David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

David Leahy Fitzwilliam College Is the idea of a society of states a contradiction in terms? 2065 words

David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

Is the idea of a society of states a contradiction in terms? In this essay, I shall examine whether the idea of a society of states is a contradiction in terms. It is necessary at this stage to define the terms that will later be integral to this essay. Firstly, a system: A set of regular interactions between identifiably separate entities, with boundaries between them and a common environment. Secondly, a society: A group of people joined in a series of interlocking relationships with a sense of commitment to their common welfare, and with some common institutions. Finally, a state: A territorial association of people recognised for purposes of law and diplomacy as a legally equal member of the system of states.1 To give an overall definition, which will be challenged in this essay, A society of states exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive of themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another and share in the workings of common institutions2 One reason why the idea of a society of states may be considered a contradiction in terms is that the individual actors, the states themselves, are all very different, not only in size and power, as these do not matter in the legal equality, but some have inherent legal and institutional advantages over others. For example, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have the huge advantage of the veto merely because they were in possession of nuclear weapons at a key moment in the formation of this institution. Therefore, it is clear that the inequality that is natural in states is not entirely eliminated by the primacy of common institutions, as these institutions are still dominated by the most powerful states. Another reason why some may argue that the society of states is a contradiction in terms is that the concept of adherence to the common welfare may well be at odds with the concept of statehood or the interests of different individual states. Robert Jackson summarises this position when he writes Every state has its own national interests which flow out of that particular situation and which may coincide with those of other states but need not. The national interest is not some kind of impersonal mechanism or process which automatically asserts itself in the relations
1 2

F.S. Northredge, The International Political System, p15

Bull, The Anarchical Society p13

David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

of statesas positivist international relations theory implies. It is a moral idea governing the conduct of statespeople: the idea that the nation and its population are a treasure which they have the responsibility to safeguard in the conduct of their foreign policies3 Although Jackson is keen to highlight that the national interests can coincide, although the important point is the possibility that they may not. Therefore, a society of states, where individual states are supposed to strive for common interests, can be seen to be a contradiction in terms because of the tendency for states to pursue foreign policy objectives based on their individual national interests. Indeed, the very concept of exclusive territorial sovereignty was designed to protect the independence of states from submission to what others might claim to be the common interest. As this form of sovereignty is paramount to what it means to be a state, the necessary submission to common interests in a society could be argued to be a reason why the idea of a society of states is a contradiction in terms. One further reason why the idea of a society of states can be considered a contradiction in terms is the necessary inclusion of non-state institutions in the society, the common institutions. The purpose of these institutions is to enforce or oversee the norms of the society, the rules. To do so, these institutions must command a great deal of significance. This may cause a tendency towards a centrifugal arrangement around these institutions, with individual states becoming marginalised via the power of the institutions. Therefore, a society of states, with common non-state institutions, can be considered a contradiction in terms, as the institutions become the focus of the society. Furthermore, two of the five institutions that Hedley Bull identified as key, indeed, as constituting, the society of states seem to fly in the face of the notion, making it a contradiction in terms. The first of these is war. It seems absurd that any society striving towards common goals could come to war. Although Bull attempted to explain that war could be a part of a society of states when he wrote: war is as a matter of fact an inhenrently normative phenomenon; it is unimaginable apart from rules by which human beings recognise what behaviour is appropriate to it and define their attitude towards it. War is not simply a clash of forces; it is a clash between the agents of political groupings who are able to recognise one another only because of the rules that they understand and apply4 However, this part of Bulls theory raises some difficulties. Although modern warfare is often fought between established states, the collapse of states during periods of war (for example the Russian Revolution in 1917, during the First World War) suggests that war is not always governed by the norms of a society of states. Indeed, a contemporary war, that of the so called War on
3 4

Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant p21 Recapturing the Just War for Political Theory, World Politics (1979) Hedley Bull

David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

terror, is not a war between states as defined by Northredge, and could not be said to exist inside the norms of the society of states. Therefore, the institution of war as described in the explanation of the society if states as offered by Hedley Bull can be considered to contribute to the argument that the society of states is a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, the balance of power as an institution is another element of Bulls account of the society of states that raises difficulties. Bull understood that: Without a balance of power and without sustained and stable understandings between the major powers on the conduct of their mutual relations, then the softer elements of international order (international law, international organisations, the existence of shared values) would be so many castles in the air.5 This is an area of difficulty, which suggests that a society of states constitutes a contradiction in terms, because Bull seems to attribute all the behaviour of states to rational self-interest. Therefore, while the existence of some cooperation may appear to be a macrocosm of human society, it is merely an extension of the security dilemma. Evidence of this can be found in the existence of international (and indeed, inter rival, in the case of the USA and Soviet Union) agreements on military matters, matters of sovereignty and trade, and yet when it came to matters not directly related to the security of states, like the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, the USA and China showed no willingness to sacrifice some economic prosperity for the common interests of other states. On the other hand, it can be argued that the idea of a society of states is not a contradiction in terms. To understand this argument, it is important to understand that ethics and international politics are not separate. Just as the actions of an individual in a group are judged against that groups social norm, so there are norms in international relations. It therefore vital to understand the importance of the normative discourse, described by Robert Jackson as follows: Normative discourse in international relations, as in any other sphere of human relations, operates by reference to certain assumptions and expectations concerning justified and unjustified conduct6 This notion, of justified and unjustified conduct, helps to explain how states, acting in their own interests, may not violate the wishes or territory of other states, as this would be seen as unjustified conduct, and would warrant a response from the society of states. Therefore, it is in the self interest of states to abide by the normative values of the society of states, so as to safely further their own interests. Therefore, the agent of the state can be

5 6

Andrew Hurrell The Anarchical Society- Foreword to the Third Edition (viii) Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant p6

David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

expected to act in a manner according to the idea of the society of states, meaning that the idea is arguably not a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, it is imperative to remember that Statespeople are human beings too7. Taking this as fact, it therefore becomes obvious that a system of norms, which one can expect others to abide by, and likewise one must also abide by, will necessarily exist. After all, without these norms, any activity, be it diplomacy, war, or any other of Bulls institutions, would have no established normative boundaries, and therefore would be unrecognizable. If these activities cannot be recognized, than there cannot exist interaction based upon them. Even realist understanding of international relations presupposes that states understand whether or not the actions of another state are beneficial or detrimental. Even following the logic of self interest, it is easy to see how states arrived by a normative discourse, where by that activity that can be considered detrimental to the current or future ambitions of states is deemed unjustified, and the opposite justified. This is the framework, or society, in which statespeople interact with one another. Therefore, not only can it be argued that the society of states is a contradiction in terms, it can be argued that it must necessarily exist. Robert Jackson summarizes this point, of the necessary existence of a normative framework, when he writes they are in contact with each other and must therefore find a reliable way of doing business. As a rule, people will do business only if they have confidence in their prospective business partners. Confidence is based on a reasonable expectation of reciprocity. What is true of business in that respect is no less true of politics, including international politics.8 One further argument why the idea of a society of states is not a contradiction in terms is that there is evidence of states fulfilling Hedley Bulls definition of a society of states (see above) in the principles and workings on the UN. For example, the organization embodies common interests and common values as demonstrated by the following extract from its charter: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace9 Furthermore, the existence, activities and general respect of the UN General Assembly is testament to the fact that states conceive of themselves to be bound by a common set of rules. By participating directly in an assembly Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant p8 Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant p9 9 Charter of the United Nations: Purposes and Principles
7 8

David Leahy

Fitzwilliam College

founded upon a charter of rules, to which all states are subject, states are acting in a manner according to Hedley Bulls definition of a society of states. In conclusion, it is evident that, at least in theory, a society of states is not necessarily a contradiction in terms, and certainly the existence of common institutions such as the UN, IMF and World Bank are testament to the possible real world existence of a such a society. However, the dominance of Western powers, and other nuclear armed states, and the blatant continuing existence of self serving power politics that is evident within these institutions brings into question whether the system can really be said to be composed of states which work towards common goals. However, despite these practical troubles, the works of both Bull and Jackson, and their acknowledgement of, and subsequent solutions to, realist criticism, show that, at least in theory, the idea of a society of states is not a contradiction in terms.