Abstract

Conventional wisdom assumes that the study of International Relations has passed through three 'great debates', the first of these debates being the realist-idealist debate of the 1930's and 1940's. This thesis questions the view that a realist-idealist debate happened in the way that IR scholars assume. The basis of this study is an examination of the works of two twentieth century writers on international affairs, both of whom have been labelled as 'idealists' by post-Second World War IR scholars at one time or another. These two are Norman Angell, who wrote The Great Illusion, and David Mitrany, generally regarded as a founder of the modern functional approach to IR. ;Part I of the thesis examines the philosophical background of Angell and Mitrany's liberal rationalism, showing how their ideas are influenced by an interpretation of the interconnectedness of the concepts of reason, freedom and progress. I argue that it is their view of this reason-freedom-progress nexus that differentiates these two thinkers from writers in other IR paradigms. Part II critically examines the writings of Angell and Mitrany, and sets these within the context of nineteenth and early twentieth century views of international affairs. The conclusion assesses: the validity of modern conceptions of the realist-idealist debate, and the usefulness of Angell and Mitrany in a post-Cold War era