Hobbes and the International Anarchy Author(s): HEDLEY BULL Source

23 Pages·2015·1.36 MB·English

Hobbes and the International Anarchy
Author(s): HEDLEY BULL
Source: Social Research, Vol. 48, No. 4, Politics: The Work of Hans Morgenthau (WINTER 1981),
pp. 717-738
Published by: The New School
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970843
Accessed: 13-08-2015 18:45 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The New School is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Hobbes and
the
International
/
Anarchy
BY HEDLEY BULL
/ _
11 ans Morgent hau was one of the greatesta cademice xpo-
nentso f internationaplo liticsi n our times,a nd if a greatd eal
of intellectuaelf forot vert hel astt hirtyy earsh as been devoted
to takingi ssue withh im, this is itselfa measure of his im-
portanceO. ne wayo f lookinga t Morgenthau'ws orki s to see it
as an attemptt o restatet he viewo f internationaplo liticsc on-
tained in the works of Thomas Hobbes- to make it fully
explicit,t o systematiziet , to expound it in the idiom and to
relatei t to the preoccupationosf anotherg enerationW. hilei t
wouldb e absurdt o equate Morgenthau'ps ositionw itht hato f
Hobbes (Morgenthaut akesi ssue withH obbes on a numbero f
pointsi n PoliticAs mongN ationsa,n d we cannoti n anyc ase look
for identityb etweent hinkerss eparatedb y so wide a gulf of
timea nd circumstanceM), orgenthauw as a leadingr epresen-
tativeo f whatm ayb roadlyb e called the Hobbesiant radition
in his approach to internationarle lations.I t therefores eems
appropriatet o offeri n this collectiono f essays writteni n
tributet o him,t hef ollowingp aper delivereda s a lecturea t the
Universitoyf Oxford,w hereH obbes was a studenta t Magda-
len Hall (now HertfordC ollege) on the occasion of the ter-
centenaryo f his death.
The Stateo fN ature
In the vast mansiono f Thomas Hobbes's philosophyw, hat
he has to say about relationsa mong statesd oes not occupy
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
718 SOCIAL RESEARCH
more than a small cupboard. Hobbes, indeed, constitutesn o
exception to a general trutht hat may be stated about all the
greatest political thinkerso f the past: none of them ever de-
voted himselfp rimarilyt o the studyo f thiss ubject- a sobering
reflectionf or professors of International Relations. The his-
toricald rama in relation to which Hobbes's politicali deas have
chieflyt o be seen was, aftera ll, not an internationalb ut a civil
conflict.T he problem to which these ideas purport to offera
solution is how to provide internal or domestic peace and
security.T he particulars olution that Hobbes recommends for
the provision of domestic peace and security,m oreover- the
establishmento f all-powerfulL eviathans- is, I should argue,
one that makes the attainment of international peace and
securitym ore difficultT. he priorityt hat Hobbes gave to pur-
suing the formere ven at the expense of the latter appears to
reflecta belief he had that internal or domestic strifei s more
terriblet han strifea mong states.
Yet the man who was born in the year of the Spanish
Armada when, as Aubrey tell us, his mother "fell in labour
with him upon frighto f invasion of the Spaniards," and who
lived through the strugglesa gainst Hapsburg ascendancy, the
last phase of the wars of religion and the early phase of the
wars for naval and mercantile predominance, had reason
enough to reflect about internationalo r interstatec onflict.1
Nor can we say that a man who in his youth translated
Thucydides's Historyo f theP eloponnesianW ar into English and
Bacon's essay on The True Greatnesos fK ingdomsin to Latin, and
who later read John Selden's Mare Clausum, did not apply
himselft o the studyo f thiss ubject. In Hobbes's time as in ours
civil conflictsa nd interstatec onflictsw ere closely bound up
with one another: civil wars provided opportunities for for-
eign intervention,a nd religious loyalties,l ike loyalties to the
secular religionso f today, linked parties across state frontiers.
1J ohnA ubreyB, riefL ives,e ditedb yO liverL awsonD ick( Ann Arbor:U niversitoyf
MichiganP ress,1 957).
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY 719
The EnglishC ivilW ar was no exception,a nd in his historyo f
it, BehemothH, obbes numbers among the "seducers" that
broughtt he conflicta bout the Papistsw ho looked to Rome,
the Presbyterianws ho looked to Scotland,a nd the City of
London whichl ooked to the Low Countriest ogetherw itht he
universitiews hich,i nsteado f teachingo bedience to the law,
were centerso f subversionH. obbes himselfi,t seems,a t least
fromt hisa ccountw hichh e wrotei n old age duringt he Resto-
ration,h eld that French interventionm ighth ave saved the
King: "It is methinkns o greatp olityi n neighbouringp rinces
to favour,a s theyo ftend o, one another'sr ebels,e specially
when theyr ebel against monarchyi tself.T hey should first
makea league againstr ebelliona nd afterward(si f thereb e no
remedy)f ighto ne againsta nother."2H obbes'sa ccounto f con-
flictws ithins tatesi s in factl inkedi ntegrallwy itha n accounto f
relationsa mong them.T he reason whym en should institute
Commonwealthiss not only to save themselvesf romt he in-
juries theyw ould otherwised o to one another,b ut also to be
able to resiste xternali nvasion.T he twof unctionsm, oreover,
cannotb e separated:t he swordo fj usticew hicht he sovereign
wields,a s Hobbes putsi t,i s the same as the swordo f defense.
Howeverp eripheratl hes ubjectm ayh ave seemedt o him,i n
the discussiono f moderni nternationarle lationsH obbes is a
figureo f toweringi mportance.A long with Machiavellia nd
Hegel, fromb otho f whomh e differps rofoundlyh,e provides
the principali mpetuso f whatm ayl ooselyb e called the Realist
tradition,w hich presents world politics as essentiallyt he
struggleo f statesf orp ower and- refurbishedin the writings
of E. H. Carr,R einholdN iebuhr,H ans MorgenthauH, erbert
Butterfieldan d manyo ther-s has had a deep influenceo n
politicalt hinkingin the Westi n the last fortyy ears.H obbes's
contributionto the Realistt raditionw as to provide a rigor-
ouslys ystematiacc counto f the logico f relationsa mong inde-
2 Thomas Hobbes,B ehemotohr, TheL ongP arliamenetd, itedb y FerdinandT önnies
(New York: Barnes& Noble, 1969), p. 144.
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
720 SOCIAL RESEARCH
pendent powers that find themselvesi n a situationo f anarchy
in the sense of absence of government,a n account that not
only tells us, with ruthlessc andor, how and why these powers
do and must confronto ne another under the imperativeso f
internationala narchy, but also what they should and some-
timesc an do to provide a modicum of securitye ven while they
remain in this condition. In this lecture I shall seek, first,t o
expound Hobbes's view of the internationala narchy; second,
to consider how it relates to other schools of interpretationo f
internationalr elations,o pposed to that of Hobbes; and third,
to assess the bearing of what Hobbes has to say on world
politics in our own times.
The startingp oint of Hobbes's account of relations among
states is the proposition that they take place in a state of
nature which is a state of war. Hobbes puts this proposition
forwardi n the course of providing the evidence for his argu-
ment that individual men would find themselves in such a
condition of war if they were not in awe of a common power.
In Leviathanh e mentions that savage peoples in America are
in this condition, and also that men experience it in civil war.
He then makes his celebrated appeal to the facts of interna-
tional relations:
But thought hereh ad neverb een any time,w hereinp articular
men were in a conditiono f war one againsta nother;y eti n all
times,k ings,a nd persons of sovereigna uthorityb, ecause of
theiri ndependencya,r e in continuajle alousies,a nd in the state
and postureo f gladiatorsh; avingt heirw eaponsp ointingt, heir
eyes fixed on one another;t hat is, theirf orts,g arrisonsa nd
guns upon the frontierosf theirK ingdoms;a nd continuals pies
upon theirn eighboursw; hichi s a postureo f war.3
From this and comparable passages in The Elementso fL aw and
De Cive we are entitled to infer that all of what Hobbes says
:l Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan,i n The English Workso f ThomasH obbes of Malmesbury
[hereinafteErW H], edited by Sir WilliamM olesworth1,1 vols. (London: J. Bohn,
1836-45), 3: 115.
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY 721
about the lifeo f individualm en in the stateo f naturem ayb e
read as a descriptiono f the conditiono f statesi n relationt o
one another.
States,t hen,a re in a conditiono f war,n ot in the sense that
theya re alwaysf ightingb,u t in the sense thato ver a period
of time theyh ave a knownd ispositiont o fight.W ar in this
sense is inherentin the conditiono f statest hata re not in awe
of a commonp ower; peace, in the sense of a timei n which
therei s nota dispositionto fighti,s beyondt heirr each.T his is
a war of everys tatea gainste veryo thers tate:a t any one time
there mightb e relationso f alliance or indifferencbee tween
particularst atesa s wella s relationso f hostilityb,u to vera long
enoughs tretcho f timee verys tatew illd isplayi tsd ispositiont o
fighte veryo ther- there are no "securityc ommunities,o" r
groups of statest hath ave overcomet he dispositiont o fight
one another,s uch as today the countrieso f the European
Communityo,r yesterdayt he countrieso f the BritishC om-
monwealtha,r e alleged to have done.
The causes or motivest hat lead statest o war are three:
competitionf or materialp ossessions,w hich leads to wars
foughtf or gain; diffidenceo r mistrustt,h e source of wars
foughtf ord efenseo r securitya;n d glory,t hep ursuito f which
leads to warst o prevento thersf romu ndervaluingu s, as they
do whent heyi gnoreo ur opinionso r faith.H obbes's doctrine
of thet hreeg reatm otiveso f war- gain,f ear,a nd glory- -isa n
amplificatioonf the accountg ivenb y Thucydides,w ho puts
similarw ordsi ntot he mouthso f theA theniana mbassadorsi n
Spartaw hen,o n thee ve of the PeloponnesianW ar and in the
attemptt o averti t, theye xplain to the Lacedaemoniansh ow
Athensh ad come to expand its dominion," chieflyf or fear,
next for honour,a nd lastlyf or profit."4
Hobbes also followsT hucydidesi n treatingf ear- noti n the
sense of an unreasoninge motion,b ut ratheri n the sense of
the rationala pprehensiono f futurei nsecurit-y a s the prime
4
Thucydides, Historyo f theP eloponnesianW ar, Hobbes's translationi n EWH 8: 81.
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
722 SOCIAL RESEARCH
motive,a motive that affectsn ot only some states some of the
time but all states all of the time, the cause of preventivew ars
as well as of defensive ones, in the Peloponnesian War the
main issue for the Lacedaemonians as well as for the Athe-
nians. It is this concern to secure what we already have, rather
than any ambition to acquire what we do not have, that in-
clines all mankind toward "a perpetual and restless desire of
power after power, that ceaseth only in death."5 It is the
motive of fear, leading to the search for security through
superior power, which, more than competition for material
goods or clashes of ideology, brings states into conflictw ith
one another, for two contending states seeking securityi n this
way cannot both be superior. Here Hobbes might seem to
come close to twentieth-centurayn alyses of the logic of "the
arms race," "the mutual reinforcemento f threatp erceptions,"
or, to use the phrase which Robert McNamara applied to
Soviet-American competition in strategic armaments, "the
action-reactionp henomenon." But this is not so: those today
who warn us against the dangers of seeking securityt hrough
superiorp ower generallyb elieve thatt he dangers can be averted
or are the result of mistaken or self-confirmingp ercep-
tions. Hobbes's argument points rather to the conclusion that
the dangers cannot be averted, that the incompatibilityo f
interestsb etween two or more states each of which is seeking
security through superior power does not rest on mistaken
perceptions but is quite genuine.
It is a feature of the state of war that "The notions of right
and wrong,j ustice and injustice,h ave there no place." There
is no law, "no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine
distinct;b ut only that to be every man's, that he can get, and
for so long as he can keep it."6W hatevere lse he intendsi n this
famous passage, Hobbes means that in the state of nature
there is no positive law. He believes that rules of natural law,
5 Hobbes,L eviathani,n EWH 3: 85-86.
"Ibid., p. 115.
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY 723
in his specials enseo f thet erm,a pplyt o it,a nd thatt heser ules
are commandedb y God. It may be that,a s Warrendera nd
othersh ave argued,t herei s some sense in whichf or Hobbes
there are moral rules in the stateo f nature.7T here is also
some questionw hethert hisa nd similarp assagesr efer,n ot to
the stateo f naturei n all its phases, but only to a supposed
earlyp hase in whichm en are not onlys ubjectt o a sovereign
but also in a literals ense solitaryB. ut law is the commando f
the sovereigna,n d can come intob eingo nlya s a consequence
of the establishmenotf governmentP. rincesa nd common-
wealths,b eing subjectt o no commong overnmentc,a nnotb e
subjectt o law. Whati s called the law of nations,a ccordingt o
Hobbes, is not law- the view which,r efineds uccessivelyb y
John Austin, Hans Kelsen, and Herbert Hart, has been
handed downt o us as thev iewt hati nternationalal w,w hether
or not it is law properlys o-called,i s at all eventsn ot law in
quitet hes ame sensei n whichm unicipall aw is law. The law of
nations,H obbes tellsu s, is the same as the law of nature,t hat
is to say, the prudentialr ules of survival.
The foundationo f Hobbes's approach to the question of
righta nd wrongi n the internationaaln archyi s his doctrine
not of naturall aw but of naturalr ight.B y the righto f nature
Hobbes means the libertye ach man has to do whateveri s
necessaryt o preserveh imselff romd eatho r injurya, nd in the
stateo f naturef or an individualm an this libertyis entirely
withoutli mit.T he individualm an, in Hobbes's theorye, nters
societya nd surrenderts hisu ntrammeledli bertyb y submitting
himselft o thes overeignb, uth e stillr etainsh is naturalr ightt o
preserveh imselfi f the sovereigns hould fail to protecth im
fromd eath or injury." Everys ubject,"H obbes tells us, "has
libertyi n all those thingst he rightw hereofc annot be by
covenantt ransferred,a"n d so the subjectn eed not obey an
order to kill or maim himself,c an defend himselfa gainst
7 See Howard WarrenderT, he PoliticaPl hilosophoyf Hobbes( Oxford:C larendon
Press,1 957).
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
724 SOCIAL RESEARCH
execution, refuse in certain circumstancest o fighti n foreign
wars, and may submitt o a foreignc onqueror "if his person or
means of life be within the guards of the enemy."8
This natural right of libertyo r self-preservation,H obbes
tells us, is enjoyed by commonwealthsi n just the same way as it
is by individual persons in the state of nature: "every sover-
eign hath the same right,i n procuringt he safetyo f his people,
that any particularm an can have in procuringt he safetyo f his
own body."9 It is this conception of the right of states to
ensure their own survivalt hat links Hobbes to the traditiono f
reason of state or raison d'état that runs through European
historyf rom Machiavelli and Botero and Rohan to Frederick
the Great, Hegel, and Treischke, and whose historiani s Fried-
rich Meinecke.10H obbes does not use the term reason of state,
and the meaning it came to have for Hegel and his
successors- of justification by reference to a state with an
individual soul apart from the persons of which it is made up,
and with a moral duty to assert itself- is entirelyf oreign to
Hobbes. But in asserting the ultimatef reedom of states from
moral fetters,a t least where the objective of self-preservation
is concerned, and in his willingnesst o allow whatever mea-
sures are rationallyj udged necessary to achieve this objective
(and to exclude mere brute force or the pursuit of power for
its own sake), Hobbes stands within the broad tradition of
Machiavellianism. Hobbes's doctrine of natural right, as
Strauss has commented, performs the function of hallowing
self-interest.1A1 t the hands of writers on international law
from the eighteenth century to the early twentiethc entury,
this doctrine of the natural right of states to self-
8 See Hobbes, Leviathan,c h. 21.
9 Ibid., eh. 30, in EWH 3: 342.
10F riedrich Meinecke, Machiavellism[ 1924], translated by Douglas Scott (New
Haven: Yale UniversityP ress, 1957).
11S ee Leo Strauss in K. C. Brown, ed., HobbesS tudies( Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1965);
see also Leo Strauss, The PoliticalP hilosophyof Hobbes( Chicago: Universityo f Chicago
Press, 1952).
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE INTERNATIONAL ANARCHY 725
preservatio-n s ometimesa ssertedt o be part of international
law, sometimesa ppealed to as a higher principles tanding
outside it- came to be used as a means of demolishingt he
claimso f internationaslo cietyo n itsm emberss tates,o r at least
of showingt hat theyh ad only a contingento r tentativev a-
lidityI. n our own timesi t stills ometimesr earsi ts head, as in
Dean Acheson'sd ismissaol f the relevanceo f internationalal w
to Americand ecisionsi n the Cuban missilec risis,o r Henry
Kissinger'sa ppeal to a righto f the Westernp owers to take
whatevera ction is necessaryt o prevente conomics trangula-
tion by an oil embargo.
The analogyb etweent he conditiono f statesi n the inter-
nationala narchya nd the conditiono f individualp ersonsl iv-
ing withoutg overnmenits not takenb y Hobbes to what,o n
some viewsa t least,i s itsl ogicalc onclusionI. ndividualm en,i n
Hobbes's account,a re drivent o escape fromt he stateo f na-
tureb y submittintgo a sovereignp owert hatw illh old themi n
awe, either by covenatinga mong themselvest o institutea
commonwealtho r, in the case of paternal commonwealths
ruledb yh eads of familieso r despoticalc ommonwealthess tab-
lishedb y foreignc onquerorsb, yc ovenantingd irectlyw itht he
sovereignt o submitt hemselvest o him in returnf or protec-
tion.I n the case of statesi n the internationaslt ateo f nature,
no such escape routei s suggested.I t has oftenb een said that
if Hobbes were faithfutlo the premiseso f his own argument
he would be bound to recognizet hat princesa nd common-
wealthsa re subjectt o the same pressurest hat would drive
individuapl ersonst o seek a wayo ut of the stateo f naturea nd
mustc ovenantt o submitt hemselvets o a world government.
Yet Hobbes says nothingt o give sustenancet o the idea that
thisw ould,o r even thati t should,t akep lace. The onlyu niver-
sal kingdomo f whichh e speaksi s the Kingdomo f God, which
can have no earthlye mbodimenta, s he makes clear in his
savage demolitiono f the claimso f the Papacy stillt o exercise
someg hostlyr elico fI mperiummu ndai nd in his firmc onclusion
thata Christianc ommonwealtihs one in whichC hristianm en
This content downloaded from 129.177.5.184 on Thu, 13 Aug 2015 18:45:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions