Hedley Bull And the Presence of the International Society - Essay Example

Hedley Bull and the presence of the international society Hedley Bull is among the most influential international relations theorists of the modern world mainly because of his contributions to the English School that supports the idea of a society of states influencing relationships between nations. Bull’s comment that the international society has been present is a most pertinent one and one would suggest that this system has been so from the beginning of state formation in human history. Not only is this comment true, but it also shows that even before the recognition of international systems by scholars, the relationships between states were based mainly on mutual self-interest as well as the need to ensure that chaos was avoided at all costs. The international society has been present in the world for a long time and it has been based on the actions of states to make sure that their principal interests are catered for while at the same time protecting their existence. Within the world political system, the international society has been in existence mainly through the influence of powerful states over weaker ones. From the time of the ancient world, it has been the norm for weaker states to ally themselves with stronger ones to ensure that their survival was guaranteed (Brown, 2009; Wohlforth et al. 2007). The need to safeguard themselves from their rivals made some states choose to lose some of their sovereignty so that they could be able to resist any hostile actions that were directed towards them by much stronger states. In the modern world, this is especially true of states such as Poland during the Napoleonic period when they chose to ally themselves with France in the belief that their freedom would be guaranteed. Poland essentially gave up its sovereignty to France in a bid to ensure that it was able to exist as a separate national entity within Napoleon’s empire. The ability of smaller states to ally themselves with much larger and stronger ones ends up creating an international society because the alliances that they form are often backed up by a set of rules that all the parties involved have to abide by if the alliance is to hold (Neumann, 2008; Watson, 1992). Since a set of rules will have been developed and agreed upon, it is often difficult for the states involved to go against them because it is these rules that ensure their continued survival. In a situation where a small and weak state chooses to violate the terms of an alliance, it is more likely than not that it risks being annihilated. This was especially the case with the territory of Palestine during the Roman period when its people chose to rebel against their long established alliance with the Roman Empire. Not only were these people brutally crushed by the military machine of the Roman Empire but it also spelled the end of their state which had enjoyed some autonomy under Roman rule. Therefore, an international society is one which is bound by the rules that have been set by the parties involved and the existence of such societies has been a factor of world politics for thousands of years. The world has been dominated by a need to ensure a balance of power so that the state systems that had developed could be protected. A balance of power was needed so that no state within a region could become more powerful than the others to such an extent that it brought about a threat to the other states in the region (Mearsheimer, 2010). Therefore, a more or less flexible international society developed whose purpose was to ensure that the balance of power was maintained. In a situation where one state took on policies, such as war, that were considered to be a threat to other states, the latter would form alliances against this particular state to ensure that it was dissuaded from pursuing its disruptive goals. Furthermore, in a situation where a state or a monarch was believed to be too weak to defend itself from an aggressive power, other states in the region would rush to its aid so that the aggressor could be brought under control. The balance of power that existed in Europe, especially during the rule of Louis XIV of France, as well as after the Napoleonic Wars was as a consequence of ensuring that the entire state system of Europe was protected against either aggression or the potential of it (Paul, Wirtz, and Fortmann, 2005). The European balance of power, especially between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, were much more unified because it was conducted in an environment where most of the countries involved shared a common culture and were essentially guided by an overlapping hierarchy that ensured that the system worked (Schroeder, 1989). Therefore, under this system, almost the entire continent was dominated by a single culture based on the shared belief in Catholicism and the authority of the Pope. The Pope, on the other hand, was the source of legitimacy for monarchs who in turn provided stability for the feudal system that was prevalent in the period. Thus, the balance of power in Europe was ensured through a governing system that involved civil and religious government whose authority sometimes transcended the state (Sheehan, 2000). However, in the modern world, the bid to balance power in Europe has resulted instead in the formation of a community and organs of governance that transcend the state and all members of the community have to abide by the rules set by these new form of continental government (Bachmann & Sidaway, 2009; Vogt, 2011). Throughout history, the international society has been developed through the willingness of states to ensure that they not only adhere to international laws, but also respect the international order (Best, et al, 2008). The willingness of states to adhere to international laws has been a longstanding tradition and its existence can be traced into ancient times. This was a period when great states formed their own rules of engagement through the signing of treaties and sealing them with marriage alliances and the exchange of hostages to ensure that these treaties were adhered to. The willingness of states to observe international laws was essential because they did so in pursuit of not only their mutual interests, but also in a bid to avert the consequences that would have come about as a result of the breaking of treaties (Wight, 2002). The fear that monarchs had for their relatives who had been taken hostage as well as their need to maintain family ties that had developed as a result of marriage alliances made it possible for states to respect international law. This is also the case today where most states have been forced to abide by international law as a result of their being members of the United Nations, an entity that was formed as a means of ensuring that there would never be the chaos that engulfed the world in the first half of the twentieth century (Hull, 2014). The willingness of states to follow international law as a means of securing themselves brought about international order which is a situation where states are willing to maintain orderly relations with others. The international order is a situation where a powerful state or a number of powerful states have the military or social capability to ensure that peace and security are maintained (Christensen & Snyder, 1990). This can either be through defeating those states that might disrupt the order in war, or ensuring that they use their influence on their allies or countries with which they conduct a lot of business to desist from activities that might ruin the balance. In this way, adherence to international law and maintaining the international order becomes necessary for most states because it allows them to safeguard their interests in situations that would otherwise be chaotic. Diplomacy plays a crucial role in the formation of an international society because it allows for the development of constant contact between the governments of different states. It is through the contact between states that it is possible for there to be a significant level of understanding between them and this ensures that issues that might bring about conflict between them can be resolved without resorting to violence. States that have diplomatic relations always have open channels of communication through which they can express their interests to each other in a manner that is not only based on understanding, but also in a way that provides an avenue for negotiations and consensus on different issues (Brown, 2006). Therefore, diplomatic relations are an essential part of the formation and preservation of an international system since it allows for the creation of structures and avenues that can be used by states to further their own interests in a peaceful manner. States that are powerful have the ability of exerting diplomatic influence over their weaker neighbours and this creates a situation where weaker states have to consult with and align their policies with stronger states in order to ensure their long term survival (Buzan, 2004). Diplomacy is what ensures that the international society does not descend to a situation where there is total chaos because of a lack of agreement between the parties involved within it. Moreover, diplomacy also takes place when the parties involved are already in a conflict situation and it allows for the parties, for example a government and a rebel group, to hold negotiations, both public and secret, to ensure that there is a peaceful solution. In this way, diplomacy has been an indispensable avenue through which the international society has been perpetuated for thousands of years. Despite its chaotic nature, war can be considered to have been an important factor in the formation of international society throughout history. This is because it is through war that the states that are going to dominate the international society over a certain period can be determined, as is the case with the constitution of the United Nations Security Council (Kelsen, 2000). The formation of states to hold sway over human societies meant that individuals or groups within them gave up their right to make war and this right was instead given to the state. As a result, the state can be considered to be an entity which is designed to protect the interests of individuals while at the same time ensuring that the level of chaos within societies is significantly reduced. Therefore, when a state makes war against another, it creates a situation where it attempts to ensure the dominance of its people within an international system (Lightfoot, 1990). Not only is the system dominated by the victorious states after a war, but it is this state that ensures that the system remains stable for the duration of its dominance. There are situations where despite a war taking place, no state is able to achieve victory, thus reaching a stalemate. Under such circumstances, both of these states take an active role in ensuring that the order is retained within the international society because long wars might lead to the collapse of the state. An example of such circumstances were the wars that took place between the Roman and Persian Empires, and later those between Ottoman Turks and Persians (Foss, 1975). For the most part, these wars ended in a stalemate and none of these countries was able to defeat the other outright. In conclusion, the discussion above has attempted to agree with Hedley Bull’s statement that the international society has always been a part of the world political system. The international society has been based on the actions of states to make sure that their principal interests are catered for while at the same time protecting their existence. In addition, within the world political system, the international society has been in existence mainly through the influence of powerful states over weaker ones. Moreover, throughout history, the world has been dominated by a need to ensure a balance of power so that the state systems that had developed could be protected. It is also essential to note that the international society has been developed through the willingness of states to ensure that they adhere to international laws. Furthermore, diplomacy plays a crucial role in the formation of an international society because it allows for the development of constant contact between the governments of different states. Finally, despite its chaotic nature, war has always been an important factor in the formation of international society throughout history as seen through the various conflicts between states that have eventually resulted in stable systems. References Bachmann, V. & Sidaway, J.D. 2009, "Zivilmacht Europa: A Critical Geopolitics of the European Union as a Global Power", Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 94–109. Best, A., et al. 2008. International History of the Twentieth Century and Beyond. London: Routledge. Brown, C. 2009. Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Brown, D. 2006. "Palmerston and Anglo–French Relations, 1846–1865," Diplomacy and Statecraft, vol.17, no.4, pp. 675-692 Buzan, B. 2004. The United States and the Great Powers. Cambridge: Polity Press. p. 70. Christensen, T.J. & Snyder, J. 1990, "Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks: Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity", International Organization, vol.44, pp.138–140. Foss, C. 1975, "The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity". The English Historical Review, vol. 90, pp.721–47. Hull, I.V. 2014. A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Making International Law during the Great War. Cornell University Press. Kelsen, H. 2000. The Law of the United Nations: A Critical Analysis of Its Fundamental Problems. New York: The Lawbook Exchange. Lightfoot, C. S. 1990, "Trajans Parthian War and the Fourth-Century Perspective". The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 80, pp.115–116. Mearsheimer, J. 2010, "Structural Realism", in Dunne, Tim; Kurki, Milja; Smith, Steve, International Relations Theories. New York: Oxford University Press. Neumann, I.B. 2008, "Russia as a great power, 1815–2007". Journal of International Relations and Development, vol.11, pp.128–151. Paul, T. V., Wirtz, J.J. & Fortmann, M. 2005. Balance of Power. New York: State University of New York Press. pp. 59, 282. Schroeder, P.W. 1989, "The Nineteenth century system: balance of power or political equilibrium?", Review of International Studies, vol. 15, pp. 135–153. Sheehan, M. 2000. The Balance of Power: History & Theory. London: Routledge. Vogt, S. 2011, "Germany and the G20", in Wilhelm Hofmeister, Susanna Vogt, G20: Perceptions and Perspectives for Global Governance. Singapore. Watson, A.1992. The Evolution of International Society. London: Routledge. Wight, M. 2002. Power Politics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Wohlforth, W.C. et al. 2007, "Testing Balance-Of-Power Theory in World History", European Journal of International Relations, vol. 13, pp.155–185, Read More