Morgenthau’s and Bull’s Conceptions of International Morality: Similarities, Differences and Implications

Abstract

This paper examines Hans J. Morgenthau’s and Hedley Bull’s conceptions of international morality. It aims to answer the question: Despite similar assumptions on the state-centric and anarchic nature of international politics, and despite a clear recognition of morality in it, how do Morgenthau and Bull differ on their conceptions of international morality? Based on the two canonical works of Morgenthau and Bull, namely Politics Among Nations and The Anarchical Society, supplemented by related works and reviews, the paper finds five conceptual similarities and eight major distinctions. It argues that Bull’s empirical assumptions on morality in world politics and his stronger focus on the systemic level of analysis render his conception of the state system less flexible to moral considerations, in contrast to Morgenthau’s ontology of morality and his focus on states and statesmen. These conceptual distinctions are further illustrated through the second question: What are the theoretical implications of their conceptual differences? Taking human rights as a case in point, the paper argues that Morgenthau provides a firmer standing for human rights in the body of international morality, whereas Bull gives a greater range of instruments and mechanisms for the development of human rights in international relations.