However it has been pointed out by other writers on the subject such as Edward Keene that while Bull’s ideas nicely describe the European state system, he largely ignores the relations between states outside of Europe. Indeed he argues that hierarchical forms of relationships between states e.g. Empires have been more prevalent throughout world history than the idea of sovereignty and mutual respect that are found in European international relations.
Before looking at international society in a contemporary context, I will first look at in a historical one, to both give us a better understanding of what we mean by ‘international society’ and establish is we have ever had one. The first manifestation of what could legitimately called an ‘international society’ was that of Ancient Greece. This is so, because Greece was not one state. It was in fact a made up of a number of city states, the most prominent of which being Athens, which were joined by a close geographical proximity, but more importantly a strong cultural unity. The cultural unity came through a shared language, religion, and a way of life, which distinguished them from their neighbouring countries. The international society of Greece links very closely to Bull’s definition of one; they were a group of states united by common interests and values. They too had a set customs and principles in the way in which they conducted their affairs towards each other; a kind of unwritten moral code that forbade acts such as surprise attacks on each other. However there was diversification between the states, each having a particular identity.
So can we conclude that Ancient Greece provided us with a fully fledged international society? Well possibly not. In some ways it was the purest manifestation of an international society we have ever had. They were in separate states, united through common values, and while each exercised diversity from each other, their shared beliefs and values were probably far more similar than we see between different states today. However there are too many points that indicate that it wasn’t quite as much of an international society as the above may indicate and what we understand as the term. For example, although all the states were all sovereign some were…more sovereign than other lets say. For example the more powerful states such as Sparta and Athens were not the equals of the less powerful states. Thucydides summarised their relations as follows; ‘To stand up to ones equals, to act with deference towards ones superiors, and to treat ones inferiors with moderation.’ Nor was their any conception of international law between the states and no state would concede any kind of obligation towards another. Its chief problem was the lack of a concept of diplomacy between each state.
Although Ancient Greece was the first state system that conformed to some of the ideas of what is known as an international society, it was not a truly one. Renaissance Italy however, provides us with another historical example of what could be considered to be a international society. Their versions on a city state were far more comparable to their contemporary counterparts than those of Ancient Greece; much closer to the modern idea of an independent state. The idea of diplomacy between the states developed further, each having a more independent political system. Statecraft became the prevalent form of relations between the states, as did the idea of each having their own ‘national’ interest. However the inability of the states to unite bother politically and militarily in the face of external threat was both their eventual downfall, and a mark against their legitimacy as a fully fledged international society. As was the fact that the Italian city-states preferred to take a very independent course of action on certain maters, and devoted more energy to pursuing personal ambitions rather than those of the international society as a whole. Whereas the main feature of the Greek states was their shared beliefs and devotions to a shared culture (in contract to surrounding countries that they considered primitive and barbarian) the main characteristic of the Italian city-states was their rivalries that their own strong and separate identities created.
So what of an international society today? Well looking at international society as global phenomena is a complex issue. Although all states in the world are considered (generally) sovereign, saying that all these states share common interests and values would be too general an observation. It clearly is not the case; there is simply far too much diversity within all the states in the world, for it to neatly fit into Bull’s description of an international society. There is also far too much disparity in terms of wealth and equality of opportunity between the richer and poorer states of the world. Compare this to the previous international societies that I looked at; in Greece all the city-states were linked by common values, traditions, language and in general a strong cultural unity. This was true also in renaissance Italy. Now compare the two states such as France and Israel. What cultural links could be drawn between two countries such as these? The diversity we see throughout the world in almost every aspect of life is far different than that not just of the Greek and Italian city-states, but of the European international society as well.
Today the idea of an international society is largely based on a framework of shared norms and values based on state sovereignty, and organisations such as the United Nations charter keep these norms in check. But as I mentioned previously, we do not have a real international society throughout the world as a whole. This can be summed up by taking the term back to its real roots of a ‘society’. By society we think if sharing culture and values, and working together for common achievement. So looking at it in a global scale I don’t think there is an international society. What sort of society would sit back and watch while atrocities such as those that took place in Rwanda, and do little to nothing. That is not what society is about, certainly not in my definition of the term. The only time when a country ever seems to intervene in so called ‘failed states’ or states where human rights violations are taking place is when they have something to gain from it, such as the US led ‘liberation’ of Iraq.
So do I believe that there is an international society that encapsulates the world? No I do not. The diversity in so many aspects of life in different states – not just of values and belief systems but also monetarily – prevents this from being the case. However I do not believe we live in a world devoid of any international societies at all. What we seem to have is regional international societies. Examples of which are Africa, Western Europe, South America. Groups of countries united both by geographically close proximity to each other and a common set of values, beliefs, religions and so on. I would include the United States of America with Western Europe in an international society. Though not common in every aspect of life, they share enough core values – the most common of which being a democratic system – to call them an international society. We have arrived at a pluralistic global society, with these regions split up into their own international societies, which still however must retain a level of statecraft between each other to ease international relations globally.
