People tend to criticize USA for always defending itself, As I was reading an article in Yahoo.news.com.

International society (vs. int'l system): both are side by side however, states can be members of the international system but not the same international society. In an international society, Hedley Bull stated that states share a certain common interest that can lead to a common set of rules. For Bull any type of society needs to have rules about restraints on the use of force, about the sanctity of agreements, and about property rights. Without elements of these three there would be no society. International society involves mutual obligations between states and the international system considers contact and interactions between states.

States can be part of the same international system but not part of international society o Example: Persians and the Greeks o Example: Ottoman Empire and Turkey

Domestic pre-conditions for society exist and cooperate is:
1. Placing constraints on violence
2. Respect for property
3. Ensuring agreements International Pre-conditions for International society to exist and cooperate is:
1. Placing limitations and rules on the use of force a state can use
2. Respect of borders and territories
3. Agreements being becomes translated into Treaties Institutions of International Society: 1) balance of power: its IR’s main concern. The English school says that we should think of if as state of affairs. A state cannot force its will on another state. It’s the classical working served to protect the independence of states, protect them from bigger states by finding allies to protect them. Its prevents international society to become an international power. It important in the English school because it provides the conditions for other institutions to do their jobs. 2) international law: balance of power is important in international law. Realists dismiss international law because they are hung up on Hobbes. Sovereign states enforce international law. In the English school law is more commands and coercion. States comply with rules of international law for more than just an obligation and they are followed because other states might not fulfill their obligations to them. International law rests on sanctions and coercion. Lays out the law on how states should act in international society. It establishes rules for coexistence and it serves to mobilize compliance with the rules. 3) Diplomacy: links directly civil society between countries also transnational and inter-governmental linkages. Diplomacy is highly institutionalized, its conducted on understood universal rules, it requires an international society. Its function is to serve as a communication between states. The role of a diplomat is to convey message between their home state and the host state. The basic role of diplomacy is to reduce friction. 4) War: breakdown of power. An institution of international society and required for international society to work. International society sometimes uses war to enforce international law. War sometimes is used a balance of power. 5) great power: can contribute to international order by managing their relations with one another through diplomacy, balance of power. Have the ability to prevent war among your clients.
Historical institutions shape the behavior of states towards common interests and values by establishing rules of behavior and allowing for the construction of specific bodies of collaboration and governance through the creation of international regimes and organizations. Together these institutions serve as a set of shared expectations about how and how not force can be used within international society. As long as these institutions exist, international society exists; they give substance and permanence to the ongoing collaboration between states.

Order vs. Justice: sometimes there is tension between order and justice. Order requires efforts to prevent further additions to the nuclear club, but justice suggests all states have an equal right to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Bull said that states may not agree on the meaning of justice but they agree about how to maintain order among themselves.
I think but am not suse actually no i'm positive the important comparison to make here is between pluralism and solidarism. and their attempt to reconcile sovereignty with international law. that is, how is it possible for sovereign states to be governed by international law? … Well, for starters, it kind of depends on how you define sovereignty. Unlike in the domestic context, sovereignty means to things at the international level..The first refers to the amount of international legal freedom that a state enjoys at any given time. According to the english school, when states start out 100% certified state of nature legal freedom is presupposed, but as states start engaging in dealings with one another ( through treaties and whatever), this legal freedom begins to diminish. Unfortunately, that is not really a satisfactory response because when states form legal relationships they incur privileges as well as obligations. Alas, the question becomes which states are sovereign and which states are not. as it turns out, the answer is not important. The english school theorists conclude that within an international society of sovereign states there has been a natural and historical evolution towards international law; it is a social and institutional fact. It might have been otherwise, bull says, but it wasn’t so just deal with it. (but also take into consideration that things are changing. states are no longer the only actors, there are non-state, non-territorial actors against the backdrop of increased territorial. stability for sovereign states - i.e. the great powers aren't really going to war over territory anymore - also there are post-sovereign states like the EU. The question of sovereignty really drives home they need for a global society

Justice and order are the two main standards by which to measure the workings of the society of states. The english school asks a question: How far is a society of sovereign states able to meet the needs of justice and order, and how much can that society be expected to improve its performance in meeting those needs?
...ok on to pluralism vs. solidarism Pluralism (bull for example) :
(not a huge issue for bull because he recognizes that at least some states have figured out a way to interact amicably and in the pursuit of common goals). However, Bull also suggests that, given the current disagreement among states on central issues, there is a limit to what can reasonably be achieved in the contemporary society of states. in the pluralist stage of the society of states, there is still disagreement about higher values, like human rights and distributive justice; order is best maintained through states’ commitment to the live and let live p principle of existence. order over justice
Solidarism:
They believe that society of states are ready for meaningful collaboration and a more cut and dry system of international law. dealing with human rights violations is a good example of the pluralist/solidarist debate. Solidarists would argue that sovereign states should accept military intervention as legal in the event of human rights violations (not just in extenuating circumstance although the fact that there are such circumstances bolsters their position). Order without justice isn't worth having. • Pluralists are by no means against a world order as imagined by the solidarists, they just don't think that the contemporary society of