International System+ Society

How significant are the differences between an “international system” and an “international society”?

For students of international studies, the term “international system” and “international society” often gets bandied around. But what exactly are they? Is there really an international system to talk about, in the sense that there are fixed procedures and systematic relations between nations? Is there a difference between international system and international society? Is the difference merely technical, or is it substantial? 

Let’s start first of all with the notion of international system. International system, according to Hedley Bull, quite a heavy weight academic in the International Relations circles, is defined as a political system “when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient impact on one another's decisions, to cause them to behave - at least in some measure - as parts of a whole”. In other words, international systems exist when states take into account the existence of other states. If State A acknowledges the presence its neighbouring state, State B, and engages in activities such as trade with it, then there can be said to be an international system. As long as the behaviour of one state is affected in some way by the awareness and acknowledgement of other states, an international system is said to exist. Perfect. Now, international society, on the other hand, 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.” As per this definition, an international society exists only when there is shared understanding between states. This means there has to be, first of all, successful attempts at communication. Rules, established common interests in the form of norms and conventions, common institutions - all these are the manifestations of shared understanding. International society can thus be seen as one step more “advanced” in inter-societal development, both empirically and substantially; empirically because shared understanding can only come after states become aware of each other, and substantially because the contents themselves - rules, laws, conventions - exist in international societies as opposed to there being none in international systems. There can be international systems without international societies, but there cannot be international systems without international societies. 

Curiously, the usage of the terms “international system” and “international society” has seldom been questioned in international relations. This strikes me as fairly odd because the connotations of the word “system” really does not match up to its weaker definition. In fact, it is the lack of system (in the  that defines the “international system”, and the presence of a “system” that defines an “international society”. If I could rewrite the discipline, I would have flipped the definitions of the terms around to save much confusion from students. 

So how significant are the differences between the two terms? On one hand, they are rather significant. While international systems are, in a sense, more “primitive” (in the less developed sense of the word), international societies are more advanced, mainly in the domain of inter-nation communication. The former seems to exist in a state of limbo, where one state is merely aware of the presence of another state, but cannot effectively predict the actions of the other. They will perpetually be second-guessing what the other state/states will do, given the lack of communication between them. 

Granted, perhaps an absolute lack of communication will be a bit of a stretch. It might even be a wrong understanding of what constitutes “international systems”, since according to Hedley Bull’s definition, states under the international “system” must have “sufficient contact”. Something is thus wrong with our previous understanding of difference based on levels of communication. The idea of communication is already crucially present in an “international system”. The central difference between the system and the society, thus, seems to lie in the nature of the contact. If the contact comes in a mutually beneficial form, in the establishment of “common interests and values”, “common set of rules”, etcetc, then we might legitimately call it “international society”. There seems to be connotations of civility involved. On the contrary, if the contact is hostile, or non-coorperative, then these states might only belong to the international “system”. 

Thus while it is not apparent from the definitions themselves, the distinction between international system and society is deeply normative. Underlying the idea of “society” is the concept of order, as well as value that order brings. International systems can only remain as systems because value has not been created in their interactions, be it in the form of efficiency, order, peace, justice, and so on. This is the most crucial difference between an international system and society. 

How significant, then, is the difference between the two concepts? Taken in the general sense, the question seems to allude the idea that perhaps in certain instances, the difference between an international system and society is not great. Indeed, the distinction has been questioned by various academics. 

Sometimes, the boundaries might be blurred, for instance when multiple states have significant interactions but do not have formalised rules. It is mentioned in Barry Buzan  that the boundary between a system without and one with international society cannot be defined by the mere presence or absence of rules and institutions among states. Bull's definition is not precise enough to avoid creating a large gray zone in which some norms, rules, and institutions exist, but not enough to justify calling it an international society.

Literature Review discourse on International System vs International Society

Hedley Bull:

Didn’t really tackle the issue adequately. He made rather logical postulations on why the international system transformed into a society. First, as the “regularity and intensity” of their interactions increased, the states are “virtually forced” into a degree of “recognition and accommodation”. Ok. Pretty good guess bro. My sister could have done that. 

What seems like the second premise is simply a variant of the first. The desire for common order arose out of “disadvantages of permanent chaos”. Thus, this led to agreements on “some limits of force”, some “provision of sanctity of contracts” and “some arrangement for the assignment of property rights”. 

Moving on later into the argument, another variant of the first and second argument occurred. Because of the increase in probability of conflict that comes with increasing contact, there is “pressure of security dilemma”. The pressure of life in the anarchy is alluded to. These are all essentially the same argument. 

Finally, Bull points out an interesting phenomenon. The level of integration between states will depend on the “communicative capacities” between. Some states will have a higher communicative capacity than others. This is especially true for regional states. Thus, international societies will emerge firstly from regional “subsystems” and then expand outwards. This, however, does not address our question. Instead, it clarifies the differing rates as well as illustrates the mechanisms that lead to the change from an international system to a society, but does not tell us how or why international systems or societies are different. 

Sources: Hedley Bull The Anarchical Society Chapter 1+2, Barry Buzan From International System to Society