This dissertation proposes a widespread revision to the English School of international relations theory in an effort to 1) provide the paradigm with much-needed internal ontological and epistemological consistency and 2) increase its analytical robustness by supplementing it with elements from Neorealism, Neoclassical Realism, and Conventional Constructivism. The dissertation argues that the traditional English School lacks relevance due to the inconsistency in ontology and epistemology between its International System and International Society layers, which are indebted to positivism (Problem-Solving theory), and those of the World Society, which are much closer to critical theory. Therefore, this dissertation’s proposed revision, which it calls the New English School, does away with the World Society while further developing the positivist orientation of the other two layers. In addition, the dissertation demonstrates the ontological and epistemological overlap between the remaining layers of the English School and Conventional Constructivism and Neorealism. Doing so allows for the incorporation of logic from these paradigms to drastically increase the analytical robustness of the New English School. In executing this analysis, the dissertation explores the key issues of the Fourth Debate and the nature of knowledge in the social sciences, concluding that a social ontology does not necessitate a critical epistemology. The dissertation uses two case studies to develop the paradigm’s nuances and flesh out its mechanics. The first case, on European integration, demonstrates how the International System and International Society interact. The second case, on contemporary Chinese power projection, demonstrates how norms are used in the International System and how this is distinct from their operation in the International Society.