Interwar Internationalism, the British Labour Party, and the Historiography of International Relations

Abstract

This article questions two interrelated myths pertaining to the interwar internationalism of the British Labour Party and the theories of so‐called idealists in the academic discipline of International Relations (IR). In IR, interwar “idealists” are (in)famous for a detached and utopian approach to international politics. Conventional historiographical verdicts on the international policy of the Labour Party in the interwar period suggest that the party was the practical mirror of this naïve international outlook. In fact, the two themes are connected, most notably through Labour's Advisory Committee on International Questions. This article brings the study of Labour's internationalism and the international theories of purported idealists together by focusing on debates on the League of Nations and the use of force. The analysis reveals that conventional historiographical narratives are inadequate and too simplistic for grasping the diversity of Labour's internationalism and interwar progressivist ideas about international politics in general.

On the History and Historiography of International Relations

“…Many of those who have been dubbed "idealists" turn out, upon closer inspection, to subscribe to a position that is quite different from the manner in which it has been characterized in the secondary literature. On the basis of careful historical research, a variety of interwar discourses have been identified that together provide a very different account of this period of the field's history (Ashworth, 2006;Long and Schmidt, 2005;Osiander, 1998;Schmidt, 2002Schmidt, , 2012Sylvest, 2004;Thies, 2002). While it is the case that many of the interwar scholars shared a practical mission to reform the practice of international politics, this objective, I argue, does not in and of itself qualify the enterprise as utopian.…”

Interdisciplinarity and International Relations

“…The third wave historiography argues that the underlying nature of the debates within interwar IR was complex and shifting. The result is that it is not possible to understand the nature of interwar IR through the use of the catch-all phrases of realism and idealism (Sylvest, 2004;Ashworth, 2006;Williams, 2006); indeed, there is a case for arguing that there was a distinct liberal socialist paradigm in IR that combined support for a muscular collective security regime with opposition to the capitalist-dominated, and war-prone, state system (Ashworth, 2008).…”

Mapping a New World: Geography and the Interwar Study of International Relations

“… There is a growing body of literature in IR that questions the existence of an interwar idealist paradigm. See especially, Schmidt (), Sylvest () and Ashworth (). On the myth of the realist‐idealist debate see Wilson (), Ashworth () and Thies (). …”