The Anarchical Society

185 Pages·2002·30.92 MB·English

by  Hedley Bull

Ie '2 L l...' t .' I 1 I t I I t '1 i I
The Anarchical Society
A Study of Order in World Politics
Third Edition
Hedley Bull
Forewords by Stanley Hoffmann
and Andrew Hurrell
I
[
palgrave
© Hedley Bull 1977
Foreword tothe 2nd edition © StanleyHoffmann 1995 Contents
Index © Mary Bull 1995, 2002
FQreword tothe3rdedition © AndrewHurrell 2002
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy ortransmission of
this publication may be madewithoutwritten permission.
No paragraph ofthis publication may be reproduced, copied or
transmitted save with written permission orin accordance with
the provisionsoftheCopyright, Designsand PatentsAct 1988, Foreword to the Third Edition by Andrew Hurrell vii
or undertheterms ofanylicence permitting limited copying
issued bytheCopyrightLicensing Agency, 90Tottenham Court Foreword to the Second Edition by Stanley Hoffmann· xxiv
Road, LondonWiT4LP.
Preface xxx
Any person who doesanyunauthorisedactin relation tothis
publication maybe liabletocriminal prosecution and civil Introduction xxxii
claims fordamages.
The authorasserted hisrightto beidentified Part 1 The Nature of Order in World Politics 1
asthe authorofthisworkin accordancewith the
Copyright, Designsand PatentsAct 1988 The Concept ofOrder in World Politics 3
Firstedition 1977 Does Order Exist in World Politics? 22
Reprinted 6 times How is Order Maintained in World Politics? 51
Second edition 1995 Order versus Justice in World Politics 74
Reprinted 6times
Third edition 2002
Part 2 Order in the Contemporary International System 95
Publishedby
PALGRAVE
Houndmills,Basingstoke, HampshireRG21 6XSand 5 The Balance ofPower and International Order 97
175 Fifth Avenue, NewYork, N.Y. 10010 ~ International l..aw and International Order 122
Companiesand representativesthroughouttheworld Diplomacy and International·Order 156
PALGRAVEisthe newglobalacademicimprintof 8 War and International Order 178
St. Martin'sPressLLCScholarlyand Reference Division and 9 The Great Powers and International Order 194
Palgrave PublishersLtd (formerlyMacmillan Press Ltd).
ISBN 0-333-98586-9 hardback Part 3 Alternative Paths to World Order 223
ISBN 0-333-98587-7 paperback
This bookisprinted on papersuitablefor recycling and 10 Alternatives to the Contemporary States System 225
madefrom fully managedand sustained forestsources. 11 The Decline ofthe States System? 248
A catalogue record forthis bookisavailable 12 The Obsolescence ofthe States System? 272
from the British Library. 13 The Reform ofthe States System? 286
Copy-edited andtypesetbyPavey-Edmondson 14 Conclusion 307
Tavistockand Rochdale, England
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Notes and References 309
11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 Index 321
PrintedinChina
v
For Emily, Martha and Jeremy
Foreword to the Third Edition:
The Anarchical Society 25 Years On
Andrew H~rrell
The status of The Anarchical Society as a classic text is clear. It
provides the most elaborate and powerful exposition of the view
that states form amongst themselves an international society; and it
develops this idea as a powerful vantage point from which to
analyse and assess the possibilities of order in world politics. It
also remains a fundamental teaching text, not just as the exemplar
of.a particular position or as the representative of the so-called
English School;1 butalso for its capacity to unsettle established and
comfortable positions, for the clarity of its exposition, and for the
sharpness ofBull's writingand his intellect~alrigour. Clearly a very
great deal·has changed in the twenty-five years since the book was
first published. The first part ofthis Foreword links The Anarchical
Society to some of the main developments that have taken place
within InternationalRelations theory in this intervening period. The
second section sets Bull's approach and some of his conclusions
against some of the major changes that have occurred in the
structures and practices ofworld politics.2
The Anarchical Society and the Study of International Relations
Bull's importance in the academic study ofInternational Relations
has long been recognised, but, as Stanley Hoffmann suggests in the
foreword tOirthe second edition, precisely where and how his work
fits in is mote contested.
Rea/ism and Neorealism
Even a cursory reading of The Anarchical Society suggests BuB's
many affinities with realism, not least his emphasis on the role of
vii
VIII Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell IX
power in international relations and the fact thatthe 'institutions' of matter of fact an inherently normative phenomenon; it is
international s·ociety that he analyses in The Anarchical Society unimaginable apart from rules by which human beings recognise
include war, the Great Powers, the balance ofpower and diplomacy. what behaviour is appropriate to it and define their attitude towards
Indeed, in a very important sense, the balance ofpower remains the it. War is not simply a clash of forces; it is a clash between the
most important foundation for Bull's conception of international agents ofpolitical groupings who are able to recognise one another
society. Without a balance of power and without sustained and as such and to direct their force at one another only·because ofthe
stable understandings between the major powers on the conduct of rules that they understand and apply.,4
their mutual relations, then the 'softer' elements of international Similarly, even the quintessentially realist 'institution' of the
order (internationallaw, international organisations, the existenceof balance of power appears not as a mechanical arrangement or as
shared values) would be so many castles in the air. Bull also stressed a constellation of forces that pushes and shoves states to act in
the critical function of realist analysis - unmasking the pretensions particular ways from outside. It should, rather, be understood as a
of those who purport to speak on behalf of international or global conscious and continuing shared practice in which the actors
society and underlining the extent to which, even when shared, constantly debate and contest the meaning ofthe balance ofpower,
universal or solidarist values will tend to further the interests of its groundrules, and the role that it should play. Equally Great
particular states..Finally, Bull's idea of international society grew Powers are to be stlldied not simply in terms ofthe degree to which
outofhis veryclosecriticalengagementwithclassicalrealists such as they can impose order on weaker states or within their spheres of
Carr and Morgenthau and retained many of their concerns, espe influence on the back ofcrude coercion, but rather in terms of the
cially the relationship between power, law and morality. extent to which their role and their managerial functions are
Despite textbook stereotypes, a realist is not simply someone who perceived as legitimate by other states. Power remains central to
writes about states and believes in the importance of power. Bull Bull's analysis of international relations, but power is a social
did both of these things but did not see himself as a realist: 'I am attribute. To understand power we must place itside by side with
not a realist', he said unequivocally in a 1979 lecture.3 He other quintessentially social concepts such as prestige, authority
emphasised the extent to which the classical realism of Carr, and legitimacy. International society is therefore centrally con
Kennan or Niebuhr was rooted in particular historical circum cerned with norms and institutions. But this does not necessarily
stances. It was part ofthe intellectual temper ofa particular age- a lead, notwithstanding the influence of the seventeenth-century
period when conflict and anarchy was 'in fact the main ingredient in international lawyer Hugo Gr()tins on Bull's work, to a soft, liberal
I[nternational] R[elations] at the time'. From Bull's perspective, Grotianism concerned solely with the promotion of law and
both classical realism and, even more, its neorealist variant (as in morality as is so often mistakenly assumed.
the hugely influential work of Kenneth Waltz) pay insufficient The distance and differences between Bull and neorealism are
attention to the framework of rules, norms and shared under particularly clear: the international system simply cannot be viewed
standings on which international society depends. This does not solely in material terms as a decentralised, anarchic structure in
imply that norms somehow control the actions of states, acting which functionally undifferentiated units vary only according to the
upon them from outside. But it does mean that they shape the game distribution of .power. Central to the 'system' is a historically
ofpower politics, the nature and identity ofthe actors, the purposes created, and evolving, structure of common understandings, rules,
for which force CUll be used, and the ways in which actors justify n~r.rgs, llnd mutual~~pe<::t&tioJ;ls.Indeed it was the dornillance of
and legitimise their actions. Thus, on Bull's account, even conflict Waltzian neorealism in the 1980s and early 1990s that explains the
and war take place within a highlyinstitutionalised set ofnormative
relative marginalisation of international society perspectives in
structures- legal, moral and political. As he puts it: '... war is as a
thatperiod.
x Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell Xl
Neo-liberal Institutionalism
historical. On the one side, he arrived at his understanding of
international society by thinking through, in purely abstract terms,
On the face ofit one would expect a significantly greater degree of those essential elements that would have to be present for any
overlap and commonality between Bull and liberal or rationalist society ofstates to be meaningfully so described. But, on the other,
i~st.itutionalists. In the first place the object of explanation is he insisted that, however plausible this abstract reasoning might be,
sunIlar. The central problem is to' establish that laws and norms it had to be set against the cultural and historical forces that had
exercise a compliance pull of their own, at least partially indepen helped shape the consciousness ofsociety at any particular time and
dent ofthe power and interests which underpin them and which are had moulded perceptions ofcommon values and common purposes.
often responsible for their creation. There is also some degree of This emphasis on historicallyconstructed understandings leads to
overlap in teffilS ofhow rules and institutions function. Institution a second area of divergence: the extent to which successful
alists are concerned with ways in whichinstitutions make it rational cooperation often depends on a prior sense of community Of, at
for states to cooperate out of self-interest. They view norms and l~ast, on a common set ofsocial, cultural or linguistic conventions.
institutions as purposively generated solutions to different kinds of Rationalist models of cooperation may indeed explain how co
collective-action problems. There is certainly a good deal of this operation is possible once the parties have come to believe that they
killd of thinkiIlg ill B.'ull's work: the notion that states will further form part of a shared project or COlll1nUl1ity ill which there is a
t~7ir own interests by mutual respect for each ot~ers' sovereignty, common interest that can be furthered by cooperative behaviour.
b~.recognisingcertain limits on the.use of force, 'and by accepting But, from Bull's perspective, rationalist approaches neglect the
th~,:principlethat agreements between them should be honoured. factors which explain how and why contracting is possible in the
Bull recognises that interest-driven cooperation can indeed be built first place and the potential barriers that can block the emergence
onllobbesianassumptions and a contractualistand rationalistlogic ofsuch a shared project - perhaps because institutiollalist analysis
runs through much of his discussion of the institutions of interna has been so dominated by studies of cooperation amongst liberal
tional society.
developed states that enjoy a compatibility of major values and a
. ~et t~ere ~re also important differences between Bull and many common conceptualisation of such basic concepts as 'order',
InstItutIonalIsts. One relates to Bull's distrust of attempts to 'justice', 'state', 'law', 'contract' and so on. Yet so much of Bull's
understand cooperation purely in terms of abstract ahistorical work was concerned with precisely these kinds of problems - the
rationalism. Bull was concerned with the processes' by which constant fascination with the boundaries of international society,
~nderstand~ngof common interest evolved and changed through with the criteria for membership, and with the position of groups
tIme. DenyIng that 'Grotian theorists' had any great confidence·in that lie on or beyond its margins (infidels, pirates, barbarians).
abstract human reason, he wrote that:
Constructivism
~rotius a~d.other eXl?onents of the natural law theory certainly
dId have confidence In human reason', but the Grotian idea of Almost all constructivists make at least passing reference to Bull
international society later cam~ to reston the element of con and recent~writings have sought to compare Bull and the English
sensus in the actual practice of states, and it is on this rather School explicitly with constructivism.6 Constructivism is far from a
than on 'human reason' that(in common with other contempor unified position and is becoming ever less so. Yet a number of
ary 'Grotians') I rest the case for taking international society claims unite much constructivist writing on international relations,
seriously.5
including the view that international norms are constitutive as well
as regulative; the claim that norms, rules and institutions create
Standing back, we can see that Bull examined international meanings and enable, or make possible, different forms of social
society from two distinct directions, one analytical, the other action; and the idea that many of the most important features of
XlI Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell xiii
international politics are produced and reproduced in the concrete Other Approaches
practices ofsocial actors.
It is evident that Bull was deeply committed to the centrality of The Anarchical Society also needs to be related to two other
norms and institutions in international politics and to the notion important bodies of academic work: the history of ideas about
that society is constituted through diverse political practices built international relations and international normative theory.
around shared, inter-subjective understandings - that ''is, under Commentators routinely stress the importance of history in
standings that exist between and amongst actors.. Take, for English School writing - both the historical method and the need
example, his approving characterisation of the objectives of to historicise international society itself. But within the English
Diplomatic Investigations (one of the other classic texts of the School, and certainly for Bull, the history of thought about
English School):7 international relations occupies a particularly important place.
After all, Bull's three competing traditions of thought (Hobbesian,
Above all, perhaps, they saw theory of international politics not
Grotian and Kantian), which he took and developed from Martin
as 'models'or 'conceptual frameworks' oftheir own to be tested
Wight and around which the book is constructed, were themselves
against 'data' but as theories or doctrines in which men in
the product of one reading of how the history of thought on
international history have actually believed.8
international relations had evolved within Europe from the late
Equally Bull's core definition of international society higillights fifteenth century.
shared conceptions ofinterests and common values and the shared The .continued importance of this approach cannot be under
consciousness of being bound by legal and moral rules. estimated. The neglect of history and the relentless presentism of
And yet there are problems with trying to squeeze Bull into a Political Science are all too evident. Examples abound, as in the
constructivist mould that is too confining. He differs greatly from common belief that it was only in the 20th century that realists
the influential constructivist work ofAlexander Wendtin the much came to stress the importance of systemic forces; that Kant is
greater emphasis that he places on the actual historical evolution of merely an early democratic peace theorist or, worse still, a believer
different types of international society.9 Similarly he places more in pro-democratic interventionism; or that we had to wait until the
emphasis on international law as a concrete historical practice and arrival of constructivism to discover that sovereignty was ,a
set ofnormative structures which merit far more direct engagement constructed and contested concept.
than has been the case in most constructivist scholarsllip (aIld All human societies rely on historical stories about themselves to
indeed within International Relations theory generally). Although legitimise notions ofwhere they are and where they might be going.
ideas and language matter, Bull's philosophical realism distin For Bull,.a central element in the studyofInternational Relations is
guishes him from many of the more strongly reflectivist or about uncovering actors' understandings of international politics
discursive constructivists (and ·still more from post-modernism). and the ways in which these understandings have been gathered
Bl~.ll r~jected the notion that international relations could be ever into intelligible patterns, traditions, or ideologies. The past matters
studied solely in terms of shared understandings rath~r than in because of the changing, contested, plural, and completely un
terms ofthe interaction between material and social fact~. For Bull, straightforyvard nature of the concepts with which we map the
ideas mattered to the extent that they are ta.ken up and £lcted upon international political landscape.
by powerful states, and the relevance of particular norms and At the same time it is clear that contemporary readers of Bull's
institutions would always be linked to the underlyingdistribution of work will need to engage with the larg~ amount of work that has
material power. Finally, in contrast to more self~consciously b~enproduced in this area over the past twenty-five years. Thus the
'critical' constructivists, Bull believed that brute material facts study .of classical theories of international r~lations has grown
and cold power politics could act as a powerful check on both
the aspirations of practitioners and the methods ofthe analyst.lo
"' d )
xiv Foreword to the Third Edition
Andrew Hurrell xv
significantly; there have been important reassessments ofthe major
understandings of order and justice as they had developed within
traditions ofthought on the subject; Westphalia·has been demytho
and around international society; with the political and material
logised; and others have traced the evolution of the constitutional
·prerequisites of a meaningful moral community; and with the
structures ofinternational society and the revolutions in sovereignty
complex and often dispiriting ways in which the procedural and
that have taken place. And finally, there has been a very important
substantive rules of international society are connected to concrete
move into the area of 'international relations' on the part of those
institutions, to power-political structures and to ·the often very
working on the history ofpolitical thought and on the development
rough trade ofworld politics.
ofhistorical cQnceptsand ideologies- a move which has expanded
Thus, unlike most political theorists, Bull's particular contribu
immensely the degree ofsophistication in the study ofthe subject. A
tion is his insistence on the inevitably close links between the
good deal ofthis work.forces us to reconsidersome ofBull's specific
struggle for moral consensus and questions ofpolitical practice: for
claims (for example, his reading. ofKant).and even to rework quite
example, how particular nonnative issues are related to patterns of
radically his central theoretical category of a 'Grotian tradition'.
unequal power, to the coherence ofstates and state structures, and
But specific critiques andre-readings should not lead us to neglect
to the legitimacy of international norms and institutions. Bull's
the continued importance.of the history of thought in the way in
work suggests that many of the most pressing and intractable
which International Relations is both taught and studied.
ethicaldilemmas in the field ofworld politics are as much about the
Finally, it is importal)t to look briefly at the relation between
legitimacy of practice, power and process as they are about
Bull's.work and the explosion ofwriting onmoral and ethical issues
philosophical foundations. This is certainly not the only approach
in worl<ipolitics. Herethe cri~icismsof B.ull are often sharper..For
to the study ofnormative issues in world politics, but it remains an
the9ritics, Bull(and the English School more generally) opened up
important one.
a fertile realm of classical political thought but conceived of
'classical theory' in narrow and impoverished ways. The result
was to separate the subject ofInternatiol1.alRelations from the far
The AnarchicalSociety and Contemporary World Politics
rich~r traditions of political and social theory to which it is
necessarily intimately connected, and to downplay or ignore a
Formany readers The AnarchicalSociety appears outdated because
range offundamental questions about state, community and nation
Bull so often emphasised continuities between past and present. As
that could never be satisfactorily addressed solely from the
a resulthe seemedto downplaythedynamic forces atworkin global
persp~ctiveofthe society ofstates. Much ofthis criticism is clearly
politics and to fail to recognise the extent to which the system was
justified, above all, if the aim is to develop a normative theory of
moving decisively 'beyond Westphalia'. Factors such as the impact
international or world order. The range of intellectual resources
of economic globalisation and political democratisation, the in
available has expanded enormously over the past twenty.-five years
creased importance of transnational civil society, the increased
and anyone working in this area would very soon move beyond The
density, scope and range of international institutions, the multiple
Anqrchical Society.11
problems that result from the break-up of states and ethnic self
It is important to remember, h()wever, that Bull's own purpose,
assertion have developed to such a point that, for many commenta
while relateq, was a somewhat different one. The subtitle of his
tors, Bull's· narrow focus on the society of states is now wholly
book is not 'A Study of Order' but 'A Study of Order in World
inad~quateand outdated.
Politics'. What m.akes Bull's approach fas<;ilJ.ating,but also some
It is clearly the case that much ofDull's work was heavily shaped
times frustrating, was that he was interested in the relationship
by the concerns.ofthe Cold War and ofsuperpower rivalry; that he
between order as.fact and.order as value, and with.the.bridges~hat
was..openly sceptical about the possibility of radical change in the
have been, or might be, constructed between theory and practice.
character of superpower relations; that he gave very little space in
He was therefore centrally concerned with the legal and moral
his work to economic factors and forces; that, at least in this book,
XVI Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell xvii
he."expressed little interest in formal international institutions, contrasted with the complexities of the post-Cold·War world; and
including the United Nations; and that he was generally critical that the decline in state capacity has been overdone. Not only has
of 'Kantian' optimism about the spread and impact of liberal globalisation been driven by state policies but state retreat is
democracy - the set ofclaims that would subsequently develop into reversible and the power resources available to states are still
democratic peace theory. It is also clearly the case that The critical and distinctive - Microsoft matters but so, too, do the
Anarchical Society was intended as a defe.nce of a state-based marines.
international society as the best available means for the manage
ment of power and the mediation of difference. In response to Normative change and transformation
charges of outdatedness, four points can be highlighted.
A second point to stress is that Bull's primary concern was not with
Systemic Change and Transforrnation change·in generalbut with changewithin the international legal and
normative structure of international society. This is arguably the
One response is simply to see The AnarchicalSociety as providing a aspect of the.debate on globalisation and transformation that has
model exposition ofhow to think about claims for change. Bull did beenleast well developed. On one side, ideas about 'post-sovereign
not ignore challge but he did advocate sobrietyin analysing change. states' or 'multi-layered geo-governance' do indeed point to poten
He argued consistently that contemporary trends and features tially very importantchanges, but they are embedded in a discourse
which appear novel - from transnational corporations to the of transformation that is in· most cases extremely difficult to pin
privatisation ofviolence in the form ofterrorist groups or warlords down. On the other side, those who stress continuity within the
- look more familiar when approached from.. a sufficiently long Westphalian order often rely on such a one-dimensional view ofthe
historical perspective. E,q\lally,.b.~ sug;gestedth(it""e can gain llluch role ofnorms and such a very thin notion·ofthe legal order that it
from comparing the·.present with previous epochs ofchange- hence becomes impossible to make sense of the·tremendous changes that
his suggestive, if underdeveloped, ideas about 'neo-medievalism' have indeed taken place, above all in the period since 1945.
and of a 'neo-Grotian moment'. There are different ways forward. Thus some have picked up on
A further possibility is simply to view Bull's rather sober and Bull's dis;tinctio.n between pluralist and solidarist versions of
sceptical conclusions as a mark in the s.and against which more international society and have suggested t.hat., contrary to the
reGent work should be jl..ldged. P~clagogically. it makes great sense scepticism expressed in The Anarchical Society, a consensus has in
for students to read Bull alongside the many works of the 1990s fact developed around such expanded.normative goals as humani
that have stressed the idea ofsystemic transformation, especially in tarian intervention.12 Instill more strongly progressivist mode, but
the context ofglobalisation.. Which parts ofBull's picture still hold? still owing much to Bull's work, Linklater has explored how the
Which do not? And why? changing conditions ofglobal politics may be opening political and
But a final possibility' is to argue that he was often right to be moral spaces for the transformation of political community.I3
sceptical. Clearly his own arguments cannot simply be rePlayed and There are still other possibilities: for example, taking on board
there will be important differences of elllPP-C:lsis and of ~empiric~.l the degree·to which regionalism has become· an impbttantchar
application. And yet as the claims ofthe 1990sabout globalisation acteristic of co~temporary world politics but examining and
have been subjected to scrutiny. a.nd c~iticisll1, the pattern of comparing these.'regional international societies' within the frame
argumentation that we see in Bull's work and some substantive work of Bull's ideas and concepts. Or thinking through the notion
conclusions recur: that the historical novelty oCcurrent globalising of'worldsociety', whose importance Bull stresses but which IS left
forces has been exaggerated;.thai·there··was never.aneat 'Westpha underdeveloped ·in his work, and···.·the complex ways·· iIl··which
lian model' in which understandings of sovereignty and norms of international and world society relate to each other. Following this
non-interventionwere ¥able and uncontested and thatcan be easily line of enquiry might lead the analyst to consider the structure of
xviii Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell xix
rules, norms and institutions that lie beyond the state. Thus, ifone point remains: understanding cooperation will involve understand
set of legal and normative developments look to. an improved ing notjust clashes ofpower and shifting prudential calculations of
society ofstates united bya far higher degree ofsolidarity, another interest amongst the strong, but also the policies of weaker states
looks beyond the state, orat leastcomes to view the state within the and how their conceptions of international order and justice have
context of a broader legal and normative order. This image builds varied across time and space.
on many of the trends already· visible in the contem.porary The methods and approaches reflected in Bull's work retaintheir
international legal system: the pluralism of thenorrn-creating value today. They suggest that serious academic research may
processes; the role ofprivate market actors and civil society·groups necessitate less emphasis on the research tools of that mythical
being, the universal social scientist; less emphasis on metatheore
in articulating values which are then assimilated in inter-state
institutions; and the increased range of informal, yet norm tical disputation; and rather more stress on the linguistic,culturaI
governed, governance mechal1isms often built around complex and historical knowledge and resources needed to make sense ofthe
networks, both transnational and trans-governmental. Moves in variation of understandings ofinternational and world society in
this direction would involve a substantial reengagement with the different periods and places. Bull's call to look beyond Interna
changing·practices ofintemationallaw and with recent.work within tional Relations as an American social science helps explain the
that field - another·somewhat neglected legacy ofBull's approach. continued receptivity to his ideas outside of the United States and
Europe - for example, in Latin America and Japan.
elf/ture and Context This line of enquiry is partly about power: how far and how
securely are em~J.'"ging,revisionist or revolutionary states or groups
One ofthe most important features of Bull's work is his view that integrated within the institutions of international society? But it is
international relations could neither be understood nor studied also, critically, aboutculture. Culturaldiversity has alsolong been a
solely from the perspective of the powerful. What is so striking in central problem for all those who ask, 'How broad and how deep is
retrospect is not that he wrote under the shadow of the power international society?', 'How strong is the consensus on the nature
political and ideological conflicts amongst the major powers that of a desirable w'orld order and the means by which it might be
dominated so much ofthe twentieth century, but that he argued so achieved?'. Part of Bull's concern was with a procedural and not a
consistently that these conflicts represented only one dimension of substantive value consensus - the extent to which states have been
world politics. Thus, for Bull, the Cold War had to be set against able to create a shared framework ofrulesand by which clashes of
the transformations produced by decolonisation, the rise of what interests and .conflicting values can be mediated. But he was also
came to be called the Third World, and the clash between North deeply concerned with the impact ofthe expansion ofinternational
and South. Typically, too, he insisted that these transformations society beyond its historic, European core; and with the degree to
were part of a broader process of historical evolution that he which modernisation and increased interdependence were, or were
labelled the revolt against western dominance.14 not, producing a unified and unifying global culture. Here it should
As mentioned above, this perspective involved close attention to be noted that Bull did not believe that international society
the boundaries ofinternational society and the criteria for member necessarily rested on the existence of a common value system as
ship. It also led to a recurring line ofquestioning and argument accounts of;Bull's writing often suggest.I5 The role ofculture is an
that a durable.•..international society must···depend on a sense of empirical question to be investigated,·not an analytic assumption.
legitimacy, and that this, in turn, must reflect·· the interests and It is clear that Bulr's preoccupation with culture and cultural
value.s ofthe weakermembers ofinternationalsociety. Itis truethat fQrces is by no means outdated; there is a link here with recent
there remains a good deal of ambiguity here. Who needs to be debates on the degree to which globalisation involves powerful
accommodated? Only those capable of mounting a revisionist pressures towards homogenisation and convergence, but also
challenge or the truly excluded and powerless? But Bull's central towards resistance and backlash. It is also clear that, as the
xx Foreword to the Third Edition Andrew Hurrell xxi
international legal order moves in more solidarist and transnational back to the first-order political questions of power, values and
directions and as the 'waterline of sovereignty' (to use David legitimacy.
Kennedy's phrase) is lowered, so the political salience of societal More importantly, it cannot be overemphasised that Bull's
and cultural difference rises. International rules relating to human preoccupation in The Anarchical Society is not with world politics
rights, to the rights of peoples and minorities, to an expanding in general, but with the nature and possibilities of international
range ofeconomic and environmentalissues impinge very deeply on order. Bull never argued that states were the only legitimate objects
the domestic organisation of society. Divergent values therefore of study in world politics, nor that they are, or would necessarily
become more salient as the legal order moves down from high remain, in 'control'.. He was in fact rather pessimistic about the
minded sloganising towards detailed and extremely intrusive opera prospects for international society.. Thus, in response to a reader's
tional rules in each.of these areas and towards stronger means of comments on The Anarchical Society, he wrote in 1975:
implementation (through the proliferation of sanctions and con
ditionalities). Culture does not necessarily matter but difference and I am not sure that itiscorrect to say .... that in the book I see 'an
diversity do.. Understandings ofworld order vary enormously from international society emerging'. I think I rather argue that
one part of the world·to another, reflecting differences ill national international society exists but is in decline.16
and regional histories, in social and economic circumstances and
conditions, and in political contexts and trajectories.. The reasons for this decline have partly to do with the degree to
which the normative ambition ofinternational society has expanded
so dramatic(illy, and partly with the erosion ofits political founda
The State System and International Order
tions. Equally, he was perfectly aware ofthe potentially transfor
mative nature ofwhat has come to be called globalisation.. But he
At the core of The Anarchical Society is the question, 'To what waslesssure that thesellewelements provided anadequate basis for
extent does the inherited political framework provided by the order (or, for that matter, justice) within international society.
society of states continue to provide an adequate basis for world It is certainly the case that, even within its own terms, Bull's
order?'. Bull's writing can be related directly to the debates on conception of inter-state order was too starkly divorced from the
global governance that have been so prominent since the end ofthe social and economic structures within which states and societies are
Cold War. Much ofthis writing has been rationalistin method and embedded. It is also the case that, as is often noted, his work tended
technocratic in character. Institutions are analysed in tellliS ofhow to downplay political economy and his view of the state's capacity
self-interestedegoists overcome the many collective-action problems to direct the direction and scope of economic developments was
arising from increased interdependence and interaction.. States are strained, even in the mid-1970s.. Any contemporary analysis of
seen as competing with international bodies and civil society groups order and governance needs to place order within the state system
to provide cost-effective and efficient solutions to governance against the other two arenas within which all social order needs to
problems. In contrast, Bull's legacy points us ill two directions. In be understood and certainly social order within the context of
the first place, it suggests the need to focus l~ss on theoretical globalisatioI1:civilsociety on the one hand (including what is now
understanding ofhow·particular institutions or regimes emerge and termed transnational civil society), and economic markets on the
develop, and more 'on assessing the overall character of institu other.
tionalisation in world politics, the normative commitments of And yet it remains plausible to argue that these·alternativeglobal
different varieties ofinstitutionalism, and the adequacy of existing structures oforder are either weak(for example, transnationalcivil
institutions for m~etingpractic~land. normative challenge~.Second, society, especiallywhen~tcomesto the: management of social
whilst it is important to maintain the emphasis on norms, rules and violence and conflict), or efficient but unstable (as in the case ofthe
institutions, Bull's concerns highlight the need to shift the focus global economy). Yes, the past twenty-five years have seen an