While generally accepted as an interpretive theory, Bull’s emblematic text demonstrates strong structural characteristics. Subsequent attributions move between the interpretive or ‘reflexive’ and the institutional and structural. Recently, however, the idea has come forward that English School theory is, and maybe have been from the beginning, a form of structuration theory, a theory in which structures are not quite the hard determinants generally understood in structural theories, and interpreting agents are not quite so free to interpret structures in any tradition that seems appropriate to a matter at hand.
AalbertsT (2010) Playing the game of sovereign states: Charles Manning’s constructivism avant-la-lettre. European Journal of International Relations16(2): 247–278.
2.
ArcherM (1982) Morphogenesis versus structuration: On combining structure and action. The British Journal of Sociology33(4): 455–483.
3.
BarleySTolbertP (1997) Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies18(1): 93–117.
4.
BevirM (2017) Situated agency: A postfoundational alternative to autonomy. In: Schwarz WentzerTGustafssonMCahillKM (eds) Finite But Unbounded: New Approaches in Philosophical Anthropology. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 47–66.
5.
BullH (1966) International theory: The case for a classical approach. World Politics18(3): 361–377.
6.
BullH (1972) International relations as an academic pursuit. Australian Outlook26(3): 251–265.
7.
BullH (1977a) Introduction: Martin Wight and the study of international relations. In: WightMBullH (eds) Systems of States. Leicester: Leicester University Press, pp. 1–20.
8.
BullH (1977b) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
ButterfieldH (1966) The balance of power. In: ButterfieldHWightM (eds) Diplomatic Investigations. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 132–148.
10.
BuzanB (2001) The English School: An underexploited resource in IR. Review of International Studies27(3): 471–488.
11.
BuzanB (2004) From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BuzanB (2010) Globalization and identity: Is world society possible?Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences)40(5): 5–14.
13.
BuzanB (2014) An Introduction to the English School of International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
14.
BuzanBLawsonG (2013) The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BuzanBJonesCLittleR (1993) The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press.
16.
ClarkI (2007) International Legitimacy and World Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
DonelanM (1978) Response to Hedley Bull. The Times Literary Supplement, 12May, p. 528.
18.
DonnellyJ (2015) The discourse of anarchy in IR. International Theory7(3): 393–425.
19.
DunneT (1995) The social construction of international society. European Journal of International Relations1(3): 367–389.
20.
DunneT (2005) System, state and society: How does it all hang together?Millennium: Journal of International Studies34(1): 157–170.
21.
DunneTWheelerN (eds) (1999) Human Rights in Global Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EvansTWilsonP (1992) Regime theory and the English school of international relations: A comparison. Millennium21(3): 329–351.
23.
FinnemoreM (2001) Exporting the English School?Review of International Studies27(3): 509–513.
24.
GiddensA (1976) New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of Interpretative Sociologies. New York: Basic Books.
25.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA; Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
26.
HallI (2006) The International Thought of Martin Wight. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
27.
HolstiKJ (2004) Taming the Sovereigns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
HolstiKJ (2009) Theorising the causes of order: Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society. In: NavariC (ed.) Theorising International Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 125–147.
29.
HudsenGF (1966) Collective security and military alliances. In: ButterfieldHWightM (eds) Diplomatic Investigations. London: George Allen & Unwin, pp. 176–180.
30.
HurrellA (1993) International society and the study of regimes: A reflective approach. In: RittbergerVMayerP (eds) Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 49–72.
31.
JamesA (1993) System or society?Review of International Studies19(3): 269–288.
32.
KeohaneR (1988) International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly32(4): 379–396.
33.
KnudsenBTNavariC (eds) (2018) International Organization in the Anarchical Society: The Institutional Structure of World Order. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
KnudsenBTNavariC (eds) (2019) International Organization in the Anarchical Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
KrasnerS (1983) International Regimes. Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press.
36.
LechnerS (2017) Why anarchy still matters for international relations: On theories and things. Journal of International Political Theory13(3): 341–359.
37.
MayallJ (1990) Nationalism and International Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
MeyerJWRowanB (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology83(2): 340–363.
39.
MorseE (1977) Review of The Anarchical Society: A study of order in world politics by Hedley Bull. Foreign Affairs56(1): 226–254.
40.
NavariC (2011) The concept of practice in the English School. European Journal of International Relations17(4): 611–630.
41.
ParratCF (2014) International organization in international society: UN reform from an English School perspective. Journal of International Organizations Studies5(2): 7–21.
42.
RittbergerVMayerP (eds) (1993) Regime Theory and International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
43.
SpandlerK (2015) The political international society: Change in primary and secondary institutions. Review of International Studies41: 601–622.
44.
SuganamiH (1983) The structure of institutionalism: An anatomy of British mainstream international relations. International Relations7(5): 2363–2381.
45.
SuganamiH (2002) On Wendt’s philosophy: A critique. Review of International Studies28(1): 23–37.
46.
SuganamiH (2003) British institutionalists, or the English School, 20 years on. International Relations17(3): 253–271.
47.
ThompsonJB (1984) Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
48.
VigezziB (2005) The British Committee (1954-1985) The Rediscovery of History. Milan: Edizioni Unicopli.
49.
WendtA (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
WendtADuvallR (1989) Institutions and international order. In: CzempielE-ORosenauJN (eds) Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books, pp. 51–73.
51.
WightM (1966a) The balance of power. In: ButterfieldHWightM (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin, pp. 149–175.
52.
WightM (1966b) Western values in international relations. In: ButterfieldHWightM (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin, pp. 89–131.
53.
WightM (1977) Systems of States (ed. BullH). Leicester: Leicester University Press.
54.
ZhangY (2016) Pluralism, solidarism and the Yin-Yang of international society. In: WilsonPZhangYKnudsenTB, et al. (eds) The English School in Retrospect and Prospect: Barry Buzan’s An Introduction to the English School of International Relations: The Societal Approach. Cooperation and Conflict (Review Symposium) 51: 94–136.
