Chapter Two: Does Order Exist in World Politics

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Chapter Two: Does Order Exist in World Politics by Mind Map: Chapter Two: Does Order Exist in World Politics

1. Historical Narrative pre-modern states----modern states----international society

2. Views on International Politics

2.1. Hobbesian: REALIST. "State of War"

2.1.1. Pure conflict

2.1.2. Zero Sum Game

2.1.3. No morality or law only self interest

2.1.4. Limits to Power: Prudence/Expediency

2.1.5. Outcome: constant state of war

2.1.5.1. evidence: WW1 / WW2

2.2. Kantian: UNIVERSALIST "potential community of mankind

2.2.1. transnational social bonds

2.2.2. Non zero sum/cooperation

2.2.3. IR becomes irrelevant if we overthrow our weaknesses and focus on our common interests

2.2.4. Limits to Power: Moral Legal Imperatives to each other natural bonds- we are the same

2.2.5. Outcome: cosmopolitan society

2.2.5.1. Evidence: Communism/Anti Communism

2.3. Grotian: INTERNATIONALIST - somewhat of a synthesis

2.3.1. Against Hobbes: states are not in constant conflict bound by common rules institutions

2.3.2. Against Kant: sovereigns are the principal reality in international politics

2.3.2.1. States not humans are primary actors

2.3.3. Outcome: trade , "economic and social intercourse between states"

2.3.4. Limits to Power: Morals, Prudence, Expediency, Law

2.3.5. "what is required is acceptance of the requirement of coexistence, co-operation in a society of states'.

2.3.5.1. mutual rights/duties

3. Note: War can be objectively just on both side.

4. Who is included in World Politics

4.1. James Lorimers 20th Century Division of "Civilisations"

4.1.1. Civilised Humanity

4.1.1.1. Europe/America

4.1.1.2. "Full Recognition"

4.1.1.3. Today: Modern

4.1.2. Savage Humanity

4.1.2.1. Turkey/Persia/Siam/China/Japan

4.1.2.2. "Partial Recognition"

4.1.2.3. Today: Traditional

4.1.3. Barbarous Humanity

4.1.3.1. Everyone else

4.1.3.2. No recognition

4.1.3.3. Today: "Primative"

4.2. (UN) Bull argues that European and American Law is the basis of the UN "if contemporary international societydoes have any cultural basis it is that of "modernity" - expressed solely by Western Powers

5. The UN Charter

5.1. Based not on how states act. but rather how they should act- not based in political reality

5.2. Bull fears a return to "the tendency that prevailed in the Grotian era to confuse international law with international morality or international improvement

6. Yes. The reality of International Society

6.1. Modern system includes all three views of the nature of international politics

6.1.1. Hobbesian

6.1.1.1. struggle for power among states

6.1.2. Kantian

6.1.2.1. transnational solidarity

6.1.3. Grotian

6.1.3.1. co-operation, regulated intercourse among many states

6.2. contextual, geographical, temporal, situational for which each element at times dominates the other.

6.3. International Society has survived WW1, WW2 and the Cold War.

6.3.1. at no point in modern history has there been a serious contention to break into only warring states with no regard to the rules that bind us or the removal of diplomatic communications to facilitate detente

7. The Anarchical Society: is the international society disproved by the existence of anarchy among states?

7.1. Domestic Analogy: Hobbesian Intellectual Exercise : "States, like individual are capabile of orderly social life only if , as in Hobbes phrase, they stand in awe of common power. State of War

7.1.1. Bull Critique

7.1.1.1. 1. Modern states do not reflect the Hobbesian state of nature

7.1.1.1.1. a. RE: no agriculture, trade etc. the absence of a world government has not been a barrier to trade or human flourishing (on the contrary)

7.1.1.1.2. b. RE: no stable dominion is possible. Respect for property has always played a central role in the international society.

7.1.1.1.3. c. Here Bull gives Hobbes some credit: even in the absence of war, sovereign states will prepare for war, treat war as an option.

7.1.1.2. 2. False Emphasis on Supreme Government being able to motivate cooperation and coexistence among both men and states

7.1.1.2.1. Bull: no account for the reasons why men are capable of coexistence within a modern states without factors of reciprocal interest, sense of community, general will, habits, inertia.

7.1.1.3. 3. states are unlike individuals

7.1.1.3.1. states can flourish even when they are postured for war

7.1.1.3.2. states can guard itself from being subjugated

7.1.1.3.3. less vulnerable than men

7.2. State of Nature closer to Locke's state of nature

7.2.1. laws cannot be enforced perfectly, it is up to men /society to judge and enforce it. Society without central authority must judge his own cause : justice is crude and uncertain but exists.

8. Limitations of International Society

8.1. "the order provided within international society is precarious and imperfect

8.2. Bull takes issue with the emphasis that the "international society" is the most dominant element of all international events. For Bull, all three views exist.

9. Summary: Anarchy of states is tolerable - all elements exists in theory and practce.