Bull: The Anarchical Society

Bull, Hedley. (1977). The anarchical society : a study of order in world politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ch 1: The Nature of Order in World Politics:

Bull begins by defining the concept of order. Order is a set pattern that emerges in the interaction of different variables. While this is a crucial first step, it is not sufficient: order also needs a purpose, or an end. For Bull vis-à-vis society, order has three goals: safety, contractual honesty and legal security.

International Order: “…independent political communities each of which possesses a government and asserts sovereignty in relations to a particular portion of the earth’s surface and a particular segment of the human population” (8).

System of States: “…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…as parts of a whole” (9).

Society of States: “…exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another” (13).

“An international society in this sense presupposes an international system, but an international system may exist that is not an international society” (13).

What are the goals of international order? Preservation of the system (16). Maintain independence and sovereignty of the states (16). Peace (17). The goals mentioned at the beginning of the chapter: life, truth, property (18).

World Order: “…those patterns or dispositions of human activity that sustain the elementary or primary goals of social life among mankind as a whole” (19).

International Order: “…order among states” (19).

Ch 2: Does Order Exist in World Politics?

“This present study takes as its starting-point the proposition that, on the contrary, order is part of the historical record of international relations and in particular, that modern states have formed, and continue to form, not only a system of states but also an international society” (22-3).

Bull goes on to identify three different logics, or traditions of thought that have dominated understandings of international systems: Hobbsian, Kantian and Grotian. Hobbisan: international politics is a constant state of war. Kantian: international politics is a community of humankind. Grotian: international politics takes place in an international society.

“A chief intellectual support of this doctrine is what I have called the domestic analogy, the argument from the experience of individual men in domestic society to the experience of states, according to which states, like individuals, are capable of orderly social life only if, as in Hobbe’s phrase, they stand in awe of a common power” (44). This is empirically false. The modern international system doesn’t compare to the Hobbsian world of war of all against all.

Ch 3: How is Order Maintained in World Politics?

In short, common interests that determine a common goal. These common interests are determined by rules that are constantly in flux. These rules facilitate more coordinated action between states.

Institutions: “…a set of habits and practices shaped towards the realization of common goals” (71).

Ch 4: Order verses Justice in World Politics:

There is a trade off between the two, though not a zero-sum game.

Ch 5: The balance of Power and International Order:

BoP: “…a state of affairs such that no one power is in a position where it is preponderant and can lay down the law to others” (97).

There is simple and complex BoP arrangements. Simple arrangements are between two states. Complex arrangements involve many actors and many different kinds of power. In the complex arrangement, there is no need for all actors to be entirely equal in their ability to compete against one another; relative power can be emphasized in these situations.

Bull also draws a distinction between general BoP and local BoP. He also draws a distinction between subjective and objective BoP, the former being an accepted understanding of a country’s capabilities and the later being the actual capabilities of a country. Bull also draws a distinction between a fortuitous and a contrived BoP.

He then explores BoP through the medium of nuclear weapons.

Ch 9: The Great Powers and International Order:

Great Powers: must be two or more in the international system. They have great military strength. Have special rights and duties. These powers can contribute to international order in two ways: managing the relations with one another; impart a degree of central authority.