Burchill et al., 2009: P86). This phenomenon has caused scholars such as Hedley Bull (1977) and Adam Watson (1985) to write regarding the complex nature of state behaviour and their propensity to interact peacefully, not violently. Bull (1977) argues that state interaction fuels cooperation, with violence being an engrained accomplice within the society. Like Watson (1985), he argues that within an anarchical society violence should be prevalent, due to the lack of a single global hegemon controlling order. This brings them to conclude that peace exists due to the attitude of states towards other states and that violence is not a predominant priority. Previous analysis by Nicholas Wheeler and Timothy Dunne (1996) helps us discover the origins and inspirations for Bull's theory on international society, stating that it draws merit from Edward Carr's political realism. The article also examines the divide within the English School, between pluralist and solidarist, where English School scholars are split between the perceived effects of diversity on state interactions either causing independence or further cooperation. This essentially tells us that the English School is a variant of realist belief, but builds on key tenets of liberal thought, that takes credence from the formation of an international society. .
The first contrasting point is Realism, one of the oldest IR theories, which was developed as a way of explaining state interaction within the international system. Realist theory has four key tenets, which define the rules of the game in regards to state behaviour. They consist of anarchy, egoism, groupism and power politics. Explained by William Wohlforth (2008: P131-134), the four keys assumptions create a somewhat bleak picture of state cooperation, something that has drawn critique from other theoretical approaches. He explains anarchy in the international system, which can be understood as the absence of a global government or leader.