in the interactions. Further, by acknowledging the importance of history, English school theorists further recognize that different governments have different baggages, intentions, and backgrounds, which feed into their interactions with other governments. Last but not least, English School theorists also underlines the importance of values in the international society. Just as in real life, one would not be likely to befriend or be willing to work with another person that has different views, the concept of values affect whether some states will be acknowledged as an equal by the other states. The concept of international society seems more humane, and although its scope of analysis is bigger, it actually makes more sense – as that is how ordinary people interact with one another.

In this article, I want to explore the subject of values in an international society. I am interested because values are hard to describe and quantify. Before taking this class I assumed so-called values are to cover up real material interests (so I was a neorealist without even being aware), but now I think reality is more complex than that – why would whole groups of countries engage in discussion of human rights just for cover up –  so I want to learn more. What are the consequences of a country announcing different values/priorities than most other countries? In other words, what are the implications of alienation? Other than potential material sanctions, is alienation itself a punishment (like in civil societies)? If so, how is alienation manifested?

I believe the Khashoggi affair provides good momentum for studying the subject of international society’s value change. There are lots of new discussions regarding human rights, which is still a relatively new subject in the international arena. Certainly, the Saudi Arabian government committed an atrocious crime, but this incident garnered particularly prominent coverage. (At least I think so, perhaps not least because I live in the Western hemisphere.) The fact that this specific one is reported widely reveals what behaviours countries can publicly proclaim as unjustified, who can make those claims, and also who can some countries make these claims against. At the end of my article, I will explore current international responses towards the Saudis, who made those responses, and what it reflected about the values in the international society. To investigate the international responses to Khashoggi affair, I will visit various government’s statements, Foreign Affairs’ article: “Not His Father’s Saudi Arabia: The Khashoggi Affair Reveals the Recklessness of MBS”, as well as International Affair’s article “A Convenient Murder: Khashoggi and Saudi-Turkish-US Relations”.

Before I address the Khashoggi incident, I want to attempt to answer the following questions to give a historical context to the subject of human rights. History, after all, is important for the English School. Who initiated the discussion of human rights? For what reasons did they do so? How and when did human rights become a normal, rather than radical, subject to discuss between states? When did supporting human rights become the right value to the point that other countries may have reactions if a country violates it? In other words, when did countries realize that human rights is something to defend for? I hope to answer these questions by reading excerpts from “The International human rights movement: a history” by Aryeh Neier and “Inventing Human Rights: a history” by Lynn Hunt. The English school suggests to analyze the language that diplomats use, as language clarifies the speakers’ sense of what is allowed to be said in front of other agents, and thus exposes the normative context. Thereby, it makes sense to pay particular attention to important speeches that these two books allude to.

Actually, before answering the above questions, one might need to look into some broader questions. What are norms? How are norms manifested? How do the English School theorists seek to define norms? How does English School’s concept of agency play into the presentation and development of norms? To better understand the English School, I will refer to some fundamental works, including Hedley Bull’s book: The Anarchical Society, Barry Buzan’s paper “The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR”, Buzan’s book “An Introduction to the English School of International Relations”, and Sugunami’s paper “The English School in a Nutshell”.