Hedley Bull

In 1999 NATO launched an air campaign against Serbia in order to force the withdrawal of Serbian forces and stop the onslaught against Kosovo-Albanians in the Serbian province Kosovo. The United Nations Security Council did not mandate the NATO operation, thus constituting an illegal aggression against Serbia according to international law. Yet, NATO persisted on the grounds of preventing a humanitarian disaster. The intervention thereby constituted a struggle between the need to preserve international order through respect of state sovereignty, and the pursuit of justice through the protection of individuals from repressive regimes.
In 2008, following nine years of international administration – but still officially a part of Serbia, Kosovo made a unilateral declaration of independence, which immediately was recognized by numerous Western states. Again the stage was set for a struggle between order and justice – between the need to respect state sovereignty and allowing a people to determine its own fate.
Arguing that the West’s unilateral intervention in 1999 and recognition of Kosovo in 2008 have caused an erosion of the international order, this paper uses a postdictive and qualitative research method to evaluate how the different institutions within Hedley Bull’s international order framework have been affected by the events in Kosovo. This paper concludes that the international order have been significantly weakened by the conduct of the West during the evolving Kosovo events.

A despeito de toda a retórica, o pilar fundamental da perspectiva de Hedley Bull e de seus prognósticos sobre a política mundial repousa na defesa intransigente da soberania estatal como o alicerce básico da ordem mundial contemporânea. No entanto, pela erudição, versatilidade e abrangência de sua obra, trata-se de um autor de relevância fundamental para as Relações Internacionais. O objetivo básico deste artigo, no entanto, é destacar um aspecto que nem sempre se ressalta: a peculiar incursão de Hedley Bull pela antropologia social, particularmente no que diz respeito à análise da anarquia como elemento ordenador das (mal) chamadas “sociedades sem Estado”.

In this final chapter of Part Two, the author addresses arguably the central
stumbling block for those who would enlarge international society to incorporate
elements of world society, alternative levels of analysis, and subject matters:
namely, the problem of order. He argues that a concern with order, in its
methodological, theoretical, and empirical guises, is the principal feature of the
understanding of international society by the English School of International
Relations. While order may endorse methodological pluralism, the author argues
that the approach does not embrace it and has powerful canons that structure
its work, one being the requirement that to count as valid knowledge about
international society, a piece of work must begin by referring to the established
fathers of the tradition. This preoccupation with order carries over into the
empirical and theoretical work conducted by those associated with the School,
and the author attempts to critique this by challenging the assumption, central
to English School theorizing since Henry Bull, that a degree of order is
necessary for the achievement of social goods. Instead, he argues that an overpreoccupation with order can serve the cause of oppression, and therefore
insists that progressive change tends to come about through periods of disorder.

Come mantenere l’ordine nella politica mondiale è il problema che si pone Hedley Bull, politologo australiano, nella sua indagine effettuata durante gli anni Settanta e riproponibile nell’era globalizzata. Non un’apologia del sistema degli Stati, bensì un’analisi comprensiva, lungimirante e precisa delle dinamiche internazionali. Manifesto della Scuola Inglese di Relazioni Internazionali, “La società anarchica” è ormai un testo classico.

Uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinin altında özerk bir teori olması ve temsilcilerinin düşüncelerini anlatması bakımından İngiliz okulu teorisi hakkında kısa bilgiler içermektedir. Bu çalışma, Uluslararası İlişkilerde Temel Metinler dersi için hazırladığım sunumun taslağıdır. Keyifli okumalar dilerim.

Frequently inspired by the spectre of existential risk, Australian IR scholars have made – and continue to make – a crucial contribution to the evolution of normative IR theory.  In defending this position, this article takes three steps.  First, it outlines key catalysts that prompted the emergence of this sub-field as a distinct and self-aware area of study approximately forty years ago and refines the story of its genesis by recognising pioneering Australian contributions.  Second, it turns to the previous generation of Australian IR to explore the work of two prominent scholars – and ‘neglected antecedents’ – who both prefigured and helped to establish the intellectual context for normative IR theory.  Specifically, it focuses on the scholarship of Coral Bell and Hedley Bull and maintains that the classical approach and interpretive methodology that their work exemplified and fostered was particularly conducive to the subsequent development of a sub-field focused on questions of international ethics.  Finally, this article contemplates the future of normative IR theory in Australia by highlighting its current flourishing, acknowledging the seemingly intractable practical challenges that it must address, and proposing that it might better confront them by turning to a hitherto overlooked Australian ethical perspective.

Phd thesis, University of Birmingham, 2014.

This dissertation seeks to contribute an English School theory of legitimate supranational systems to the literature. It places the legitimacy question of such systems around the School’s key concepts of international and world society, and examines the three different interrelationships of these concepts as proposed by the School within the context of the European Union. In the empirical section, a critical moment in the history of European integration, the drafting of the Constitutional Treaty (2002-3), is analyzed with a view to determining which particular interrelationship best fits our theoretical frameworks. It concludes by suggesting that while the moralistic perspective within the English School is superior to the culturalist and communitarian alternatives; even this does not offer a full scheme to understand the process of building legitimate supranational systems. The main problem, the study contends, is the omission of the state in the School’s theoretical framework, and, to that end, Neo-Weberian approaches into the nature of the state need to be injected into the English School account for a thorough picture of how and why a supranational system becomes legitimate to its members. Through this Neo-Weberian link, the thesis achieves its purpose of formulating a more coherent English School approach to legitimate supranational systems.

Cyberspace is erroneously characterized as a domain that transcends physical space and thereby is immune to state sovereignty and resistant to international regulation. The purpose of this paper is to signify that cyberspace, in common with the other four domains (land, sea, air and outer space) and despite its unique characteristics, is just a reflection of the current international system, and thereby is largely affected by the rules that characterize it. The issue of state sovereignty in cyberspace is critical to any discussion about future regulation of cyberspace. Although cyberspace is borderless and is characterized by anonymity and ubiquity, recent state practices provide sufficient evidence that cyberspace, or at least some components of it, are not immune from sovereignty. The increasing use of Internet filtering techniques by both authoritarian regimes and democracies is just the latest example of attempting to control information flows. Cyberspace is non‐territorial, but in sharp contrast to the land, sea, air and outer space, cyberspace is not a part of nature, it is human‐made and therefore can be unmade and regulated. States have continuously emphasized their right to exercise control over the cyber‐infrastructure located in their respective territory, to exercise their jurisdiction over cyberactivities on their territory, and to protect their cyber‐infrastructure against any trans‐border interference by other states or by individuals. As a result, states are filtering and monitoring cyber‐bytes. Over the past years, there is a growing number of states that is publishing national cyber‐policies and establishing cyber‐centers that aim to protect the national cyber‐infrastructure and control their citizens’ access to information. The issue of state sovereignty in cyberspace raises critical questions about the need to regulate the cyber domain and gradually reach an international cyber‐order.

The dialectical contraposition between East and West is a topos of modern thought and the debate is still enraged. Is the dichotomy nowadays valid? Or are these concepts definitively obsolete? Is globalization blowing away this contraposition? Moreover, if East and West are fading away, is there the possibility of a Third? The dialogue between Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt, collected in The Gordian Knot, offers a precious insight and suggests the possibility of a different interpretation of the connection between East and West.

Most scholars are inclined to assume that the diplomatic practices of the European Union’s member states
remain fundamentally unchanged. The EU’s Council of Ministers is accordingly seen as a setting where sovereign states speak with one another. Yet if state interaction in the EU is only viewed from this perspective, a number of important qualitative changes will remain underexposed. Th is article argues that leading
political forces in the European states have come to view their nations as anchored so deeply within the supranational institutions of the EU that their diplomats merge the promotion of national interests with those of the Union. In this late sovereign phase of diplomacy, political and legal authorities overlap,
territorial exclusivity is replaced with functional boundaries, and states begin to speak with one voice. The article explores three interlinked aspects of late sovereign diplomacy: the teleological interpretation of the EC and EU treaties; the intense socialization of state representatives; and the negotiation process, which promotes national positions as part of a European cause, thereby delocalizing the national interest.
While the EU has not rendered national diplomacy obsolete, it has profoundly changed its meaning and consequences.

States change their interests, to the extent that they change internal demands as well. Therefore,  reflecting this changes on international law, such changes make international law lose its effectiveness by reflection. The new international order imposed  by the WW II, makes its balance change gradually from military competition to economic competition. States over the past have been creating norms and obligations in order to regulate their relationship.

At the end of the twentieth century the triumph of capitalism and liberal democracy seemed so complete that Hegel's spectre of the end of history was raised. However, the 2008 financial crisis and, more acutely, the threat of Islamism has shaken such complacency so that John Milbank and Adrian Pabst speak of liberalism in metacrisis. The solution to the problem (which is a composite of left wing social and right wing economic liberalism) is in line with the theological position of Radical Orthodoxy: a post-liberal politics of virtue. Liberalism is rooted in an anthropology that the authors believe is bound to self-destruct, whether this is through the Hobbesian idea that man is in a war of all against all or the Lockean anthropology of man as a self-owning animal. Although these doctrines are false, they are self-fulfilling and tend to bring about the triumph of vice over virtue. We must look, rather, to Aristotle's zoon politikon as expanded by Aquinas for a new " settlement " based on sharing risk, responsibilities, and resources. Noting that this may be deemed unrealistic the authors challenge the very idea of realism (as amoral pragmatism). Although they do not use the term their idea seems to be that the experiment of history vindicates true realism, the rejection of ethics being ultimately unsustainable. The structure of the book is clear enough. In five sections (on politics, economics, polity, culture, and international relations) the metacrisis is first diagnosed and then the post-liberal alternative prescribed. I shall focus on the ninth chapter diagnosing the international crisis. I found the argument difficult to follow at times, possibly because of the paradoxical situation that I take the authors to be addressing, namely, that on the one hand liberalism is a reality, one that is in crisis and that needs replacing, and on the other hand, post-liberalism is already upon us in many ways, often negative. What is clear is the conviction that medieval Christendom in some sense represents a positive and viable model for the way ahead. The chapter on " The Metacrisis of the Nations " opens with a section on the Battle against Barbarism focussing on the rise of ISIS. Whilst it is conceded that the Western carving up of the Ottoman Empire was partly responsible for the rise of Islamism, the authors point to the longevity of Sunni-Shiite hostilities, and obviously think that even if ISIS is defeated in the near future it is quite possible that a successor may arise soon after. The significance is broached in the next section on Liberal Hegemony: it seems to give the lie to democratic peace theory whereby the sovereign state automatically ushers in civilisation. The authors attribute this to a contradiction within liberalism itself: although officially anti-imperial, Woodrow Wilson's project extended what in effect is an American Empire. However, despite the crisis, this world order looks as though it will be around some time and so the authors moot the idea of " international society " formulated by the English school of IR. Still, Western power is on the wane, indeed, the liberal order is in metacrisis. This is attributed to internal contradictions that stem ultimately from atheism. The experiment of history, so to speak, vindicates prophets such as Fyodor Dostoevsky (" Without God, everything is permitted ") insofar as ethics is more and more reduced to power politics. Christopher Dawson, too, is invoked as pinpointing the internal contradictions. On the one hand, modernity inherently globalises and tends to release great energies, but on the other hand it tends to break down the bonds that draw humankind together. Unsurprisingly we see a lack of vision by Western leaders, and a paralysis in their foreign policy.

The pluralist-solidarist debate in English School theory focuses on discerning the kind of international society in which we live. This article critically analyses the debate in order to highlight the overgeneralizations that have been built by several scholars during the last decades. From the end of the Cold War, both pluralism and solidarism trivialised the enduring tension between order and justice in world politics, which is described in the seminal works of Hedley Bull. Pluralists maintained the primacy of states, the rule of non-intervention, and the unchanging structure of the Westphalian system, while solidarists affirmed the role of human rights, the case of intervention, and the advent of world society. This article refutes the procedural or teleological purposes that these two normative wings of English School describe as mutually incompatible. Building upon insights by Bull, I argue that the pluralist elements and solidarist ones survive inextricably tied also in contemporary international society.

An increasing number of political analysts, IR theorists and international law scholars are wondering whether the present era of international relations is still modern, or rather something different from the Westphalian epoch of territorially sovereign states. The latter case turned up a more convincing hypothesis for seizing the global trends in international policy, marked by the waning of state-centric order through pressing drives from the above and the below. Since 1977, Hedley Bull’s category of “neo-medievalism” provided a useful, as well as intriguing, metaphor to explain the ongoing erosion of State sovereignty. This article aims to cast light on the explanatory power of this “neo-medieval” metaphor, assessing a scattered literature on this topic appeared until now, and suggesting its new hermeneutic implications.

Polarity is an often used and yet frequently under-analyzed term in International Relations. It is designed in its usage to shed light on the distribution of power in the global system. This paper seeks to understand the order of the world at the systemic level in a descriptive manner while recognizing the challenges that arise from attempting to do so. It comes to the conclusion that the hierarchical structure remains unipolar in form-dominated both materially and ideationally by the United States. Moreover, this unipolarity is likely to continue over the next half a century and see a whole host of nations become more and more organized under the direction of one global power. Whether or not this is desirable remains to be seen.

Bu çalışmada, İngiliz Okulu’nun, kurucuları olarak kabul edilen düşünürlerin perspektifleri, kuramın üzerine bina edildiği argümanlar, metodolojisi ve ontolojisi incelenecektir. Kuramdan, bir analiz aracı olarak faydalanılabilmesi için İngiliz Okulu’nun, Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) yazınına en özgün katkısı olan, ilkçağlardan aldığı mirasla birlikte evrilerek gelişen “uluslararası toplum” kavramı tartışılacaktır. Kavram, uluslararası sistemin anarşik yapısının işleyişini açıklamaktadır. Kurucu düşünürlerden sonra, İngiliz Okulu yazarları normatif ve yapısalcı kanatlara ayrılmıştır. Çalışmanın kapsamının sınırlandırılması amacına yönelik olarak söz konusu yazarlardan ve tartışmalardan kısaca bahsedilecektir. Uluslararası toplum içinde uluslararası hukuk, diplomasi ve güç siyaseti kurumlarının evriminin, günümüz uluslararası sisteminin
oluşmasındaki etkileri ortaya konulacaktır.

In this paper, the perspectives of the thinkers who are regarded as the founders of the English School are examined. In doing so, arguments, methodology and ontology on which the theory of the English School
based will be explored. In order to represent the theory as an analytical tool, the concept of “international society”, which was the most authentic contribution of the English School to the International Relations literature, and which was evolved with the legacy of the antiquity, will be discussed. The concept explains how the anarchical structure of the international system operates. After its founding thinkers, the followers of the English School divided into two wings as normative writers and structural writers. The writers in question and debates around the English School will be mentioned shortly to narrow down the scope of the paper. Within the international society, the affects of the evolution of the international law, diplomacy and power policy institutions on the formation of the today’s international system will be displayed.

Hedley Bull, politologo australiano, ne "La società anarchica" si pone il problema di come mantenere l'ordine nella politica mondiale data la condizione di anarchia vigente tra gli stati. Il titolo del testo è un ossimoro. È una teoria dell'ordine internazionale. Il percorso che fa attraverso il testo può essere considerato una "via media"; è un'opera sperimentale e originale. Pone l'accento sulla questione ambientale e termina con un'ampia parentesi sul tema della giustizia.

There has been a recent renewal of interest in aspects of the political theory of Johannes Althusius (1563-1638), particularly in the realm of European Studies. The mainstream treatment leans toward the position that Althusius may be counted as one of the founding fathers of modern federalism. Whilst this paper does not completely dismiss such view, it also points out to other aspects of Althusian theory that are of crucial importance for its contextualised understanding. These neglected aspects are also of a considerable interest to contemporary thinking on issues of globalisation, coexistence and political plurality. I suggest that, if we take both sides together – pluralism and federalism – we may be able to find more contemporary relevance to Althusian political thought than is usually expected from the prevailing interpretations. Of peculiar importance is the way Althusius connects deep philosophical assumptions of unity and diversity to their application in a pluralistic political ontology. It is pointed out that much of the distortion that occurs in alternative ideological models that attempt to account for globalisation and political systems in general, both domestic and international, stem from reductionistic ontologies. Althusian pluralism, on the other hand, avoids similar intellectual pitfalls, as well as their potential or actual political distortions. The resulting agenda is that of an interpretation of global politics that sees the nation-state as simply one manifestation of political association between many other possibilities, including non-public associations operating both at transnational and localised levels.

O objetivo deste artigo é discutir uma eventual coerência ou
ecletismo da teoria crítica das Relações Internacionais conforme a
abordagem de Robert W. Cox no tocante a suas aproximações com o
realismo e o liberalismo. No tocante à primeira perspectiva, um autor
da Escola Inglesa, mas também associado ao realismo, Hedley Bull,
é objeto da presente reflexão. Outro autor central para este texto é
Antonio Gramsci, do qual Cox se valeu para vários pontos importantes
de sua formulação teórica. A hipótese central que norteia a exposição
é de que a teoria crítica coxiana não consegue superar ou formular
totalmente uma alternativa teórica às abordagens tributárias ou
ligadas ao realismo e ao liberalismo.

The purpose of this article is to discuss a possible coherence
and eclecticism of critical theory of International Relations according
to Robert W. Cox approach with regard to its relationship to realism
and liberalism. With regard to the first perspective, Hedley Bull, an
author of English School, but also associated with realism, is the
subject of this reflection. Another key author for this text is Antonio
Gramsci, whom Cox took from a lot number of important points for
his theoretical formulation. The central hypothesis that guides the
exposure is the assumption that critical Coxian theory can not
overcome or fully formulate a theoretical alternative to tributary or
related to realism and liberalism.

Danilo Zolo's intellectual journey has been particularly rich and varied. His ability to dialogue with several scholars, sometimes very distant from each other-from Rosmini to Neurath, from Luhmann to Schmitt-is even surprising. Exploring this tortuous but intriguing path, it is necessary to stress the importance of his first encounter with the thought of Hedley Bull: The Anarchical Society, in fact, played a decisive role in the development of Zolo's philosophy of international law. From this point of view, Zolo should be credited with being one of the very first in Italy to study Bull in depth, thus vastly promoting the reception of his work.

Nella storia intellettuale del XX secolo, la English School rappresenta una visione assai eterodossa rispetto ai più consolidati approcci agli studi internazionalistici. I suoi membri – tra cui Martin Wight, Hedley Bull e Herbert Butterfield – spiegano le dinamiche delle relazioni tra Stati durante l’epoca moderna e contemporanea utilizzando il concetto di “società internazionale”. Secondo questi studiosi, continua a persistere una condizione di anarchia, ma la politica internazionale non può essere ridotta a un indiscriminato bellum omnium contra omnes. Ai loro occhi, la società internazionale appare invece caratterizzata da una situazione di relativa socievolezza, e risulta inoltre fondata sulla consuetudine e sulle istituzioni.
Ricorrendo all’imprescindibile contributo offerto dalla storia, dalla filosofia e dal diritto, gli autori della English School offrono così un valido strumento con cui interpretare in maniera il più possibile realistica la politica internazionale.

This paper seeks to answer the following research problem:based o Robert W. Cox´s bibliography, how is it possible to characterize differences and similarities between critical theory with realism and explain their appreciation for the theoretical legacy of Hedley Bull, considering it, therefore, compatible with the approach of critical theory? The text searches also test the following hypothesis, which answer to the stated problem: considering several different possibilities regarding the similarities and differences between realism and critical theory of International Relations, the main point of similarities and differences lies in the common account of the history, but in approach Cox´s concept of history is implicitly defined in an eclectic, inconsistent and inaccurate way.

Este texto busca responder ao seguinte problema de pesquisa: a partir fundamentalmente da bibliografia de autoria de Robert W. Cox, como caracterizar diferenças e semelhanças da teoria crítica com o realismo e explicar seu apreço pelo legado teórico de Hedley Bull, considerando-o, por consequência, compatível com o enfoque da teoria crítica? O texto busca também testar a seguinte hipótese, que responderia ao problema enunciado: considerando várias diferentes possibilidades referentes a semelhanças e diferenças entre realismo e teoria crítica das Relações Internacionais, o principal ponto de semelhanças e diferenças reside na consideração comum da história, mas na abordagem de Cox o conceito de história de Cox é definido implicitamente de modo eclético, incoerente e impreciso.

We can find two opposing narratives in describing relations between Russia and the West, each built on its own understanding of the foundations and nature of international relations and creating blind spots in the perception of the other side. The first narrative proceeds from the presumption of equality of actors in international relations, based on their sovereignty and balance of power. The second narrative is based on an understanding of international relations as a hierarchy, where weaker actors are subordinated to stronger ones within the framework of suzerainty. The structure of both narratives and their associated blind spots are to be analyzed in this paper. Narratives and blind spots are examined from two optics of the English School in international relations theory, solidarist and pluralist. One of them explains the structure of international society and the existing world order as rather egalitarian, the other as hierarchical. The first part of the article examines the term of international society as the basis of the English School's methodology and distinguishes two optics relevant for describing relations between Russia and the West. The second and third parts examine two opposing narratives and the paper’s conclusion describes the blind spots that these narratives create in the understanding of the opposite sides. The blind spots in relations between Russia and European countries have not been overcome in the last 400 years. A possible democratization of international relations by expanding the share of people-to-people diplomacy in inter-state communication may be an issue for further discussion. Dialogue at the level of the World society will cancel prevalent blind spots.

Cette étude vise à examiner si l'ordre international et la justice peuvent coexister sur le dilemme de l'axe politique-justice en politique internationale sans porter atteinte à la souveraineté des États et aux droits de l'homme du point de vue de Hedley Bull, représentant d'une école anglaise. Nous avons toujours discuté de la manière dont l'ordre international sera établi dans les relations internationales. Selon Hedley Bull, l'atteinte à la protection de la souveraineté des États et le maintien de l'ordre international sont des éléments prioritaires du fonctionnement de l'ordre international. En outre, Bull soutient que les membres ultimes de la société internationale sont les individus, mais que les acteurs qui peuvent protéger les individus de la coercition extérieure sont les États souverains. Dans The Anarchical Society, Bull affirme que l'ordre mondial, qui vise le bien-être général de toute l'humanité, est un ordre plus fondamental que l'ordre international, matériellement et moralement prioritaire, qui vise l'ordre entre les États. À cet égard, la valeur de la société internationale est directement proportionnelle au bénéfice général de l'humanité entière.

There is a fundamental link between political anthropology and Hedley Bull's classical study of international order, which has been persistently neglected by contemporary students of international society. While traditional assessments of Bull's work normally focus on the influences of political philosophy, international law, and history, a discussion of Bull's reliance on anthropological studies of anarchical societies is also essential for a more comprehensive understanding of his conceptualization of order and the sources, number, and functions of the “fundamental institutions” of international society. After showing how exactly political anthropology has underpinned Bull's work, the article explores its relevance for contemporary English school theorization. In particular, it offers a critique of the new institutionalists’ claims on the issue of sources, numbers, and functions of Bull's fundamental institutions. An updating of Bull's original “anthropological investigations” suggests a reconsideration of “Trade” as a sixth fundamental institution, a closer attention to “binding” and “dividing” forces in international society, as well as a reframing of the domestic analogy in IR.

This essay evaluates the English SchoolFa prominent approach to the study of international relationsFas a ‘‘research enterprise’' ( James 2002). Our exploration begins with an introduction of a ‘‘continuum of aggregation’’ that conveys a given research enterprise, such as the English School, at different conceptual levels. The English School’s axioms along with its negative and positive heuristics are identified and evaluated based on the classics and more recent works from Wight, Bull, and others. Conclusions and prospects for further development of the English School complete the review.

Bu makale uluslararası ilişkilere kuramsal yaklaşımlardan biri olan İngiliz Okulu’nu tanıtmayı ve değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. İngiliz Okulu’nun ne olduğunu anlatmak için, öncelikle Okul’un kökleri, kurucuları, ontolojik ve yöntembilimsel duruşu tanıtılmış ve tartışılmıştır. Daha sonra Okul’un özünü oluşturan temel argümanlar belirlenmiş ve kurucularının tartıştıkları önemli sorular ele alınmıştır. Makalenin ikinci bölümünde ise, Okulun ikinci nesli diyebileceğimiz kuramcıların ürettikleri normatif ve yapısalcı eserlere ve tartışmalara yer verilmiştir. Sonuç olarak makale Okulun hem normatif hem de analitik analizlere imkân sağladığı için bir ‘büyük kuram’ potansiyeline sahip olduğunu iddia etmektedir.

This article focuses on the work of Adam Watson from the English School of International Relations for two purposes. The first is to highlight the potential it contains for transcending the prejudices imposed upon international relations theory by the anarchy assumption and by the reification of independent statehood. The second and the more specific purpose is to understand the formation of legitimate supranational systems once these prejudices are removed. Watson approaches supranationalism as an extant condition in international society rather than as a deviation from a normal condition of anarchy or independent statehood, and proposes a culturalist and a moralistic framework in which supranational systems can be legitimized. As a case study to determine which framework is more valid, I analysed the convention on the future of Europe and concluded that the moralistic serves better for understanding how the European Union is legitimized. Once juxtaposed with Neo-Weberian historical sociology’s insights into the state, Watson’s moralistic framework can offer a foundational theory for reconsidering legitimate supranational systems and open up new research agendas in international relations theory.

In the so-called English school of international relations, the British historian Martin Wight (1913-1972) is often regarded only for the «three traditions» of Grotian, Kantian and Machiavellian international theory which he conceived in his lectures at University of Chicago and the London School of Economics. This article argues that this interpretation is very reductive. It argues instead that Wight dismissed the «three traditions» in his thinking about foreign policy and world politics very quickly. Indeed, in his later works, he was deeply concerned with a stronger attempt to provide a more accurate study of Western political thought.

Although Bull is often identified as a theorist of international society, this volume has shown that there is more to The Anarchical Society than international society, narrowly construed. The contemporary relevance of Bull’s work is clearest when we recognize the flexibility of his conceptual framework and, in particular, the often overlooked potential of his concept of the ‘world political system’, of which modern international society is only a part. It is also helpful to recognize the provisional nature of Bull’s intellectual priorities and of his empirical and evaluative judgements. Bull’s argument that international society provides the surest route to world order reflected his judgement at ‘present’ and we can revise it today without doing violence to his intellectual project. This concluding essay  highlights the flexibility of Bull’s approach and the provisional nature of his judgements while also reviewing the limits of this flexibility and identifying possible future directions of inquiry.

O artigo tem o objetivo de apresentar uma reflexão sobre a influência do racionalismo grociano no debate sobre justiça internacional. O desafio da realização de uma justiça comum entre atores estatais soberanos perpassa debates clássicos da história e da teoria da constituição da sociedade internacional no período pós-guerra. Trata-se de uma pesquisa teórica que visa aprofundar o debate sobre justiça e apresentar um diálogo entre autores de diferentes campos de estudo que não têm sido confrontados em um ambiente interdisciplinar que permita o aprofundamento de conceitos de justiça para pesquisadores de temas jurídicos e políticos internacionais. O argumento do artigo é que a contribuição teórica de Hedley Bull, ao enfrentar as possíveis contradições entre os valores da ordem e da justiça no contexto da anarquia internacional, corrobora com o debate sobre os conceitos e limites de uma justiça internacional. O artigo está dividido em três partes. A primeira parte foca no enquadramento...