Anarchical Society

I got the book on time and it was in good condition, so I was happy.

The concept of "anarchy" has enjoyed a privileged status in each of the two main schools of thought of IR, namely neorealism and neoliberalism -albeit in varying size and nature. I have always believed that this overemphasis on anarchy was unjustified and misleading. I think what is important is not the mere presence or absence of a governmental body at the international level, but rather whether any mechanism exists that functions against Waltz's assertion that "wars occur because there is nothing that prevents them" (1959, 232). In our modern global world, no state except the hegemon can get away with a "fait accompli" that will change regional of global balances of power. This simply means that every state except one has an "impediment" to behave like a "rogue" state. Thus, the absence of a material world government to punish the deviant states does not necessarily create an anarchic international environment, because the practical function of such a government is fulfilled to a large extent by the hierarchical nature of the international system. This is true for multipolar systems where there is a balance of power among major states as well. Throughout modern history, each state that sought a global hegemony found a community of others against her. Thus, balance of power has indeed been an ordering principle in international relations. I found my inspiration as to the "order" in the international system in the writings of some British scholars. Contrary to the central place of anarchy in the North American theories of international relations, "international society" thinking and its resultant emphasis on "order" has been a tradition in post-war Britain. "The English School" argued that there is a persistent order in the international system alongside "anarchy" and that the preservation of a minimal order has been a common objective of the major members of the international system. Hedley Bull was one of the most influential scholars within the English School. In his The Anarchical Society he defines order in international system as "a pattern or activity that sustains the elementary or primary goals of the society of states," (p. 8). In further elaboration, he lists these goals as 1) the preservation of the system and society of states itself, 2) maintaining the sovereignty of states, 3) maintaining peace, and 4) sustaining the elementary goals of the individual, i.e. life, truth, and property (pp. 16-18). He argues that the maintenance of order is a common goal of states, because -whatever the further goals of states- the existence of a minimal order is a necessary condition to achieve these higher goals. Like individuals, states value order because they value "the greater predictability of human behavior" that comes as the consequence of conformity to the elementary or primary goals of states (p. 7). According to Bull, "balance of power" is the primary and most effective instrument for the maintenance of international order.

It was wonderful. I've never read something like that. I advise everyone to read it. Thank you.