How does Hedley Bull's conclusions on the pluralist/solidarist debate help us understand the issue of human rights during the Cold War?
             Hedley Bull's conclusions on the pluralist and solidarist debate helps are understanding of human rights issues in the Cold War in terms of why the USA responded in contradicting ways to various human rights abuses from different state actors. Throughout the Cold War, the US concept of order was that of a solidarist in so far as it believed its conception of human rights to be the only correct one. However, its views were tempered by prudence in that due to the international bipolar system, the US could not just inflict its view of human rights on the Soviets without expecting retaliation. Therefore, US behavior was essentially pluralist, although during the Carter administration, this pluralism was diluted with elements of solidarism. Bull is ultimately a pluralist. However, his version of pluralism incorporates some aspects of the solidarist debate as he is drawn to the solidarist theory of the international society which incorporates considerations of order ad seeks to place justice at the centre of foreign policy. He incorporates this belief into his version of pluralism, as he grew increasingly concerned with the ideological polarisation that would threaten to undermine the very order the pluralism promises .
             Throughout the course of the Cold War, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union viewed human rights as a key issue. Realist power politics were dominant in the US at the time, so the US was often in the position of supporting regimes that committed human rights abuses but remained anti-Communist. As long as these regimes were allied with the West, their human rights abuses were not of prime concern in the US, to the extent that the US would often supply military and financial aid to the regimes. The US had to continue to support it's "own friendly dictators, whom...