H. Bull Reflection

As Christine , Elisabeth and Jesse have already spent quite a bit of time digesting the 'order v. justice' problem (and making quite lucid arguments), I figured I'd venture to a different part of our Thursday night discussion: whether or not there can be multiple international societies within an international system, and how we might recognize an international society.

First, it is helpful to recall Bull's definition of an international society (or society of states). From page 13:

A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the working of of common institutions.

A problem, as uncovered in the class discussion, is that Bull doesn't specify whether this definition only allows for one over-arching international society or multiple international societies, and whether a state can belong to more than one international society. It seems to me, much like Monica and Christine, that the definition does allow for multiple international societies. Theoretically (and in practice) there are multiple 'groups of states' who 'conceive themselves bound by a common set of rules' and 'share in the working of common institutions.' One need not look beyond NAFTA and the EU to find two such examples of 'international society' as conceived by Bull.

Bull seems to argue toward the end (starting on p.294) that regional organizations are part of reforming the international system--that they would be separate from international society. To my mind, though, he doesn't really establish a rock-solid argument differentiating regional organizations from international societies.

So, if there are multiple international societies, could states belong to more than one international society? I would say yes, primarily because the UN is an international society par excellence, and the US, for example, is part of NAFTA and the UN. It seems to make sense that there are more limited international societies (eg. EU, NAFTA, ASEAN) and 'macro' international societies (eg. UN, WTO), and that states can be part of multiple international societies. Though this also begs the question of when a bunch of more limited international societies form a de facto 'macro' international society.

As an unrelated aside, I think in class Christine expressed what is perhaps the primary frustration for all of us with Bull's 'order v. justice' discussion: he leaves so much un-touched-upon, and seems to throw the chapter in to in some ways pay lip service to a criticism that was likely to arise. It is really too bad that he didn't live to write the corollary to this volume.