Review Article: ‘Three Concepts of Internationalism by Fred Halliday
(1988)
Word Count: 1540 words
*Assignment 1: Review essay (50%) 2pm on Thursday 12
November 2020 (week 8).
*The review essay demonstrates students’ ability to read and
critically assess an academic journal article. This is an essential skill
to acquire for a first-year student, and the module prepares you for
doing that in the weeks prior to the deadline. Students are asked to
review one of two academic journal articles (you can choose which
one you want to review). The review essay consists of 2 sections: a
first in which you are asked to summarise the main argument and
structure of the article, a second in which you are asked to critically
reflect on the merits of the article, focusing on its historical arguments
and implications.
*The length of the Review essay is limited to 1,500 words. There is
a 10% +/- rule.
1
, Introduction
In this review essay I will be discussing Fred Halliday’s article ‘Three Concepts
of Internationalism’ (1988). The review will be structured in three main parts in
which I will be exploring the author’s key argument, analysing his key
hypothesis and reflecting upon these arguments in terms of contemporary IR.
Section 1: Key Argument
Overall, Halliday (1988) argues that the general idea of internationalism
raises significant issues in relation to analytical and normative values (Halliday,
1988: 189) disregarding of its context. He claims that the discipline of IR is (2)
too focused on foreign affairs and in return should concentrate more on finding
the correct balance of concepts (3) which are subjective and dependent on
each state and its current situation. Thus, the problem lies in the complexity of
identifying a (4) suitable concept - essentially a suitable balance - for a state.
In conjunction to the aforementioned analytical problem comes the
problem of maintaining seemingly outdated concepts. No matter how much
“special emphasis” (ibid: 188) is placed upon the theories which are provided
by Enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries (such as Rousseau) or
later liberal/revolutionary thinkers, Halliday (1988) refers to the need for
“expanded horizons” and, as a result, questions whether internationalism is still
relevant in the modern day when it has themes that “predate the modern nation
and the modern state” (ibid: 188) as major influencing factors. (5) Which IR
theory is suitable giving the current situation of a state?
Halliday (1988) chooses to structure his article in form of a short
introduction and 4 main sections in which he individually focuses on his relevant
2
(1988)
Word Count: 1540 words
*Assignment 1: Review essay (50%) 2pm on Thursday 12
November 2020 (week 8).
*The review essay demonstrates students’ ability to read and
critically assess an academic journal article. This is an essential skill
to acquire for a first-year student, and the module prepares you for
doing that in the weeks prior to the deadline. Students are asked to
review one of two academic journal articles (you can choose which
one you want to review). The review essay consists of 2 sections: a
first in which you are asked to summarise the main argument and
structure of the article, a second in which you are asked to critically
reflect on the merits of the article, focusing on its historical arguments
and implications.
*The length of the Review essay is limited to 1,500 words. There is
a 10% +/- rule.
1
, Introduction
In this review essay I will be discussing Fred Halliday’s article ‘Three Concepts
of Internationalism’ (1988). The review will be structured in three main parts in
which I will be exploring the author’s key argument, analysing his key
hypothesis and reflecting upon these arguments in terms of contemporary IR.
Section 1: Key Argument
Overall, Halliday (1988) argues that the general idea of internationalism
raises significant issues in relation to analytical and normative values (Halliday,
1988: 189) disregarding of its context. He claims that the discipline of IR is (2)
too focused on foreign affairs and in return should concentrate more on finding
the correct balance of concepts (3) which are subjective and dependent on
each state and its current situation. Thus, the problem lies in the complexity of
identifying a (4) suitable concept - essentially a suitable balance - for a state.
In conjunction to the aforementioned analytical problem comes the
problem of maintaining seemingly outdated concepts. No matter how much
“special emphasis” (ibid: 188) is placed upon the theories which are provided
by Enlightenment thinkers in the 17th and 18th centuries (such as Rousseau) or
later liberal/revolutionary thinkers, Halliday (1988) refers to the need for
“expanded horizons” and, as a result, questions whether internationalism is still
relevant in the modern day when it has themes that “predate the modern nation
and the modern state” (ibid: 188) as major influencing factors. (5) Which IR
theory is suitable giving the current situation of a state?
Halliday (1988) chooses to structure his article in form of a short
introduction and 4 main sections in which he individually focuses on his relevant
2
