The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull is a well-reasoned, reflective, and enlightening work on the nature of order in the society of states in the context of contemporary world politics. The title may seem a bit contradictory: How can an “anarchical society” of world states has “order”? This is, however, the thesis in that Bull argues: Despite the absence of a world government, order among states always exists. Such an order, Bull contends, contains both wars proposed by Hobbes and international solidarity proposed by Immanuel Kant. His objective is to provide an understanding rather than to advocate a prescription regarding current substantive issues on world politics. He made it clear that there will be no specific ‘solutions’ or ‘practical advices’ being concluded.

Bull started his book by defining the world order as human activates that sustain the “elementary and primary goals”, which concerns personal security, keeping promises, and securing possessions. He then stressed the difference between international and world order. The international order is the order of states, while the world order is the order of mankind. Mankind, he argues, can be organized in ways other than states and can still form a world order that is “stateless”. Another crucial set of concepts for Bull is the system of states and society of states. A system of states is merely the interactions and contacts among states; in a society of states, states conceive themselves as being bound by common rules as a result of their common interests and values. He contends that today’s world is not only a system of states but also a society of states. That is, all states pursue primary goals and perceive themselves as being bonded by certain rules. For instance, Bull submits, in a war, the belligerent party usually comes up with a just cause, which shows that the basic idea of just and unjust exists as a rule in the society of states.

The second part discussed the institutions and mechanisms that helped to keep the order among states, including wars, diplomacies, international laws, and great powers. The author used a method of examining each institution according to its functions in keeping order among states. Wars, for example, can both enforce and violate the order. He also took into account recent developments in world politics such as nuclear deterrence and the expansion of international laws. Nuclear deterrence, for instance, formed a common interest of avoiding mass destructions among states and therefore contributed to order among states.

The rest of the book focuses on alternatives to the current world order, such as a disarmed world, world solidarity, ideological homogeneity, and the widespread of nuclear weapons, in which, he concludes only the last one is probable. In this part, he also criticized the idea that the current system of states is a dysfunctional one and is bound to be replaced. He argues that the current order of states is the more favorable one despite some of its injustice.

This book, despite some of its limitations, enlightened us with new understandings of order and the society of states. It, to some extent, dismantled the prevailing idea that the current society of states is a failure because of the proliferation of conflicts and injustice. This rhetoric overlooked the fundamental nature of society and order, which includes common interests and the pursuit of these interests through the means of rules. The author reminded us that although human history was marked by wars and conflicts, there is not a moment when the society of states ceased to exist. The significance of this book is that it is a macroscopic conceptual analysis; it did not focus on a single incident or a period of history, nor did it study specific institutions like the United Nations or the League of Nations. The reflective rather than research-based nature of this book allowed the author to systematically and comprehensively approach the nature of world order, instead of composing an explanatory theory or practical advice. Such an a priori approach to the understanding of world order offers a more far-reaching and deepened view on world politics.

Nevertheless, there are limitations regarding the way in which the author approaches world politics. In the fourth chapter, which discusses the compatibility of order and Justice in world politics, the author argues that there is no “a priori reason” to say that society both has order and justice is “unattainable” (p.89). There is, however, incompatibility between “world justice” and the “the rules and institutions that now sustain order within the society of states”. (p.89). However, to discuss the compatibility of order and justice in domestic and interstate contexts, it is to be noticed that different states have different end goals of justice. For instance, some Third World countries may give priority to colonial justice in history, while others view the justice of equal treatment in contemporary international society as more important. The author, indeed, also distinguished different forms of justice that may be pursued, such as formal and substantive justice. Nevertheless, when arguing the compatibility of justice and order in world politics, different forms of justice were overgeneralized by an overarching concept of “world justice”.

Moreover, using “state” as a unit of discussion can also be problematic. A state does not seek to “pursue” justice by itself since a state is no more than a way of organizing a group of people. Therefore, the justice pursued by a state is a reflection of justice perused by its people. However, such a reflection is not consistent across the board. The state interest of a democracy, for example, was more or less the interest of all of its citizens, while the state interest of a dictatorship is the individual interest of the dictator. Hence, using the rhetoric of “justice demanded by a state” without further elaborating how individuals, state, and interstate justice connect is overgeneralizing.

In conclusion, The Anarchical Society is a remarkable piece that attempts to understand large and complex subjects by using pure thinking and reasoning. The author points out that conclusions that can be presented as ‘solutions’ or ‘practical advice’ are the “corrupting elements” in the study of modern world politics (p.308). Despite some of the limitations, the author succeeded in presenting the complexity of world politics and world order. Bull has presented us the most distinguished conclusion: the future of world politics is “in darkness”, and we should not pretend that we can “see the light”, despite our great desire to know what the future would bring.