Advertisement

Hobbesian Internationalism: Hobbes Meets Kant

  • Silviya LechnerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Political Theory book series (IPoT)

Abstract

In the previous chapter, Hobbes’s theory of international relations was reconstructed working from his conception of a domestic state of nature or ‘anarchy’. The result was to identify two mutually opposed models—a world state model or an international anarchy (‘realist’) model—together with a more ambiguous normative perspective that depicts the international anarchy as modulated by laws of nature. The present chapter is devoted to a third Hobbesian model of an international authority that exists within anarchy. Its central argument is that Kant’s theory of international authority, based on his principle of international right, constitutes the closest logical analogue of such an ‘internationalist’ Hobbesian model. The model is a via media between a pure anarchy where states are dissociated individuals relying on self-help and a world state, as a globally centralised coercive structure.

Bibliography

  1. Bohman, James, and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds.). 1997. Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, M.E., S.M. Lynn-Jones, and S.E. Miller. 1996. Debating the Democratic Peace: An International Security Reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Byrd, Sharon B., and Joachim Hruschka. 2010. Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavallar, Georg. 1999. Kant and the Theory and Practice of International Right. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, Michael W. 1983a. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part I. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (3): 205–235.Google Scholar
  6. Doyle, Michael W. 1983b. Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs, Part II. Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (4): 323–353.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1151–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flikschuh, Kartrin. 2000. Kant and Modern Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flikschuh, Katrin. 2010. Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma: A Contemporary Analysis. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (4): 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guyer, Paul. 2002. Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right. In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, ed. Mark Timmons, 23–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guyer, Paul. 2006. Kant. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, Jurgen. 1997. Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years Hindsight. In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 113–154. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hobbes, Thomas. 1968. Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson. London: Penguin (Originally published in 1651).Google Scholar
  14. Hobbes, Thomas. 1969. The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic, 2nd ed., ed. Ferdinand Tönnies. London: Frank Cass (Originally published in 1650).Google Scholar
  15. Höffe, Otfried. 2006. Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace, trans. Alexandra Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hurrell, Andrew. 1990. Kant and the Kantian Paradigm of International Relations. Review of International Studies 16 (3): 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kant, Immanuel. 1991a. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. In Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 2nd ed., trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss, 93–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Originally published in 1795).Google Scholar
  18. Kant, Immanuel. 1991b. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose. In Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, 2nd ed., trans. H.B. Nisbet, ed. Hans Reiss, 41–53 (Originally published in 1784).Google Scholar
  19. Kant, Immanuel. 1996a. The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Originally published in 1797).Google Scholar
  20. Kant, Immanuel. 1996b. On The Common Saying: That May be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice. In Immanuel Kant, Practical Philosophy, trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Originally published in 1793).Google Scholar
  21. Kant, Immanuel. 1996c. Critique of Pure Reason, unified edn, trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett (First edition originally published in 1781, second edition originally published in 1787).Google Scholar
  22. Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Originally published in 1785).Google Scholar
  23. Kersting, Wolfgang. 1992. Kant’s Concept of the State. In Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Howard Williams, 143–165. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kinsella, David. 2005. No Rest for the Democratic Peace. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kleingeld, Pauline. 2004. Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and His Ideal of a World Federation. European Journal of Philosophy 12 (3): 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleingeld, Pauline. 2016. Kant’s Moral and Political Cosmopolitanism. Philosphy Compass 11 (1): 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laberge, Pierre. 1998. Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations. In International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed. D.R. Mapel and T. Nardin, 82–102. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nardin, Terry. 2017. Kant’s Republican Theory of Justice and International Relations. International Relations 31 (3): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raphael, D.D. 2004. Hobbes: Morals and Politics, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Ripstein, Arthur. 2004. Authority and Coercion. Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (1): 2–35.Google Scholar
  32. Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Russett, Bruce. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rosato, Sebastian. 2003. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 585–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sreedhar, Susanne. 2010. Hobbes on Resistance: Defying the Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tuck, Richard. 1999. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Westphal, Kenneth. 1993. Republicanism, Despotism and Obedience to the State: the Inadequacy of Kant’s Division of Powers. Jahrbuch Für Recht Und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics 1: 263–281.Google Scholar
  39. Williams, Howard. 2003. Kant’s Critique of Hobbes. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  40. Williams, Howard. 2012. Kant and the End of War: A Critique of Just War Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. Wood, Allen W. 2005. Kant. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of War StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations