6.4 - Anarchical society and the society of states

Anarchy and international society

The absence of a common ruler does not logically entail the absence of society. States can affect one another's calculations and also regard one another as participants in practices governed by shared expectations.

An international system exists when states interact enough that each must take others into account. An international society goes further: states recognise common interests, rules and practices in their dealings. Rival states may share an interest in preserving diplomatic communication or recognising agreements even while disagreeing over particular policies.

Hedley Bull developed this account in The Anarchical Society, first published in 1977. The publisher's account of the book identifies international law, diplomacy, the balance of power and great powers among the practices through which it examines order. Its central question is how a states system maintains order, rather than how it becomes one global state.

The theory accepts international anarchy. It does not claim that the UN has become a world sovereign, that states have identical interests or that cooperation permanently abolishes war. Instead, shared understandings can sustain a degree of order within anarchy. A state may recognise another's diplomatic status because it expects its own representatives to receive comparable treatment.

Sovereignty can therefore be a shared rule of society as well as a source of independence. States insist that others recognise their authority and generally recognise that authority in others. Recognition does not make practical power equal, and particular states may violate it. The theory investigates how far the common practice remains influential.

If you sit in 2027: Issue 3's glossary gives the society-of-states idea without naming its theorist. Issue 4 adds Hedley Bull. Both series include the substantive claim that a society of states can exist within international anarchy.

Norms, reciprocity and trust

An informal understanding can shape behaviour before a court or institution orders anyone to act. A norm is a shared expectation about appropriate conduct; a rule specifies accepted obligations, permissions or limits. Some norms are written into law, while others operate through established practice.

Diplomacy shows how the mechanism works. Governments need representatives to communicate with others, including rivals. If officials expect their representatives to be threatened whenever disagreement arises, communication becomes dangerous. Shared expectations of diplomatic protection allow messages to be exchanged without requiring friendship or one common government.

Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations protects diplomatic premises against entry without consent and places protective duties on the receiving state. This formal treaty is evidence of an agreed rule. The society-of-states approach also asks about the understandings and habitual restraint that make such a rule workable. Calling the theory concerned with informal understanding does not mean that every rule it recognises must remain unwritten.

Reciprocity means responding to another's conduct with corresponding conduct, such as respecting an agreement while expecting the other side to respect it. It can encourage compliance because a state values continued treatment in return. Reciprocity need not be an exact exchange of identical goods, nor permission to violate every legal obligation whenever another government does so.

Trust is a justified expectation about another actor's behaviour. Repeated compliance can build it; an agreed procedure can make conduct observable; a breach can weaken it. Trust need not be complete. States can cooperate cautiously by checking performance rather than simply accepting a promise.