State of Nature vs. International Relations

This past week’s discussion of Hobbes’ state of nature and how it is similar or not to International Relations/Politics was very interesting. There were differing opinions among the class and I found myself agreeing with both sides. Can there be international stability in the absence of an absolute sovereign? Is it fair to compare states with individuals, and let them fall into the analogy that states exist in anarchy like individuals? 

States have a greater responsibility to promoting the interests of their citizens and thus seek to create an international morality. The relation between states and individuals can be seen as dissimilar in various ways to null a comparison. States lack the vulnerability present in individuals, seeing as they can not be killed so easily. Also, states do not require a sovereign as an absolute protector of their safety before they can reasonably trust other states (Prokhovnik and Slomp, 72). The competition for survival among states isn’t as aggressive as Hobbes’ description of competition for resources among famished individuals in a state of nature. Generally, we do not see states attacking each other in order to avoid poverty. Here we see that the nature of the scramble for resources among states is not as violent or anarchic as that of the pre-social man. More often than not, states can resort to a more peaceful form of competition that is diplomatic and fiscally prudent; they have the benefit of being able to weigh risk versus reward.

Hobbes talked about altruism and stated that it could be mortally dangerous in the individual state of nature (Leviathan, 28). Altruism tends to be pushed aside by sheer necessity, because of self-preservation and fear prevalent in the individual state of nature. States, however, do not experience such an immediate and pressing danger or fear which allows for more sympathetic relations to exist. With less fear of destruction or impoverishment and a greater security threshold, states can recognize and enact the laws of nature to the mutual benefit of all. The absence of a sovereign doesn’t have to impede cooperation among states, because you have altruism and morality present to provide the incentive for conflict resolution. It could be argued that states agreeing and erecting an international moral order is similar to individuals submitting to a sovereign power because they both look to ultimately protect citizens from harm, which is a Hobessian point.

In class international culture and international society were brought up. These can be seen as benefits of commodious living on a grander scale. Communal endeavors can be pursued by giving up the right to violence, this submission is the essence of the creation of the state. In this sense there are some similarities, loosely based, between Hobbes’ state of nature and international relations.

Works Cited:

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Flathman, Richard, Johnston, David. 1997.

Prokhovnik, Raia and Slomp, Gabriella. International Political Theory After Hobbes. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Comments

  1. EHMay 17, 2018 at 6:20 PM

    All very good points. I do wonder though, what Hobbessian perspective of the NK situation would be. There is a leader who argues for his nation's right to sovereignity, but in pursuing that goal, is doing harm to the population.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more