Thucydides’ influence on Hobbes’ political philosophy
Thomas Hobbes, one of the founding members of the modern political philosophy, was a philosopher of England. He is best known for his work Leviathan that was published in the year 1651 (Baumgold 2013). In this book, he established the famous theory of social contract. The social contract theory served to be a foundation for most of the later political philosophy of the West. According to Hobbes, states have the supreme right to govern and no external force should impose their principles on the nation-state. He further opined that the spiritual authority must be submissive to the civil authority. He reasoned his opinion with the argument that dividing power between two distinct authorities would only create chaos and might even lead to civil war. He also discarded the intervention of states in the political, economic or social affairs of other states. In contrast to Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty and non-intervention, modern theory upholds international relations and intervention whenever necessary.
The following essay discusses the theory of sovereignty as proposed by Thomas Hobbes and discusses the consistency of the theoretical conception of the current scenario. It provides a systematic analysis of the two contrasting theories and their relevance in the past and present political scenario. The essay further relates Hobbes’ theory to the Westphalian Treaty and its recurring influence in the modern world (Zielonka 2013). In addition, the essay focuses on the influence of globalization in shaping the modern sovereign principles.
Sovereignty refers to the complete power and rights that a governing body has over it. There is no interference of the outside sources or any other body on the sovereign state. Thomas Hobbes in his famous work, Leviathan concluded at a concept of sovereignty that finds similarity to the concept that was proposed by Bodin. Jurist Jean Bodin was perhaps the first theorist who articulated the modern theory of sovereignty that envisaged it as an ultimate, uninterrupted and inseparable power manifested by the capability to make law without the permission of any other. Hobbes’s theory while in line with that of Bodin’s rejected some his notions. He believed that sovereignty arose from human being’s incapability to keep aside their egos and be cultured. He argued in the ‘Leviathan’, social contract is the best way to achieve civil peace and social harmony. In the four parts of the book, Hobbes precisely explains the term sovereignty, its origin, its importance, and the rights of the sovereign state and the role of religion in erecting the Leviathan. The concept of sovereignty in Leviathan is concerned about social and political issues. In this context, govermentalisation of a state is necessary to take into account. Governmentalization of a state leads to organize integrated political bodies in a state (Glanville 2013). Organizing political bodies are essential for the formation of a docile body in a state. This docile body needs to take into account for governing the population of a state. In the reference, the concept of sovereignty and the concept of governmentalization are attached with one another. Thomas Hobbes said that the power of sovereignty is necessary to be restored in a state in order to conserve the rights of the human beings.
Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty and non-intervention
In order to live life in a harmonious the most important things are discipline and security. Civil conflict destroys the peace of human life. The power of sovereignty ensures security of human lives from the danger of civil conflict (Gümplová 2014). Civil war is considered as a universal insecurity as all the people live in fear. In terms of fighting against the civil war, the cooperation of human is the most necessary thing to be considered. Thomas Hobbes belonged to the era of English Civil War. He closely witnessed the brutality of civil war, which lead him to originate the concept of sovereignty in order to secure human lives from the brutality of the war. The book ‘Leviathan is deeply influenced by the economic, social and political events of the English Civil War (Jacobsen 2016). This context gives evidence as to why the book is considered one of the most followed books even in the modern world.
Hobbes’ concept of sovereignty involves governmentalisation of the modern state. The part one of Leviathan discusses the state of nature. In Hobbes’ view, in order to govern a state, the main factor is logic, not experience. Hobbes justifies the necessity of sovereignty. The sovereign power plays the most crucial in terms of organizing a state in a logical ground. Three factors are most important in this context – people, territory and ethnicity. Based on three factors, sovereign power for a particular nation is mainly defined (Hehir 2013). The sovereign power of a particular state is necessary to take into account in terms of formation of a suitable government according to the nature of a particular state.
To Hobbes, the power of sovereignty is considered in terms economic and political stability of nation. In a state, there are a number of political bodies, which are always engaged in conflict in terms of asserting power. Hence, political turmoil is a phenomenon in every state. In order to control the political turmoil it is necessary to have a sovereign power in a state. A defined government of state stands for the notified sovereign power (Hjorth 2014). In a modern state, this sovereign power is classified into three types- legislative power, judicial power and executive power. Legislative power is considered in order to constitute public policies. Legislative power governs people in order to move on in a disciplined way. Executive power is taken into account for executing, enforcing and administering law (Prokhovnik 2013). On the other hand, judicial power interprets law of a state. Hobbes concept of sovereignty is highly considered for legal and political advancement. In addition, Hobbes concept of sovereignty needs to take into account for mitigating the political complication in a state.
Modern theories of sovereignty and non-intervention
The concept of three types of state governmentalization is mentioned in Leviathan – Feudalism, Classic Republic and Absolute Monarchy (Burchillet al. 2013). The political system of medieval Europe was based on Feudalism. However, at the present the political system in most of the European Union is constitutional monarchy, which can be compared with classic republic. In the United States of America, there are two parties political system – Democratic Party and Republican Party (Forbes and Hoffman 2016). In London, there is bilateral government – House of Lords and House of Commons. Thus based on the territorial population and territorial culture, type of the government varies.
In Leviathan, Hobbes summarizes the principles of politics in modern days. In going through Leviathan, it is clearly understood that his basic priority is commonwealth. In Leviathan, he describes the sovereign power as the mitigation of political and social inequality (Cunliffe 2017). According to Hobbes, the sovereign power in a state is responsible in order to fulfill the common interest of the population. Leviathan is also focused in assessing political freedom. It is also necessary to notify hereby that the political thinking of Machiavelli has been considered in Leviathan. Niccolo Machiavelli is first modern political thinker. He is the believer of harsh realities of power in terms of conserving political freedom. It is also necessary to notify in this context that Hobbes’ concept of sovereignty has not been developed by religious faith. Leviathan is a nonpareil political and philosophical work of Hobbes, which is highly concerned about civil peace and an integrated society channel. Hence, social contract is necessary to take into account in terms of understanding the concept of sovereign power in leviathan. As opined by Hobbes in Leviathan, one of the premium objectives of the sovereign power is to develop a common defense. On the other hand, Hobbes declared in Leviathan that commonwealth can be accessed from the perspective of ‘artificial person’. Commonwealth is a representative body of the commoners. Hobbes has titled the figure of this representative body ‘Leviathan’. Hobbes concept of sovereignty is highly significant in terms of perfect government. Hobbes is strictly against the violation of human rights (Bartelson 2014). His ideology of government is highly strict in order to prevent the civil war. Restoring peace in society needs to be other premium objectives of the government. Hobbes has exclaimed in Leviathan that the human nature can be best recognized in deducing from materialistic principles. On the other hand, the nature of state is deduced from the natural condition of humankind. The fear of civil war leaves a negative impact on the nature of the state. Hence, according to Hobbes, one of the premium purposes of the social contract is to restrict civil war (?u?uianu 2012). Apart from that, the book also depicts Hobbes’ stand on Papal Power, the ecclesiastical authority and on indirect power.
Comparison of Grotius and Vattel’s theories of international law
The Westphalian Treaty of 1648 gave rise to the concept of ultimate sovereignty with no intervention of external factors. This treaty further solidified Hobbes’ concept of sovereignty and non-intervention. The modern concept however formed during the sixteenth and the seventeenth century with debates over the ousting power of the rulers. Instances of this deposing power can be found in the verdicts of the Pope excommunicating monarchs who according him defied the Divine Law. Hobbes’ was completely against this modern concept. This debate had contemporary consequences for debates over humanitarian intervention. Opining on ecclesiastical power, Hobbes stated that the state must have the authority to impose non-intervention in order to secure domestic peace.
Modern theorists like Krasner proposed separating sovereignty from non-intervention in order to strike a balance between power and responsibility. States have the power to impose rules and laws that its citizens have to follow but external forces have the responsibility to check on the unfair use of power. The sovereignty equation has transformed greatly in the modern world that discards Hobbes’ theory of ultimate sovereignty, argue Pourmokhtari (2013). According to the author, the dynamics of International Relations in the current scenario forms the relationship between the Orient and the Occident. The Orient, he points out has been dominated by the overwhelming power of the Occident that is the Western world. Sovereignty and non-intervention thus in the present context are defined and controlled by the powerful West and prescribed as per its convenience to the subservient Orient. Drayton (2013) presents a legitimate argument that intervention, either military or political is necessary when there is a risk to the lives of the sovereign citizens from the protectors of sovereignty. However, the absence of apparent rules on the ways to decide the justification of collective violence, the individual or institution’s right to intervene and the limits, from international practice and law weakens the norm of intervention. It thus weakens the modern theorists’ stand against non-intervention.
There have been incidences in the last few centuries that changed the face of the world and the old established theories of sovereignty and non-intervention. Most significant of those being the post Cold War period. In the views of Davidson (2012), interventions in internal affairs of states on grounds of humanity have seen a significant rise post Cold War thus contributing to the visible decline in the effectiveness of state sovereignty. These interventions, sometimes dictated by the dominant states were viewed as necessary to uphold democratic principles and ensure peace for the people. Viewing these events in the light of the discourse, Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is still upheld by many states while the non-intervention principle has been sidelined.
Comparison of Vattel’s theory of just war with those of St. Thomas Aquinas and Francisco de Vitoria
Grinin (2012) furthers the argument of non-intervention drawing attention to the influence of globalization. The author point out that globalization has, without any doubt contributed to the change and decrease in the capacity of state sovereign powers. The internet, financial crisis, media empires, and multinational corporations – all these factors have posed threat to the concept of sovereignty as propagated by Hobbes. The blurring of international boundaries owing to the smooth flow of trade, culture and political ideologies has contributed to the negation of Hobbes’ principles. One glaring example of the rejection of non-intervention in the modern world is the formation of institutions and organizations like the European Union, the United Nations and its associates. The establishment of these institutions provides evidence of the inconsistency of Hobbes’ sovereignty and non-intervention theory with the modern theories.
A study by Coleman and Maogoto (2013) reveals the influence of globalization on concepts of sovereignty and non-intervention. They have examined this influence in the Chinese context stating that globalization has influenced the Eastern power to adapt the Westphalian concept. This inevitably means the ineffectiveness of the very concept of Westphalia of ultimate sovereignty.
Numerous instances of military, cultural and political intervention from the past and present decades further establish the inconsistency of Hobbes’ theories. Non-intervention during the times when Hobbes lived implied mostly to the physical intervention of states in the internal affairs. However, the dynamics have changed drastically over the years and intervention is no longer limited to physical interference. With the emergence of the new media, cultural concepts of predominantly the West have penetrated into the social structure of the so-called subordinate nations. After the Second World War, the United States emerged as the most powerful nation-state in the world and it fueled the notion of cultural and military intervention. Prior to US, Russia had dominance over the international system (Viola 2013). During the Cold War period, the world was divided into two groups, one favoring US and other favoring Russia. The concepts of ultimate sovereignty and non-intervention were seen from the viewpoint of the two dominating countries. Other supporting nations had voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty to the mercy of the two nations. This is another glaring proof of inconsistency suffered by Hobbes’ theory with that of the modern theories.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be concluded that Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is only partially consistent with the modern theories. Although his concepts of sovereign power and non-intervention are widely considered, it does not fit entirely on the modern context. The essay analyzed the ‘Leviathan’ authored by Hobbes reiterated that the writing is relevant and important to understand the core of political power. The purposes of sovereignty are clearly spelled out in the Leviathan. In addition, it also provided a critical analysis of the relevancy of Hobbes’ theories in the modern context as the world has transformed post Hobbes era. The essay tries to provide valid and authenticated arguments in favor of the notion that Hobbes’ theories are inconsistent with the modern theories. However, it is imperative to state that the Hobbes’ was to some extent correct in opposing the division of power between the temporal and the spiritual. He favored the sovereign of the state to have control over both civil and religious establishments. The essay in addition, has incorporated enough evidences from the incidences of the modern and post-modern eras that negate the notion of non-intervention. It is but also true that the theories propagated by Hobbes are relevant even today and the world is moving slowly but gradually towards ultimate sovereignty. Further readings and research in this area are suggested in order to have a deeper insight into the latest happenings that contrast and establish Hobbes’ theories with modern theories.
Reference list
Bartelson, J., 2014. Sovereignty as symbolic form (Vol. 6). Routledge.
Baumgold, D., 2013. “Trust” in Hobbes’s Political Thought. Political Theory, 41(6), pp.838-855.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C. and True, J., 2013. Theories of international relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coleman, A. and Maogoto, J.N., 2013. “Westphalian” Meets “Eastphalian” Sovereignty: China in a Globalized World. Asian Journal of International Law, 3(2), pp.237-269.
Cunliffe, P., 2017. The doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’as a practice of political exceptionalism. European Journal of International Relations, 23(2), pp.466-486.
Davidson, J., 2012. Humanitarian Intervention as Liberal Imperialism: A Force for Good. POLIS Journal, 7, pp.128-164.
Drayton, R., 2013. Beyond humanitarian imperialism: The dubious origins of ‘Humanitarian Intervention’and some rules for its future. In The History and Practice of Humanitarian Intervention and Aid in Africa (pp. 217-231). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Forbes, I. and Hoffman, M. eds., 2016. Political theory, international relations, and the ethics of intervention. Springer.
Glanville, L., 2013. Sovereignty and the responsibility to protect: a new history. University of Chicago Press.
Grinin, L.E., 2012. New foundations of international System ?R why do states lose their sovereignty in the Age of globalization?. Journal of Globalization Studies, 3(1).
Gümplová, P., 2014. Restraining permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Enrahonar: quaderns de filosofia, 53, pp.0093-114.
Hehir, A., 2013. Humanitarian intervention: an introduction. Palgrave macmillan.
Hjorth, R., 2014. The Limits of International Society. In Equality in International Society (pp. 147-165). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Jacobsen, T., 2016. Re-envisioning sovereignty: the end of Westphalia?.Routledge.
Pourmokhtari, N., 2013. A Postcolonial Critique of State Sovereignty in ir: the contradictory legacy of a ‘West-centric’discipline. Third World Quarterly, 34(10), pp.1767-1793.
Prokhovnik, R., 2013. Sovereignty: history and theory. Andrews UK Limited.
Sampford, C., 2017. 16. Challenges to the Concepts of ‘Sovereignty’and ‘Intervention’. Revival: Human Rights in Philosophy and Practice (2001).
?u?uianu, S., 2012. Towards Global Justice: Sovereignty in an Interdependent World. Springer Science & Business Media.
Viola, L.A., 2013. 6 Strati?catory differentiation as a constitutive principle of the international system. Bringing Sociology to International Relations: World Politics as Differentiation Theory, p.112.
Zielonka, J., 2013. The International System in Europe: Westphalian Anarchy or Medieval Chaos?. Journal of European Integration, 35(1), pp.1-18.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
