Hobbesâs concepts and imagery, his portrayal of human nature, and his theory of the state are hard to avoid when thinking about peace within or between societies. In the field of International Relations (IR), Hobbes is often associated with the view that states, in order to ensure their survival and independence, have to maintain a constant posture of war. 1 In discussions of peace processes after civil conflicts, Hobbes is frequently cited as a proponent of negative peace . It is claimed that he advocates a peace that is enforced by a powerful political authority and consists of the mere absence of private violence. This is generally contrasted to a positive peace , which is realised in accordance with principles of justice.
In this book, I provide a reassessment of Hobbesâs conception of peace. I explore his ideas about the internal pacification of states, the prospect of a peaceful international order, and the connections between civil and international peace. My findings question the notion of a negative Hobbesian peace, which is based on mere coercion, and emphasise his positive vision of peace in a well-governed commonwealth. I show that, in order to prevent social conflict and settle disputes peacefully, sovereigns ought to protect individual rights and ensure justice and fairness to all subjects. I also highlight Hobbesâs ideas about coexistence and cooperation between well-governed states. In examining Hobbesâs conception of peace within and between societies, the book provides a new perspective on his international political thought.
This introductory chapter is organised as follows. The first section situates the bookâs subject and arguments in the literature by introducing standard and revisionist interpretations of Hobbes. In the second section, I spell out in what way a focus on Hobbesâs conception of peace can enhance our understanding of his international political thought. The third section outlines the plan of the book.
1.1 Hobbes, Realism and Liberal Internationalism
This section introduces standard views of Hobbes in IR, along with recent scholarship on his international political theory. The discussion focuses on the traditional interpretation of Hobbes as a predecessor of realism, and revisionist accounts that associate him with liberal internationalism. 2 On this basis, I suggest a focus on Hobbesâs conception of peace as an alternative perspective on his international political thought.
Hobbes is frequently seen as a precursor of realist theories of international relations (e.g., Donnelly 2000; Williams 2005). 3 While there are different strands of realism in IR, all of them have in common a focus on the military and strategic interactions between states. Realists note the hierarchy that exists within states, and emphasise that there is no comparable hierarchical structure in the international sphere. In the absence of world government, states are said to face each other in an anarchic condition , in which war is possible at all times. Therefore, governments are (or should be) primarily concerned with national security. Some realists also argue that there are no effective moral constraints on international relations, and that power politics and even war are permissible in order to increase a stateâs security relative to other, potentially hostile powers.
The above realist themes have long dominated discussions of Hobbesâs international thought. Realists such as E. H. Carr (2001 [1939], 63, 140, 163) and Kenneth Waltz (1992, 21â38) consider Hobbes a predecessor, while some of realismâs best-known critics, including Charles Beitz (1979, 27â50) and Michael Walzer (2006 [1977], 3â20), also reference Hobbesâs purported realist views within their arguments. These accounts commonly draw on only a few statements in Hobbesâs works. Above all, IR theorists cite passages that suggest an analogy between IR and the state of nature, in which there is no coercive power that could enforce norms of peaceful coexistence. Hobbesâs claims about the human desire for power have also been widely recognised in IR. For instance, Hans Morgenthau states that Hobbes offers a seminal analysis of imperialism , as being characterised by âan urge toward expansion that knows no rational limitâ (Morgenthau 2006 [1948], 67; also see Schmidt 2005).
While Hobbes is frequently invoked as a precursor of realism , Immanuel Kantâs essay Towards Perpetual Peace ([1795] 1996) resonates particularly with liberal theories in IR (e.g., Doyle 2012; Oneal and Russett 1999). 4 In this text, Kant argues that the peoples of the world have a duty to establish a peaceful order that amounts to more than the temporary absence of hostilities. The essay takes the aforementioned analogy between international relations and the state of nature as its point of departure (Kant 1996, 8:348â9). From this starting point, Kant (1996, 8:349â60) spells out what is necessary to make progress towards perpetual peace , including a ârepublicanâ form of government in every state, a federation of peoples that secures each nationâs rights, and a cosmopolitan right of hospitality towards strangers. Kant acknowledges obstacles to world peace and the possibility that certain policies could lead to a worse outcome than an international state of nature, namely a despotic empire. Nonetheless, he insists that the state system can be reformed. In his view, a federation of free peoples, once established by a few republics, will âgradually extend over all states and so lead to perpetual peace â (Kant 1996, 8:356). He also identifies historical forces that could encourage political actors to pursue such reforms, particularly the âspirit of commerceâ (Kant 1996, 8:368).
Different strands of liberal internationalism pick up on various aspects of Kantâs peace plan, as well as drawing on other historical thinkers. 5 Among other things, liberal approaches focus on: the pacifying effects of republican government (which is often identified with constitutional democracy); the dynamics of world trade and economic cooperation; the subjection of interstate relations to international law and institutions ; more far-reaching cosmopolitan reforms and processes of globalisation. The fragmentation of liberal internationalism means that it is very difficult to define (Jahn 2013, 13â38). Yet, liberal approaches are commonly said to provide an alternative to realist theories, which focus on security considerations and power politics within an anarchic system of states. In contrast to realists, liberals envisage progress towards peaceful international coexistence and cooperation, and advocate reforms in accordance with liberal values. This may take various forms, ranging from global governance through institutions such as the United Nations (UN) to the worldwide promotion of democracy and human rights.
Scholars have questioned received views of thinkers such as Hobbes and Kant, but the purported distinction between (Hobbesian) realism and (Kantian) liberalism continues to provide a dominant interpretive framework. A number of authors have laboured to show that Hobbes is not a champion of realist power politics, but holds that there are moral constraints on the conduct of foreign affairs (e.g., Forsyth 1979; Malcolm 2002, 432â56). 6 More recently, Larry May (2013, 244) has concluded his study of Hobbesâs political and legal ...