Especially claim that the basic component of politics is the element of mutual actions and regulations shouldn’t be underestimated. Modern world politics can be considered to have international society if we refer to statement by Bull, who underlines that if there are institutions that propagate and support states’ cooperation, such as international affairs, international organizations, and weight force regulationi. As far as we know, modern politics have such kind of institutions. Therefore it is possible to claim that statement by Bull on international society existence in modern politics works though it should be taken into account that there are a lot of debates on international society existence in world politics due to numerous global international problemsii.
Nevertheless practical adaptation of this statement has met a lot of obstacles and will hardly be used in the future. Methodology of Bull can unite states in their common goals and values though international society in accordance with Bull can be determined on two main concepts: pluralism and solidarism. If to follow Bull we can conclude that all the states are united in states system united by community of interests, values, rules and institutions. The difference is as follows: a solidarist international society is striving for progress, development and propagation of international law. Further on we’ll ground our discussion on a solidarist international society. This approach of Bull is more relevant for modern politics. Developing this idea, force can be justified and legitimate if it protects and enforces international law. As far as we can see, Bull tends to generalization and unification. He supports systematization. But where is the boundary between ‘system’ and ‘society’? Does it exist? Or do these concepts are transformed in one another and blurred to such an extent that they are justified to be considered