Reading Bull’s

Anarchical Society Part 1 & 2

The emergence of English School of thought (also known as Liberal Realism) in international relations can be seen as a result of intellectual discourses with Traditional & Neo Realist school. The English School offered a conception that somewhat different from the later. According to English School states system is not the only system operates in world politics, they propose the concept of international society as another “operating system”, where the relations among its members are not only define by each capabilities but also govern by certain rules and institution. In this regard one of the most influential work that also contributes to the creation of English School is that Hedley Bull’s book “The Anarchical Society, A Story of World Order in World Politics”.

Bull began his book by drawing three fundamental questions: What is Order in world politics? How is order maintained within the present system of sovereign states? and Does the system of sovereign states still provide a viable path to world order? The three parts of the book then sought to answer the questions accordingly.

In part one, Bull’s presentation is dominated by stating definitions and classifications and provide historical evidences to explain the concepts he is working with. Those concepts are: Order (which he classified into order in social life, international order and world order), International System (system of states), and International Society (society of states).

Order

Bull defines Order in Social Life as a pattern of human activity that sustain basic goals of society, namely protection against violence, keeping agreement, and protecting property (p.4-5). By International Order, Bull refers to a pattern of activity between and among states that sustains the basic goals of the society of states, which include: (1) preservation of the system and society of states it self, (2) maintaining the independence or external sovereignty of individual states, (3) Preserving Peace, in terms of the absence of war, (4) General goals of social life (limitation of violence, keeping promise, stability of possession) (p.16-18). Apart from international order, Bull also introduced the concept of World Order, which means pattern of human activity that sustain the goals of social life among mankind as a whole (p.19). In this concept, the subject is men not states as in the concept of international order. With this idea, it seems that Bull wanted to give space for morality and the role of non states actors in world politics.

System of States and Society of States

The other concepts which centred in Bull’s work are system of states and society of states. A system of states (or international system), according to Bull, is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them and have sufficient impact on one another’s decisions to cause them to behave -at least in some measure- as part of a whole (p.9). In other words it simply means that there are states which have contacts and dealings with each other. Society of states (international society), on the other hand, exist when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, from a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common sets of rules in their relations with one another and share in the working of common institutions (p.13). To put it more simply, an international society presupposes an international system, but an international system is not necessarily international society. The theoretical difference within the two concept is clear, the presence international society is involving shared values and interests among its actors, whilst the international system is, according to the Traditional Realists, state of nature. However, Bull also realized that whether or not these distinguishing features of an international society are present in an international system, it is not always easy to determine. Bull then explained the two concepts by drawing several historical examples from sixteenth to twentieth century.

Order in International Society

Bull believed that order does exist in the world politics as reflected in the historical and present evidences. To established the proposition, Bull examine the idea of international society. He rejected the Hobbesian idea which views international politics as a state of war but he also refused the Kantian tradition that sees international politics as a potential community of mankind. He seems to agree with Grotian perspective which views International politics as taking place within international society (p.21). Moreover the Grotian contends that states are not engaged in simple struggle like gladiator but are limited in their conflict with one another by common rules and institutions. Again, Bull draws historical evidence from various incarnations of modern state system (Christian, European, and World International Society) and showing that there has been a sense of common interests, common rules and common institutions within the systems. However, Bull suggests that order provided within modern international society is precarious and imperfect. It is “anarchical” since there are no hierarchical level of sovereignty exists above each state, no government over governments. The Order provide by international society is always in competition with the elements of a state of war and of transnational solidarity of conflict. But Bull quiet optimistic that other different structure could provide better order in world politics (p.49-50). The preservation of order in world politics, according to Bull, is not only influenced by contingent facts such as balance of power, moreover it depends on the existence of a sense of common interests in the elementary goal of social life, rules prescribing behaviour and institutions that help to make these rules effective.

Justice

Bull sought to relate the idea of order with the concept of justice in world politics. He infers that an international society based upon cosmopolitan justice may offer an alternative to the state-centred, power-based international politics of today. By cosmopolitan justice meant what is good for the world as a civitas maxima (cosmopolitan society) to which all individual belong and to which their interest should be subordinate (p.81). This idea which put individuals in the form of society is another point that distinct Bull from the traditional realists that strict to the role of state as the sole actor in world politics. However, when it comes to the question of priority between justice and order, Bull leaves the question unanswered. Instead of asserting a firm account, Bull proposes a somewhat vague statement by saying that “order in world politics is valuable and also prior to other goals but it does not mean order is to be preferred to justice in any given chance” (p.93).

After some conceptual explanation further discussion on the nature of order in the world politics, in part two Bull sought to examine the operation of order in contemporary international system by relating to its six major features, namely: Balance of Power, International Law, Diplomacy, War and The Great Powers.

Balance of Power (BoP)

Bull distinguish the concept of BoP into four different ways; (1) Simple balance -made up of two powers- and Complex balance -more than three powers- (2) General balance -no preponderant power in international system- and Local balance -no preponderant power in local/regional system- (3) Subjective balance -balance that generally believed- and Objective balance -in fact no one is preponderant- (4) Fortuitous balance -arise without any conscious effort- and Contrived balance –by conscious policies-. As those traditional realists, Bull agree that the ultimate function of BoP in the modern states system is to preserve the system of states (p.102). However, he rejects the assumption that balance of power is an enduring feature in international politics considering that in many ways current balance of power are different with those European balance of power in nineteenth century. To put it simply, the concept of balance of power could be irrelevant in the future. For example since 1950s World had witness the existence of mutual nuclear deterrence which is to some extent different from BoP. Furthermore, Bull argued, mutual nuclear deterrence could not preserve the international order (p.121). Cynically He named this nuclear contest between US and USSR as “The Balance of Terror” (p.119).

International Law

Another institution that contributes to international order is International Law. In this regard Bull points out three basic function of international law, which are; (1) To identify the idea of a society of sovereign states, (2) To state the basic rules of coexistence among states and other actor in international society, (3) To mobilise compliance with the rules of international society (p.134-136). These three function are, indeed, essential to word order but international law not by itself sufficient to bring about international order. Using the economic term, the effectiveness of international law is ceteris paribus, it requires certain conditions and the fulfilment of these conditions are most of time beyond its control. In assessing contemporary international law, Bull agreed that some major change has been made including the subject, scope and the role of international lawyer. But he doubted whether these changes have brought any increase in the role played by international law in relation to international order. Further, Bull said that “Law is an instrument of political purposes of all kind, and the promotion of order is only one of them” (p.139).

Diplomacy

Compare to his account on International law, Bull seems more optimistic in viewing diplomacy as another pillar of international order. Though the world of diplomacy experiencing the downturn recently, it is largely the impact of wider decline in international order. Bull believe that along with other newly institutions in the world of diplomacy, professional diplomacy will continue to serve international order through its core functions; communication, negotiations, information, minimisation of friction and act as symbolic function of the society of states.

War

Bull distinguished War from the point of view of the international system and international society. According to the former, war remains a basic determinant of the shape of the systems (p.190). While the later views war in its dual aspects; on the one hand, a threat to be limited and contained; on the other hand, an instrumentality to be harnessed to international society purposes such as enforcement of international law, preserving the balance of power and bring about just change (p.181-183). At this point Bull’s account on War seems to be so similar with traditional realists, this is somewhat contradictory with his argument on balance of power .

The Great Power

Bull pointed out that the great powers contribute to international order at least in six ways; (1) preservation of the general balance, (2) Avoidance and control of crises, (3) Limitation of war, (4) The unilateral exercise of local preponderance, (5) Sphere of Influence, interest or responsibelity, (6) A great power concert or condominium. Nevertheless, Bull clarified that “this is not necessarily what great powers actually do, or even what they should do – it is rather what they could do” (p.200). Bull examined that during the Cold War US and Soviet Union to some extent carry out the six roles, and there by help to sustain a sort of order, though the rest of the world view this as unjust order.

Bull’s “Anarchical Society” definitely stand as one of the most important work in contemporary IR studies. Beside providing clear definition and classification of some fundamental concepts, he also introduce the idea international community which is the centrepiece of his contribution to international theory. The way he presents his ideas is very systematic and when he claims he always marshals an impressive array of evidence to back up his argument. However, to some extent Bull’s arguments seems vague. It seems initially, that Bull wanted to put a distance from the traditional or neo realist thought, but still he did not really depart. Much of his assumptions at the end are very similar with both traditional and neo realist. He even did not give a very plausible explanation on why international society is so important. And sometimes he leaves his question unanswered. @