He went on to study history and philosophy at the University of Sydney , where he was strongly influenced by the philosopher John Anderson. In , Bull left Australia to study politics at Oxford, and after two years he was appointed to an assistant lectureship in international relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science LSE. In , Bull published his main work, The Anarchical Society. It is widely regarded as a key textbook in the field of international relations and is also seen as the central text in the so-called ' English School ' of international relations. In this book, he argues that despite the anarchical character of the international arena, it is characterised by the formation of not only a system of states, but a society of states. His requirements for an entity to be called a state are that it must claim sovereignty over i a group of people ii a defined territory, and that it must have a government.
|Published (Last):||3 May 2005|
|PDF File Size:||3.11 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Having said that, The Anarchical Society can be rather boring for the International Relations student for the main reason that Bull says little that is new, at least in hindsight. Perhaps my worst complaint is that, in painting a picture of his world, Bull sets forth definitions that he has carefully constructed so that his world will fit his definitions.
Reminiscent of Kant if I can remember back five years ago , Bull first sets out to define each of the terms he is working with — Bull seems consciously intent on forming a classic-to-be from the very start.
He spends pages discussing exactly what is meant by order, both in general and referring to the international sphere. It is here that he makes an important distinction between a system of states and a society of states.
An international system simply means that there are states which have contacts and dealings with each other 9. An international society, on the other hard, while presupposing an international system, share a set of rules an institutions Having made his point, this section is simply supportive and seems to almost be a distinct discussion.
The student of International Relations will find this reading useful, again not because of its novelty or profoundness, but because of its analysis. The Balance of Power and International Order. Bull makes a distinction between general and local balances of power, and dominate and subordinate balances of power A balance in the international system is a recent idea, originating in 15th century Italy The chief function of the balance of power is to preserve the system of states , That gives credence to the notion that international relations are at least in part socially constructed, and it makes for interesting thoughts about social conditioning in general.
The presence of international law in our current system of states is very much a product of the current system evolving from Western Christendom and its system of laws and values In other words, when states were first given the sole right to wage war, war was thought to actually reduce the violence present in the previous medieval setting.
This is in contrast to Halliday, who thinks it would have been because of ideological reasons He also points out the relative rise of civil wars after Bull describes the various ways in which great powers can contribute to order, but he clarifies? With the fall of the Soviet Union, have these territorial disputes have come to the surface? This is quite paradoxical; he seems to be saying that the great powers have inequality of power, which contributes to the international system, but that making these inequalities explicit would undermine international order.
This assumes on both sides the presence of weapons. For one state to become any sort of threat by expansion assumes that the state has the ability of aggression. To counteract this expansion, the other state s must also be armed.
Removing this variable, then, has the consequence of making a balance of power meaningless, because there would be no military power to balance In the real world, as Bull notes, any complete disarmament of the world is not an option.
Each state would still have the ability to increase its relative threat, if only by growing more trees from which to make clubs. Somewhat more realistic is the option of a higher entity to which all the states in the world would be subject. This could either present itself as a loose confederation of states entering into an agreement of cooperation, or the states could be fashioned in a similar manner to the structure of the United States, in which each state has some autonomy but power over the entire system is consolidated in one geographical area.
Analogous to farmers in Oklahoma sending hay to feed the Texas cows during the drought of , states would be free from a threat of aggression from other states, allowing them to freely exercise altruistic intentions. The formation of a world government is a more plausible alternative, since it is evident that such formations have taken place on a smaller scale throughout history.
Indeed, governments can be formed in several ways, mostly through conquest or consent. Herein lies a problem: plausibility does not necessarily begat probability, or even desirability. If we are seeking an alternative to the violence present or implied in a balance of power, a world government by conquest is hardly acceptable. On the other hand, the probability of the current system of states voluntarily forming a world-wide government seems as low now as it did to Bull in Another alternative to the balance of power is to revert to the worldwide situation that was found immediately before the rise of the current international system of states.
In the Middle Ages, the West was organized by multiple layers of authority, each of which shared sovereignty with the others. These layers of sovereignty were overlapping and were not supreme; authority was shared among rulers, the vassals beneath them, and the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor above A secular alternative to such an organization, in which multiple governments share authority over a geographical area, might be possible today.
Such a crisscrossing of authority could result in a more stable world system, reducing the inherent trend of violence between powers, since these powers would in many cases share authority This alternative is even more plausible than the others, since already it can be seen that governments are becoming interdependent in economics and technology, the United Nations is now a familiar part of world affairs, and Non-Governmental Organizations are increasingly prevalent.
Such configurations are plausible, already existing within the present states system, and should immediately make one question why in these areas armed conflict is not accepted by the parties involved. One would expect great interest in such a system that not only promises an alternative to balance of power politics but has even shown itself to exist in the contemporary states system. How can Bull claim that a world government would impede on the rights and liberties of an individual when a world government could conceptually be no different than a modern state, except that its boundaries encompass the earth?
Bull seems to sometimes needlessly duplicate alternative international systems in the discussion , Bull recognizes that the current state system is connected with modern technology and communication Bull says that, even if Western Europe formed some sort of super-state, that would only be a regional phenomenon But we can now see signs of a conducive environment for them.
I think this absurd. For example, if Pakistan and Bangladesh were thinking purely in terms of economics, they would not have split away from India and Pakistan, respectively Bull seems to want to claim the state system to be superior regardless. If alternative system is unlikely, he readily states it. Bull does present some ideas that even today in are actively being investigated in International Relations, such as the presence of order without rules through conditioning Bull comments about current events, such as his contention that the current United Nations Charter places international order at a higher priority than human rights Throughout, you will find his viewpoint very much in neo-realist camp, especially in his assumption that states are the main actors on the international stage 78, 81 , although his idea of international society seems firmly neo-liberal.
The Anarchical Society is therefore a major work not in its novelty but its extensiveness. It would not be incorrect to say that it is biased. It is true that some things are ignored. Sometimes it seems to twist a few facts a bit, and an many other places it seems monotonous and pointless. But its examination of the international system is useful and has its place in the evolution of international relations theory.
Should you read it in an International Relations course? If you have the time, go ahead and read it so you can say you have. Make sure you read Part 1, skim Part 3, and skip around to sections that interest you in Part 2.
And feel free to switch to something else when it gets boring. Fonte: Escolha dos trecho citados por Garret Wilson. Curtir Curtir. Este site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Pesquisa Pesquisar por:.
Compartilhe: Clique para compartilhar no Facebook abre em nova janela Clique para compartilhar no Twitter abre em nova janela Clique para enviar por e-mail a um amigo abre em nova janela Clique para compartilhar no LinkedIn abre em nova janela Clique para imprimir abre em nova janela. Curtir isso: Curtir Carregando Publicar em Cancelar. Privacidade e cookies: Esse site utiliza cookies.
Having said that, The Anarchical Society can be rather boring for the International Relations student for the main reason that Bull says little that is new, at least in hindsight. Perhaps my worst complaint is that, in painting a picture of his world, Bull sets forth definitions that he has carefully constructed so that his world will fit his definitions. Reminiscent of Kant if I can remember back five years ago , Bull first sets out to define each of the terms he is working with — Bull seems consciously intent on forming a classic-to-be from the very start. He spends pages discussing exactly what is meant by order, both in general and referring to the international sphere. It is here that he makes an important distinction between a system of states and a society of states. An international system simply means that there are states which have contacts and dealings with each other 9. An international society, on the other hard, while presupposing an international system, share a set of rules an institutions
Fichamento Hedley Bull - A Sociedade Anárquica