244 A Positive Century (1815–1914)
account of it here. It will suffi ce to note its most salient features, on which
there was at least a broad consensus.
Pluralism and the Sovereign Equality of States
Th ere is no diffi culty in pinpointing the idea that is at the very core of main-
stream positivism: the fundamental principle of the sovereign equality of
states. Mainstream positivism, in other words, was, above all, a state- centered
perspective on international law. Very tightly connected to this core principle
was a thoroughgoing pluralistic ethos. In this respect, positivism’s affi nity
with the historical school of law is especially evident. It has been observed
that one of the fundamental beliefs of the historical school was that cultures
possess their own unique, distinctive coherence and that direct compari-
sons, according to some kind of universal scale, are impossible in principle.
Mainstream positivism was in accord with this.
Th e implication of this belief is easily seen. Each state must necessarily
be the sole judge of what po liti cal, economic, social, and legal system to
adopt. Th e task of international law therefore is not— and cannot be— to
homogenize the world into a single great society. Instead, its task must be
a more modest one: to devise ways in which the fundamentally and in-
eradicably diff erent units of world society can “rub along” with one another
without undue resort to violence. Mainstream positivism, in other words,
readily accepted that the world is, at root, essentially anarchic. International
law must therefore be seen— with all due modesty— as a modus vivendi, or
practical formula for coping with this condition, rather than a nascent world
government.
It will immediately be noted that theories about universal rights of indi-
viduals, exercisable in any and all po liti cal and legal systems, are fundamen-
tally foreign to this way of thinking. Just as obviously, the idea of the legal
equality of states comes naturally, since each society— large or small, rich or
poor— has an equal right to determine its own destiny. Th is principle of
the sovereign equality of states remains to the present day as the founda-
tional principle of international law.
Just as easily arrived at is the principle of nonintervention— which indeed
is hardly more than a mere rephrasing of the concept of sovereign equality
of states. Th e right of states to determine their own national laws and ways