CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

states) and could be predicted through study. Such is the view, for example, of Kenneth
Waltz 70 or John Mearsheimer who, whilst accepting that history is replete with
examples where actual outcomes are at variance with what theory would predict,
nevertheless insists on the validity of a broadly theoretical-predictive approach. 71 On
the other side is the liberal-cosmopolitan view of a world society, which takes a
universalist approach to ethics and sees states as a historical and temporary abnormality;
some even going so far as to predict their imminent demise. The middle way is to
accept the role of states but to see their interaction not as a mere ‘system’ but as a
‘society’ – something with normative value. Bull summarises the distinction thus:
By contrast:
A system of states (or international system) is formed when two or more states
have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact upon one
another’s decisions, to cause them to behave – at least in some measure – as
parts of a whole. 72
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 common
institutions. 73
The extent to which common values must pre-exist is an issue of debate. Certainly Bull
recognized that historically international societies have been ‘founded upon a common
culture or civilization, or at least on some of the elements of such a civilization.’ 74 But
in the modern world are the interactions sufficient and the commonality of values so
shared that a society can exist of all – or almost all - states? The answer depends or the
depth and breadth of common values that are required and this is not a static factor – nor
a one-way process. Increasing contact – socialisation, perhaps – is bound to help in the
development of shared values and understanding, just as such commonality increases
the level of contact. John Vincent 75 alludes to just this in his analysis of Bull, with
whom he had collaborated:
The function of law in relation to international order, according to Bull, was not
itself to produce it…. but to identify the constitutive principle in the
international organization of humankind – the society of states; ….The interest
in international law…was not for what it was, but for what it signified. It
provided evidence for the existence of society, not the reason for its existence …
it is a cart not a horse.
26