Introduction
International Relations became an academic discipline in 1919 (concurring with the Treaty of Versailles), being Aberystwyth University the first college to have an International Politics Department in the world. It was created “as a response to the horrors of the First World War”, and they named the first Chair in this new discipline ‘Woodrow Wilson Chair’, honouring the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, who created the League of Nations (predecessor of the actual United Nations).
International Relations Theory takes a wide range of theoretical approaches: Realism, Liberalism, Constructivism… Nevertheless, Realism has been, ever since the beginning of academic IR, the dominant theory. According to Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, this occurs because “[Realism] provides the most powerful explanation for the state of war, which is the regular condition of life in the international system”, and also because it works as “a ‘manual’ for maximising the interests of the state in a hostile environment”. To give a proper response to the question on the title of this essay, a framework that provides information on what Realism is or who Hobbes was must be given first.
Realism
The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘Realism’ as “the view that the subject matter of politics is political power, not matters of principle”. For Realism, the decision-making process of the states is ruled by the ideas of security and power. This means that cooperation and harmony between states have no room in this theoretical approach. States therefore coexist in an anarchical system, and their goal is to maintain their power or increase it. In order to do so, they take into account their particular interests and their particular interests only.
Realism sees the State as the International System key stakeholder because the materialisation of the State interests and concentration of power are core aspects within the International System (in this context, ‘power’ means being resourceful).
Security is a power supply unit and, for Realism, the backbone of the preservation of the State and the international relations. Taking this into account, the development of the military capabilities allows and ensures security for the State, and grants a prominent role in the international framework. Negotiation through cooperation of the states is not as relevant as military power: strength and duress are seen as the only way to preserve order, security and stability. According to Realism, there is not such a thing as good intentions or brotherhood, so the State must guarantee its own security and protect itself. If anything, we can talk about a domination of one State over another rather than cooperation, since the relations existing between States are not homogenous: there is a game of interests (and fears) where a State wins and another one loses. The International System is haphazardly ruled, then, by the most powerful States.
Realism does not see power as the ultimate objective in Politics though, but as the means by which States can substantiate their interests within the Global System. At the same time, those interests are closely related to the quest for political power. Furthermore, States can never rely on other States, and as long as they do not trust each other, cooperation is inviable. In fact, since the other States can become a threat, they should always be on alert.
R.B.J. Walker once noted that “there is no single tradition of political realism, but rather a knot of historically constituted tensions and contradictions…”. We can classify Realism thematically or chronologically. The first classification would include Structural Realism, Historical Realism and Liberal Realism. The second one, on the other hand, would include Classical Realism and Contemporary Realism. We are going to focus on Classical Realism since it formed the basis of the most recent one and because the main question of this essay focuses on Hobbes perspective of Realism and he was a key thinker of this school of thought.
Classical Realism
Classical Realism is the school of thought born in Europe after the First World War, sustained by Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes’ ideas. Even though they actually formed the basis of Realism, it was Hans Morgenthau and H.R. Carr who brought up their political views and principles and include them in the modern era.
In a really short summary, Classical Realism says that the human nature is selfish and spontaneous, and people will do whatever it takes to satisfy their desires.
The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes was nicknamed the ‘father of Realism’ (being Thucydides its forefather); in the next chapter we are going to find out why.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)
Thomas Hobbes was one of the most relevant English philosophers from the XVII century. Oddly enough, he did not make a name for himself in the philosophical field, but in the political. Even though he wrote several books, the most important is Leviathan (1651) as well as his translation of The Peloponnesian War (originally written by Thucydides). With The Peloponnesian War he tried to prove to the English people that democracy was not as safe as it seemed (the Melian dialogue was of particular interest); with Leviathan he tried to justify an absolute State and the ‘social contract’.
Hobbes political ideas were particularly important, since he is considered one of the founding fathers of Realism. What did his political ideas consist of?
Hobbes’ Political Ideas
Hobbes based his theory in what he called ‘the state of nature’: a pre-civil state where there is no government and each human being looks after its own well-being, giving rise to competition and mistrust. In this natural state, the continuous competition creates a permanent state of war where people is guided by their own desires without taking into account moral objections. Even though passions are seeing as something bad or negative, it is impossible to refer to any human being as good or evil because of the inexistent moral boundaries. He admits, though, that men are evil by nature; passions and the actions led by
them are not to be judged because they are not sins, but something natural. In addition, he says that every human being has the same capabilities to achieve their goals, whatever these consist of. Conflict occurs when more than an individual wants the same exact thing. He also believes that there are three principal causes of quarrel: competition, diffidence and glory. The first one is related to gain, the second one to safety and the third one to reputation. Also, when he talks about ‘state of war’, he does not mean the act of actual fighting in a battle, but a situation where every man is against every man.
According to Hobbes, individuals depend on their strength and wittiness to survive, and they cannot expect anyone else to help them. The reason why is the lack of an overall authority in the State of Nature that could guarantee stability, peace and cooperation. Nevertheless, there is a certain inclination in every human being to escape their natural state: there are certain passions that provoke a desire for peace, even though these passions are born from the (selfish) fear of their own death; therefore, the State of Nature can be overcome not by means of the reason, but of those passions, making human beings collaborate to create a sovereign government that can rule over them. This so called sovereign does not imply that a unique person rule over the rest; hypothetically, it is a person or an assembly; in practice, it is the State that is sovereign, as it is a form of representation that works for every citizen, who at the same time see it as a peace and security ensurer.
This ‘inclination for peace’ is mentioned in what he called ‘natural laws’, which he says to be similar to the laws of physics, and which explain the behaviour of human beings. More specifically, it appears in the first law of nature, even though he counts up to 19 different laws in total in his major work Leviathan. The most important are the First, Second and Third. The First Law of Nature talks about searching and pursuing peace if possible; the Second Law of Nature talks about the capability of humans of not defending themselves by all means; and the Third Law of Nature talks about transferring rights to other men and respecting these pacts, accepting the consequences these pacts provoke. As we pointed out, human beings fear their own death, but according to Hobbes they also fear that the pacts mentioned on the Third Law of Nature are not respected. This fear will lead to the establishment of a coercive force to ensure that everybody respects these pacts. If they do not respect them, they will be punished. This is what he called ‘Social Contract’, a pact by which individuals choose a sovereign that rules over them giving up a little bit of their own freedom to preserve the common welfare. It means the establishment of a major force that everybody respects. The happening of this pact would mean the end of the State of Nature and therefore the happening of the necessary conditions for a society to exist, concluding that there must be a common power that forces people to respect the Social Contract and every other pact. The sovereign is allowed to be as tough as the situation requires it: if the only way to preserve the social contract is by means of threats or punishments, he is entitled to do so. Anyways, this contract doesn’t apply to him the same way it does to his subjects. Hobbes listed a series of rights concerning the sovereign and his subjects that go as follows:
Subjects owe him sole loyalty;
Subjects cannot be freed from their obligation to him;
Dissenters must yield to the majority in declaring a sovereign;
The sovereign cannot be unjust or injure any innocent subject;
The sovereign cannot be put to death;
The sovereign may determine what ideas are acceptable (he is the ultimate judge of philosophical/scientific first principles) and may censor doctrines that are repugnant to peace (ideas that may cause discord within the population);
The sovereign prescribes legislative rules;
The sovereign has judicial power in all controversies, civil and intellectual;
The sovereign may make war and peace with other commonwealths;
The sovereign may choose his counsellors;
The sovereign has the powers of reward and punishment; and
The sovereign may make all civil appointments, including that of the militia.
Only if humans behaved fairly and according the laws of nature, the State would not need to exist, since humans would not need a major force that obliged them to respect the pacts. Anyway, they do not behave like that when in the State of Nature, so the figure of the State as sovereign is absolutely necessary.
If other animals such as bees or ants are able to live without a State, why is it that human beings need one? Hobbes gives five reasons why humans need it: first of all, unlike other animals, human beings live in a permanent struggle for honour and dignity; secondly, the human being finds pleasure in comparing himself to other fellow humans, so they act most of the times for their own benefit; thirdly, as other animals are not rational, they do not feel like they need some sort of administration on their community, but men do, and at the same time they visualise themselves ruling because of their knowledge and capabilities; fourthly, those animals do not have a language (even though they communicate), but men do, and so they argue for important matters that are at the same time conflictive, such as religion; finally, irrational creatures such as bees or ants know nothing about being offensive to one another, but men do, and so they sometimes feel attacked by their colleagues. Hobbes explains that cohabitation and harmony is something natural amongst bees or ants, but artificial for human beings (artificial because it is a product of the Social Contract); to maintain that pact, they need something that leads them towards the common good of them all.
As we have seen, the absence of a ‘Social Contract’ means that human beings live in a ‘natural state’; this means they live in an anarchic (because there is no form of government) and dangerous state. Now the main question arises.
To what extent can it be argued that the international system, as characterised by the Realist tradition, is akin to the Hobbesian ‘state of nature’: anarchic and dangerous?
It is true that the international system is anarchic in the sense that there is no common government, but it cannot be compared to Hobbes’ Natural State. Sure it can seem dangerous because States, just as humans from Hobbes’ theory, depend pretty much on themselves, and because of their military capabilities they can start a World War whenever they can, but unlike in Leviathan, cooperation between States exist in the form of alliances. It can be dangerous because there is the possibility that they misuse their power and try to dominate other States but, in my opinion, they have two major reasons not to do as such: first of all, the fact that there are already alliances all over the world; if a State, let’s say Portugal, tries to invade Spain (without a reason), Spain allies and international organisations will come to the rescue and fight back, which would be a situation rather detrimental for Portugal; and secondly, the moral boundaries: in Hobbes’ State of Nature every action is endorsed by the fact that men are evil by nature, but that is a rather glib analysis of human behaviour. We can say that the international system is akin to the Hobbesian ‘State of Nature’ if we picture those alliances or even the moral boundaries as the ‘sovereign’ figure that Hobbes theorised about, or if we consider that it is anarchic not to have a common government even though States have their own individual forms of government, but I do not think it is close to what Hobbes described in Leviathan at all.