Is the international system Hobbes' state of nature? Does morality exist in that system? Does justice? These are big questions and, for many students of international relations, ones with answers that turn their views cynical. At least they did for me. But they also give me hope.
My understanding of the international system is that it is very much like Hobbes' state of nature. Using a theory of man in the state of nature is a helpful tool in understanding the international system because that system is comprised of states (as the primary actors) and states are made up of men. Therefore, if we know what the state of nature is like for men we can extrapolate what it is like for states in a similar situation. I do not consider myself to be a realist, but I do accept some of their doctrine as a helpful method for explaining the international system. As such I view the international system, in the absence of international organizations, very much like I view Hobbes' state of nature: life for states is solitary and, if you're not careful, short, nasty and brutish.
While the creation of a sovereign or commonwealth in this system seems unlikely, it seems to me that mankind has sought to mitigate this state of nature in the international realm through institutions. In this way, and against realist ideology, I view institutions as man's attempt to pull himself out of the state of nature; where the individual is able to submit himself to a sovereign for safety, states seek to do so through international organizations (either through collective security agreements like NATO or more far-reaching organizations like the UN).
Which brings me to morality. Does morality exist in the Hobbesian state of nature in the international system? The short answer is not really. Morality is a wildly subjective term. Putting aside the fact that what most people consider morality is most likely based on Western liberal ideas (not shared by a good many people on this planet), in the absence of established institutions/norms, the answer is certainly no. Men and states operating in the state of nature are not penalized for killing one another to survive. It is just that: survival. When looking at states' behavior across generations there are very few decisions made that are not based on self-interest and generally involve advancement at someone else's expense. We can judge these things in hindsight, but who are we to say what morality is and are we any different? With that said, as institutions have come into existence and a set of established norms with them, morality has slowly introduced itself into the system. Granted that morality, as I stated before, is based very much on the Western understanding of it, but it nevertheless represents a change where much of the global community agrees to uphold some basic tenets of morality that could never have been achieved on its own in the state of nature. As I said before, while there is no sovereign and certainly no commonwealth, these institutions, namely the UN, can perform some functions that fulfill some of those functions.
Justice. This is probably the trickiest one to answer because, in my opinion, defining justice is hard to do even with a solid definition of morality backing it up. Aside from that issue, however, I would say that categorically the answer to whether there is justice in the international system is not really. There simply is no body that truly enforces rule of law or norms in the system. The UN and the great powers have distributed justice before, sure, but it is very much on a case by case basis and is generally most likely to occur when interests are involved. I believe that eventually one day a sovereign or something close to it will exist in the international system and justice will indeed be upheld, but not yet.
Sorry for rambling. Got really into it.
No comments:
Post a Comment