Study Notes on Governance Without Government

Kenneth Waltz's Analysis: Communities and systems are organized around two fundamental principles: hierarchy and anarchy.
Hierarchy: Characterized by divisions of labor, specialization, and authority structures typical within states where governments possess legitimate authority and maintain a monopoly of power to compel obedience.
Anarchy: Opposite characteristics; no authority to command, lack of division of labor, and no presumption of obedience. States must bargain with one another to attain objectives; the ultimate arbiter of conflicts of interest is war.
War frames the outcomes of conflicts based on relative power, not legal authority.

Bull argues that Waltz's dichotomy oversimplifies the international system and its dynamics.
Distinction between State Systems and Societies:
- System of States: Lacks norms, rules, and institutions that produce order and stability.
- Society of States: Engages in rule-making, shares norms, and creates institutions that manage relations among states, ensuring order, especially in terms of international law and conventions.
Members of a society of states recognize limitations of behavior outlined through laws and norms, aiding weaker states through institutions.
Sovereignty: Assumed integral to state security and relatively preserved in European history.

Waltz: Balances of power as the sole governance tool within anarchy.
Bull disagrees; governance involves human constructs (rules and institutions) that provide order and stability.
This analysis explores governance in the context of 19th-century Europe focusing on:
1. Authority
2. Governance tasks
3. Institutions and rules
4. Authoritative actions and coercive capacity.
Governance inquiries guide into:
1. Who governs?
2. Governance purposes?
3. Methods of governance?
4. Impact of governance?

No clear conceptualization of hegemony exists in 19th-century Europe.
Imbalance in great power rivalry leads to a situation where one power may dominate (Wallerstein). Hegemony involves control over numerous sectors (economic, political, etc.), but is inadequate for explaining 19th-century governance patterns.
Polycentric Power Distribution:
- Five great powers form settlements post-1814-15 to prevent hegemonic aspirations, especially that of France.
- Great Britain: Participated initially in governance but became indifferent later based primarily on security interests.
- Congress of Vienna (1814): Came to embody collective security governed by the major powers for the stability of Europe.
- Great powers established principles governing collective peace post-Napoleonic Wars.

Divergent views on governance purposes within the Concert:
- Tsar Alexander sought to transcend anarchy, focusing on self-abnegation and collective peace.
- Metternich prioritized domestic stability, seeing revolutionary ideology as a primary threat, promoting intervention against revolutions instead of territorial disputes.
- Disparity in task priorities among leaders led to the eventual disintegration of the Congress System by 1822.
Key tasks maintained through governance included:
1. Preventing hegemony
2. Avoiding pan-European wars.
Overall: Combination of security imperatives and the avoidance of revolution shaped governance functions.

Establishment of the Congress System (Quadruple Alliance agreement to hold periodic congresses for peace discussions).
These structures facilitated numerous conferences and diplomatic initiatives throughout the 19th century.
Informal consultation norms were prevalent, emphasizing collective decision-making before major actions.
The Congress System lacked formal organization yet created a significant institutional governance framework throughout the century.

The 1814-15 peace settlements established norms restricting territorial wars and promoting a collective approach to crises and challenges.
Careful procedural norms evolved, including:
1. Requiring consultation prior to decisions affecting others' interests.
2. Collective decision-making was expected, with a unified approach being essential.
3. Inclusion of great powers in critical diplomatic decisions and negotiations, sidelining smaller states.
The underlying philosophy emphasized shared responsibility for Europe’s stability, reflected in treaties deemed binding and authoritative.

Institutional existence equated not just with compliance but with genuine governance actions resulting in normative stability and conflict prevention.
Types of governance decisions included:
1. Clarification of norms around military intervention (e.g., Troppau).
2. Sanctioning projects and policies affecting the governance structure.
3. Preventing unilateral actions that could provoke war or conflict.
4. Formally recognizing new states and delineating neutral entities.
5. Establishing conflict resolution mechanisms.
6. Coercive acts when necessary to enforce norms.

The influence of the governance system on reducing war incidence was significant; analyzed through comparative metrics on war prevalence between 1715-1814 and 1815-1914, establishing a relative decline in conflict likelihood.
While multiple factors played a role, the existence of the Concert likely contributed to mitigating conflicts that might otherwise escalate into war.
Observations point toward the latter half of the 19th century during which crises emerged that would have spelled military confrontation had they not been handled diplomatically.

Varied perspectives on when the Concert system ceased to function effectively; some indicating as early as the mid-1850s.
Factors contributing to structural failure included:
1. Evolving nationalism undermining historic empires.
2. Shifts in military technology leading to heightened sensitivities regarding power dynamics.
3. Changing attitudes toward war as a more instinctive and justified means of conflict resolution.
Resulting in the degradation of civility in diplomatic relations during the early 20th century.

The 19th century exemplified a bridge between anarchy and structured governance. It showcased governance as a polyarchy where norms and institutions played significant roles in managing state relations.
The Concert of Europe’s emphasis on collective governance established a historical precedent for managing international relations beyond purely anarchic self-interests. However, the eventual breakdown illustrated the fragility of such systems amidst shifting political and social landscapes.

Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977).
Michel Foucault, “The Subject and Power,” in Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, eds., Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).
Robert O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984).
Immanuel Wallerstein, The Politics of the World Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).