Free Essay Sample on Anarchic Nature of the International System

Introduction

According to Hedley Bull, the nature of the anarchic international system, order in social life, means a pattern where all human activities that maintain social lives' universal goals are maintained. These goals include: ensuring life is secure against the violence that results in deaths and harm of the body. To ensure that all promises that are made are kept, and agreements are well carried out and also ensuring that the possessions of some things remain stable without being subjected to challenges that have no limits. It means that order is a pattern of behavior that sustains the main objectives of social life. In this case, society should have a common interest in these primary goals that would help sustain the objectives that would make the ruling effective. On the other hand, Kenneth Waltz asserts that defining society's structure is essential to concentrate on how units relate to each other and ignore how they interact. In this case, different units combined their different behavior to come up with different results. It means that structure is what defines the order of the parts of the system.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Social and Elementary Goals

According to Hedley Bull, there should be similar interest in the social and elementary goals of livelihood when maintaining order. It should rhyme at least among some members of the led society or all society members. Therefore, the truth on human vulnerability is exposure to proneness and violence, leading men to restrict violence because of common interests (Bull, 1977). Material needs interdependence leads men in perceiving a similar interest to ensure salutations for all agreements. Inadequate abundance and human selflessness make men recognize mutual welfares in making possessions stable. On the other hand, anthropologists, politicians, and economists deal with both political structures generally. They are familiar enough with the structural notions as parts as bureaucracies and political parties. The anthropologists do not consult about the organization and the effectiveness of specific firms. And the exchange between them when defining the structures. The political scientists also don not confer on the interests of individuals occupying different offices (Bull, 1977). They abandon the qualities, the drives, and relations of ethnic units not because the issues are less interesting or less important, but because they want to examine how ethnic structures influence the qualities, drives, and relations of ethnic units, how the market inclines the decisions of the companies, and how the held offices mold the behavior of people.

Systematic Manner

The views of both Bull and Kenneth are similar in away. For instance, Sovereign nations in the times of war and crisis might behave in an even systematic manner; individual people who live in the state of nature may carry themselves in conformity with some periodic design. For example, Hobbes himself articulates that the patterns are indeed recurrent, but they are only examples in life which are not of order but disorderly (Bull, 1977). People's order in social life is not any configuration or regularity in relations individuals or groups of men but a design leading to a particular outcome. Waltz gives an example of the American Civil war, where Americans had 22 presidents with 56 years in the office. Congress is not a direct route, and it is pointless to link congressional with parliamentary service. Unlike states such as America, the leading offices set the impending crisis, British apprentices her leaders, which has a diverse system to produce the elderly chief executive surer and safer.

Sovereignty

The sovereignty of a state means that the state has the authority and mandate to decide for itself how it will deal with external and internal difficulties, including whether or not to seek out help from other nations, which makes them limit its autonomy by creating obligations to them (Waltz, 1986). Kenneth says that the state develops its stratagems and makes its own decisions to meet the need they experience and develop. Therefore, sovereign nations are free from other states' influence. They can make their free decisions, which has never received insulation from the effects of other states' actions. Consequently, the views of both authors on state sovereignty differs. According to Bull, (1977) for order maintenance in any social order, at least several political members who have a common interest are supposed to represent society actively. They are also expected to have a mutual interest in the rudimentary objectives of life. On the other hand, anthropologists such as Smith says that “in a system of sovereign states no state is sovereign." He says that the error deceits in identifying the meaning of sovereignty of the states with their mandate to do whatever they wish, that they are not influenced by others, and can get whatever they want (Waltz, 1986). Therefore, it is not more contradictory when saying that sovereign states are always controlled and habitually tight so than saying that individuals always make decisions under the hefty burden of events. The politicians chosen represent the states since the sizes may differ but not the common person's common interest (Waltz, 1986).

The views of Hedley Bull are much persuasive than those of Kenneth Waltz. At firms, he says the politicians elected in the offices are supposed to represent men's common interests when maintaining order. The material interdependence by men makes them perceive a similar interest and ensures respect for all pacts and restricting acts of violence. The reciprocals of life may, in some circumstances, express the ability of the groups and individuals concerned. Though the states might be large in size and population, the offices should ensure that all political scientists' interests represent the common man (Bull, 1977). Additionally, crisis rising is termed by Hedley Bull as disorderly. It is supposed to be sort in a pattern with a specific, methodical arrangement, unlike seen in the view of Kenneth Waltz. The orderly patterns are, therefore, to ensure that order has been maintained in the states.

Conclusion

Order in social life means a pattern where all human activities maintain universal goals of social lives are maintained. Political structures can be defined according to the distribution of capabilities, specification of functions, and the principle in which the system is set. All these structures are to make sure that the states maintain order, and the interests of individual men are respected. It also ensures that sovereign states can cope with rising problems without seeking help from other states.

References

Bull, H. (1977). How is Order Maintained in World Politics? In The Anarchical Society (pp. 51-73). Palgrave, London.

Bull, H. (1977). The Concept of Order in World Politics. In The Anarchical Society (pp. 3-21). Palgrave, London.

Waltz, K. N. (1986). Political structures (p. 70).