Pasha, Mustapha Kamal. "Decolonizing the Anarchical Society". In The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects, edited by Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr, and Adam Humphreys, 92-108. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Pasha, Mustapha Kamal. "Decolonizing the Anarchical Society". In The Anarchical Society at 40: Contemporary Challenges and Prospects, edited by Hidemi Suganami, Madeline Carr, and Adam Humphreys, 92-108. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

This chapter is written as part of an anthology of responses to The Anarchical Society, by Hedley Bull, the foundational text for the English school of IR theory and the genesis of the idea of 'international society' in IR.

• The tension between redistributive justice and the order essential to the maintenance of the international status quo was identified in the work of Dr. Bull, and continues to serve as a primary issue in contemporary IR and politics (92).
• This idea needs to be expanded to recognize the disadvantaged positions -- largely because of racialized or prejudiced relations of other states -- of former colonies within the international society. Rather than creating a new, just order, the inclusion of former colonies has simply meant the expansion of the order created by European colonialism without the diversification or modification of that order (94).
• Dr. Bull justified his initial prioritization of order over justice on that grounds that any justice was contingent on an international order to enforce it. Therefore, since just anarchy is impossible, order must be paramount over justice (95, 98-99).
• The prioritization of order over justice in the work of Dr. Bull marginalizes the redistributive and restorative claims of the Third World movement. It privileges the unjust and biased contemporary world order dominated by European values (99).
• International relations are conditions and shaped by cultural and racial distinctions and ideologies. Post-colonial states in particular are affected by the different treatment given to them by the international community because of perceptions of cultural and race (93, 100-101).
• These racial and cultural markers transcend simple disparities of power or wealth. Wealthy and powerful countries can still receive different treatment based on racial or cultural prejudices entrenched in the international system (93-94).
• The contemporary world order and its inequalities and injustices are the result of a violent process of historical disorder in which Europe used force to disrupt international order (100). The author implies that this somehow exposes some big fault of Dr. Bull's argument, but it really doesn't seem to. It could be argued that order requires effort and maintenance, which can be disruptive and violent, but the author isn't saying that. 
• A major problem in Dr. Bull's work is that he assumes that, despite anti-Western movements following decolonization, only Western liberal capitalist democracy is the future of a united international society. However understandable other goals are, especially the grievances of former colonies, they must eventually accept Western liberal values as the best way (102-103).
• The tension between this view and recognition of the legitimacy of Third Worldist demands is present of Dr. Bull's scholarship. It is muted in recognition that non-Western values should be incorporated into international society, but finds this view in conflict with his firm belief that Western values are universal and also the best (104, 106).
• The author contends that 'order' and 'justice' are both terms couched in the Western philosophical tradition and that the definition of these concepts has to be investigated because otherwise they unconsciously privilege Western views and assumptions (107).