Ie '2L l ... ' t .' I1 I tI I t '1 i IThe Anarchical SocietyAStudy of Order in World PoliticsThird EditionHedley BullForewordsby Stanley HoffmannandAndrewHurrell I[palgravePart 1 TheNature of Order in WorldPoliticsPart3 Alternative Paths toWorldOrdervii32251741xxx9597122156178194223309321225248272286307xxivxxxiiTheConcept of OrderinWorldPoliticsDoesOrderExist in WorldPolitics?HowisOrder Maintainedin WorldPolitics?Order versusJusticein WorldPoliticsTheBalance of Power andInternationalOrderInternational l ..aw andInternationalOrderDiplomacy andInternationalOrderWar andInternational OrderTheGreatPowers andInternationalOrderForewordtotheThirdEditionbyAndrewHurrellForeword totheSecond EditionbyStanleyHoffmannPrefaceIntroductionContentsPart2 Order intheContemporary International SystemNotesand ReferencesIndex10 Alternativestothe ContemporaryStatesSystem11 TheDecline of theStatesSystem?12 TheObsolescence of theStatesSystem?13 TheReform of theStatesSystem?14 Conclusion5~89Printed in ChinaHedleyBull 1977Foreword to the 2ndedition Stanley Hoffmann1995Index Mary Bull 1995, 2002FQrewordto the 3rd edition Andrew Hurrell 2002All rights reserved. No reproduction,copy or transmission ofthispublicationmay be made without written permission.Noparagraph of this publicationmay be reproduced, copiedortransmitted save with writtenpermission or inaccordance withtheprovisions of the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988,or under the terms of any licence permittinglimited copyingissuedby the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 TottenhamCourtRoad, London WiT 4LP.Anyperson who does any unauthorised act inrelation to thispublication may beliable to criminal prosecutionandcivilclaims for damages.The author assertedhis right to be identifiedas theauthor of this work inaccordance with theCopyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988First edition1977Reprinted6 timesSecondedition1995Reprinted 6 timesThirdedition2002Published byPALGRAVEHoundmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG216XS and175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010Companies andrepresentatives throughout the worldPALGRAVE is the new global academic imprint ofSt. Martin's Press LLC Scholarly andReference DivisionandPalgrave Publishers Ltd(formerly MacmillanPress Ltd).ISBN 0-333-98586-9hardbackISBN 0-333-98587-7paperbackThis book is printedonpaper suitable for recyclingandmade from fully managed and sustained forest sources.A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library.Copy-edited and typeset by Pavey-EdmondsonTavistock andRochdale, England10 9 8 7 6 5 4 311 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03vForEmily, Marthaand JeremyForewordtothe ThirdEdition:The Anarchical Society 25 Years OnAndrewThestatusofThe Anarchical Society as a classictext is clear. Itprovides themost elaborateandpowerful expositionofthe viewthat states formamongst themselves an international society; and itdevelops this idea as a powerful vantage point fromwhich toanalyse and assess the possibilities oforder inworld politics. Italsoremainsafundamental teachingtext, not just asthe exemplarof. a particular positionor as the representative ofthe so-calledEnglish School;1but also for its capacity to unsettle established andcomfortable positions, fortheclarity of itsexposition, andfor thesharpness of Bull's writing and hisrigour. Clearlyaverygreatdeal has changedinthetwenty-fiveyearssince the bookwasfirst published. The first part of thisForeword linksThe AnarchicalSocietytosomeofthemaindevelopments that havetakenplacewithin International Relations theory in this intervening period. Thesecond section sets Bull's approachandsomeofhis conclusionsagainst some of the major changes that have occurred in thestructures andpractices of worldpolitics.2TheAnarchical Societyandthe Study of InternationalRelationsBull's importance in the academic study of InternationalRelationshas long beenrecognised, but,as Stanley Hoffmann suggests in theforewordtOir thesecond edition, preciselywhereandhowhisworkfits in is motecontested.Rea/ismand NeorealismEvena cursory readingofThe Anarchical Societysuggests BuB'smanyaffinities withrealism, not least hisemphasisontheroleofviiVIII ForewordtotheThirdEditionAndrewHurrell IXpower in international relations and the fact that the 'institutions' ofinternational society that he analyses in The Anarchical Societyinclude war, the Great Powers, the balance of power and diplomacy.Indeed, in avery important sense, the balance of power remains themost important foundation for Bull's conceptionofinternationalsociety. Without a balance of power and without sustained andstableunderstandingsbetweenthe majorpowersontheconduct oftheir mutual relations, then the 'softer' elements ofinternationalorder (international law, international organisations, the existence ofshared values) would be so many castles in the air. Bull also stressedthecriticalfunctionof realist analysis- unmaskingthepretensionsof thosewhopurporttospeakonbehalf of international orglobalsociety and underlining the extent to which, even when shared,universal or solidarist values will tend to further the interests ofparticular states.. Finally, Bull's ideaof international societygrewout of his very close critical engagement with classical realists such asCarrandMorgenthauandretainedmany of their concerns, espe-cially therelationshipbetweenpower, law and morality.Despite textbook stereotypes, arealist is not simply someone whowritesabout statesandbelievesintheimportanceof power. Bulldidbothof thesethingsbutdidnot seehimself asarealist: 'Iamnot a realist', he said unequivocally in a 1979 lecture.3Heemphasised the extent to which the classical realismof Carr,Kennan or Niebuhr was rooted in particular historical circum-stances. It was part of the intellectual temper of aparticular age - aperiod when conflict and anarchy was 'in fact the main ingredient inI[nternational] R[elations] at the time'. FromBull's perspective,bothclassical realismand, evenmore, itsneorealist variant (as inthe hugely influential work of Kenneth Waltz) pay insufficientattention to the framework of rules, norms and shared under-standings onwhich international society depends. This does notimplythat norms somehowcontrol the actions ofstates, actingupon them from outside. But it does mean that they shape the gameof power politics, the nature and identity of the actors, the purposesfor whichforce CUll beused, andthewaysinwhichactors justifyandlegitimisetheiractions. Thus, onBull'saccount, evenconflictand war take place within ahighly institutionalised set of normativestructures - legal, moral and political. As he puts it: ' ...war is as amatter of fact an inherently normative phenomenon; it isunimaginableapart fromrules bywhichhuman beings recognisewhat behaviour is appropriate to it and define their attitude towardsit. War is not simplya clashof forces; it is a clashbetween theagents of political groupings whoareabletorecognise one anotheras such and to direct their forceat one anotheronlybecause of therulesthat theyunderstandandapply.,4Similarly, even the quintessentially realist 'institution' of thebalance of powerappears not asamechanical arrangement or asa constellationofforces that pushes and shoves states to act inparticular waysfromoutside. Itshould, rather, beunderstoodasaconscious and continuing shared practice in which the actorsconstantly debate and contest the meaning of the balance of power,its groundrules, and the role that it should play. Equally GreatPowers are to be stlldied not simply in terms of the degree to whichtheycanimposeorder onweakerstatesorwithintheirspheresofinfluence on theback of crudecoercion, butrather interms of theextent to which their role and their managerial functions areperceivedas legitimate byother states. Power remains central toBull's analysis of international relations, but power is a socialattribute. Tounderstandpower wemust place it sidebysidewithother quintessentiallysocial concepts such as prestige, authorityand legitimacy. International society is therefore centrally con-cernedwithnorms andinstitutions. But this does not necessarilylead, notwithstanding the influence of the seventeenth-centuryinternational lawyer HugoGr()tins on Bull's work, toasoft, liberalGrotianismconcerned solely with the promotion of law andmoralityasissooftenmistakenlyassumed.The distance and differences between Bull and neorealismareparticularly clear: the international system simply cannot be viewedsolelyinmaterial terms as a decentralised, anarchic structureinwhich functionally undifferentiated units vary only according to thedistribution of .power. Central to the 'system' is a historicallycreated, andevolving, structureof commonunderstandings, rules,llnd mutualIndeedit wasthedornillanceofWaltzianneorealism in the1980s and early1990s that explainstherelative marginalisation of international society perspectives inthat period.xForeword tothe Third EditionAndrewHurrell XlNeo-liberal InstitutionalismOntheface of itone wouldexpect asignificantly greater degree ofoverlapandcommonalitybetween Bull andliberal or rationalist In the first place the object of explanation issunIlar. Thecentral problemis to' establishthat laws andnormsexercisea compliancepull of theirown, atleast partiallyindepen-dent of the power and interests which underpin them and which areoftenresponsiblefor their creation. Thereis also somedegreeofoverlap inteffilS of how rules and institutions function. Institution-alists are concerned with ways in whichinstitutions make it rationalforstates tocooperateout ofself-interest. Theyviewnorms andinstitutionsas purposively generatedsolutions todifferentkinds ofcollective-actionproblems. There is certainlya gooddeal ofthiskilldof thinkiIlgill B.'ull'swork: thenotionthat stateswill further owninterestsbymutualrespect foreachsovereignty,certainlimitsonthe. useof force,'andbyacceptingthatagreements betweenthemshouldbehonoured.Bullrecognisesthat interest-driven cooperation can indeedbebuiltonllobbesian assumptions and a contractualist and rationalist logicrunsthrough much of hisdiscussionof theinstitutions of interna-tional society..et alsoimportantdifferencesbetweenBull andmanyInstItutIonalIsts. One relates to Bull's distrust of attempts tounderstand cooperation purely in terms of abstract ahistoricalrationalism. Bull was concerned with the processes' by which of commoninterest evolvedandchanged throughtIme. DenyIng that'Grotiantheorists' hadanygreatconfidence inabstracthumanreason, hewrotethat:.othereXl?onents of thenatural lawtheorycertainlydIdhave confidenceInhumanreason', but theGrotianideaofinternational societylater torestontheelement ofcon-sensus inthe actual practiceofstates, andit is onthis ratherthan on 'human reason' that (in common with other contempor-ary 'Grotians') I rest the case for takinginternational societyseriously.5Standing back, we can see that Bull examined internationalsociety fromtwo distinct directions, one analytical, the otherhistorical. On the one side, he arrived at his understanding ofinternational societybythinkingthrough, inpurely abstract terms,those essential elements that would have to be present for anysociety of states tobe meaningfully sodescribed. But, on theother,he insisted that, however plausible this abstract reasoning mightbe,it hadtobeset against thecultural andhistorical forces that hadhelped shape the consciousness of society at any particular time andhad moulded perceptions of common values and common purposes.This emphasis on historically constructed understandings leads toa second area of divergence: the extent to which successfulcooperationoftendepends ona prior sense of community Of, aton acommonset of social, cultural or linguistic conventions.Rationalist models of cooperation may indeed explain howco-operation is possible once the parties have come to believe that theyformpart ofa sharedproject or COlll1nUl1ityill whichthere is acommoninterest that canbe furtheredbycooperativebehaviour.But, from Bull's perspective, rationalist approaches neglect thefactors whichexplainhowandwhycontractingis possibleinthefirst placeandthepotential barriersthatcanblocktheemergenceof suchasharedproject - perhapsbecauseinstitutiollalist analysishas beensodominatedbystudiesof cooperationamongst liberaldevelopedstatesthat enjoyacompatibilityof majorvalues andacommon conceptualisation of such basic concepts as 'order','justice', 'state', 'law', 'contract' andsoon. Yet somuchof Bull'sworkwasconcernedwithpreciselythesekindsof problems- theconstant fascinationwiththe boundaries ofinternational society,withthecriteriafor membership, andwiththepositionof groupsthatlieon orbeyonditsmargins(infidels, pirates, barbarians).ConstructivismAlmost all constructivistsmakeat least passingreferenceto Bullandrecent writingshavesought tocompareBull andtheEnglishSchool explicitly with constructivism.6Constructivism is far fromaunified position andis becoming ever less so. Yet a number ofclaims unite muchconstructivist writingoninternational relations,including theview that international normsareconstitutive aswellas regulative; the claimthat norms, rules andinstitutions createmeanings andenable, ormakepossible, different forms ofsocialaction; andtheideathatmanyof themost importantfeatures ofXlI ForewordtotheThirdEditionAndrewHurrell xiiiinternationalpoliticsareproducedandreproducedintheconcretepracticesof social actors.Itisevident that Bullwasdeeplycommittedtothecentralityofnorms andinstitutions ininternational politics andtothenotionthat societyisconstitutedthroughdiversepolitical practices builtaround shared, inter-subjective understandings - that''is, under-standings that exist between and amongst actors.. Take, forexample, his approving characterisation of the objectives ofDiplomatic Investigations (one of the other classic texts of theEnglishSchool):7Aboveall, perhaps, theysawtheory of international politicsnotas'models'or 'conceptualframeworks' of theirown tobetestedagainst 'data' but as theories or doctrines in which men ininternational historyhaveactuallybelieved.8Equally Bull's core definition of international society higillightsshared conceptions of interests andcommonvalues andthesharedconsciousness of being boundbylegal and moralrules.Andyet thereareproblems withtryingtosqueeze Bull intoaconstructivist mouldthat istooconfining. Hediffersgreatlyfromthe influential constructivist work of Alexander Wendt in the muchgreater emphasis that he places on the actual historical evolution ofdifferent types ofinternational society.9Similarlyheplaces moreemphasison internationallawasaconcretehistoricalpractice andset of normative structureswhich merit far more direct engagementthan has been the case in most constructivist scholarsllip (aIldindeedwithinInternational Relations theorygenerally). Althoughideas andlanguage matter, Bull's philosophical realismdistin-guishes himfrommany of the more strongly reflectivist ordiscursive constructivists (andstill more frompost-modernism).thenotionthat international relationscouldbeeverstudied solely in terms of shared understandings than interms of the interaction between material and social For Bull,ideas mattered to the extent that they are ta.ken up and lcted uponby powerful states, and the relevance of particular norms andinstitutions would always be linked to the underlying distribution ofmaterial power. Finally, in contrast to more'critical' constructivists, Bull believed that brute material factsandcold power politics couldact as a powerful check onboththeaspirationsof practitionersandthemethods of theanalyst.lo"' d )OtherApproachesThe Anarchical Society also needs to be related to two otherimportant bodies of academic work: the history of ideas aboutinternationalrelationsandinternational normativetheory.Commentators routinely stress the importance of history inEnglishSchool writing- boththehistorical methodandtheneedto historicise international society itself. But within the EnglishSchool, and certainly for Bull, the history of thought aboutinternational relations occupies a particularly important place.After all, Bull'sthree competing traditions of thought(Hobbesian,GrotianandKantian), whichhetookanddevelopedfromMartinWightandaroundwhichthebookisconstructed, werethemselvesthe product of one reading of howthe history of thought oninternational relations hadevolved within Europe fromthe latefifteenthcentury.The .continued importance of this approachcannot be under-estimated. Theneglect ofhistoryandtherelentless presentismofPolitical Scienceareall tooevident. Examples abound, as inthecommon belief that it was onlyin the 20thcenturythat realistscame to stress the importance of systemic forces; that Kant ismerely anearlydemocratic peacetheoristor, worsestill, abelieverin pro-democratic interventionism; or that we hadtowait until thearrival of constructivismto discover that sovereignty was,aconstructed andcontestedconcept.All human societies rely onhistorical stories about themselvestolegitimise notions of where they are and where they might be going.For Bull,. a central element in the study of International Relations isabout uncovering actors' understandings ofinternational politicsandthe ways inwhich these understandings have beengatheredintointelligiblepatterns, traditions, or ideologies. The past mattersbecause of the changing, contested, plural, and completely un-straightforyvard nature of the concepts with which we map theinternationalpoliticallandscape.Atthesametimeit isclearthatcontemporaryreadersof Bull'sworkwill needtoengagewiththeamount of workthathasproduced in this area over the past twenty-five years. Thus thestudy.of classical theories of internationalhas grownxiv Foreword totheThird EditionAndrewHurrell xvsignificantly;there have been importantreassessments of the majortradi tions of thought on the subject; Westphalia has been demytho-logised; andothershavetracedtheevolutionof theconstitutionalstructures of international society and the revolutions in sovereigntythat havetaken place. Andfinally, there hasbeenavery importantmoveintothearea of 'internationalrelations' onthe part of thoseworking on the history of political thought and onthe developmentof historical cQnceptsand ideologies - amovewhich hasexpandedimmensely the degree of sophistication in the study of the subject. Agood deal of this work.forces us to reconsider some of Bull's specificclaims(for example,hisreading. of Kant) .and even to rework quiteradicallyhis central theoretical categoryofa 'Grotiantradition'.But specific critiques andre-readingsshouldnot leadustoneglectthecontinuedimportance. of thehistoryof thought inthewayinwhichInternational Relationsisbothtaught andstudied.Finally, it is importal)t tolook brieflyat the relation betweenBull's .work and the explosion of writing on moral and ethical issuesinworl