Module 1, Week 2 post-class

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.

Module 1 week 2, coercion versus reason, post class blog

An interesting nuance to the conversation on coercion versus reason is that it’s easy to struggle to identify the line between coercion and reason. I think our definition of Coercion bears reexamination as I propose there will be a change in what we define as hard power. The reason I think this has more to do with the changing nature of our world. Soft and hard power aren’t quite what they used to be anymore.

With the advent of the internet and mass supplied media we can see how public opinion itself has become a hard power. We have seen this power exemplified under the Trump administration. There have been wide swings with the stock market as announcements about policy changes within the government have occurred. In recent News, multiple media outlets covered stories speculating the potential for a trade war with China and the U.S. the stock markets tanked within 24 hours. It has been clear that negative news media can affect investors world-wide. The changes happen before there is any report into the potential validity. The effect of the media as a potential weapon has been exemplified by Russia efforts within the U.S. company Facebook. while not an official news site, Facebook been a social platform that disseminates information worldwide. I think that Facebook as utilized by Russia is a covert action I don’t use it to explain soft Versus hard power as much to exemplify the power of public opinion to have tangible effects. This rapid response is enabled by current technological changes.  It has been within the last 5 years that internet capable smart phone technologies coupled with widespread Wi-Fi have been widely available. Increased security has allowed people to have Apps with their bank accounts and stock portfolios at hang any given moment. This has presented an unprecedented ability to respond near instantaneously. This is interesting but also terrifying as people begin to digest” click bate” sound bites as fact without due diligence.  This widespread access to services and information has allowed businesses to grow internationally with ease.

 Tremendous global companies wield immense power and I believe the concept of sovereignty might be changing as a result.  We see now that certain companies have been able to expand globally and have a huge influence even more so than the government under which they might officially owe allegiance. Business and government have always had intersecting lines but now it is happening on a global scale where businesses are basically Comparison shopping for headquarters. An example of this is Apple. They made themselves headquartered in Ireland to avoid considerable taxes. They came back to the U.S. with the drop in corporate taxes. At the point that companies like apple can play off international actors and influence major changes in a country’s policies do we need to start considering them their own sovereign?

Justice, If You Take It

Module 1 was spent analyzing the Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes, and his "State of Nature". In class this week, we discussed justice and whether or not we believed there was justice in the state of nature. Starting off, I would like to discuss what I believe to be the meaning of justice, and I will then look at wether or not it is in the state of nature and why or why not.

First, to me justice means getting, or being given retribution or vengeance. Yes I know how harsh that sounds, but that is what I currently believe it to be. That may or may not change in the future. Justice can be anything, as long as it is some sort of punishment inflicted on the person who did wrong. After having my meaning for justice set, I do not believe that there is justice in a state of nature, as long as it is sought after. In this state there is a mistrust of others and criminal behavior. Basically, it is every man for themself. Therefore, if someone does an injustice to you could go and seek out any justice that you see fit as there are no limits to what you can do and no laws in the state of nature. Finally, I would like to make the point that my version of justice has nothing to do with a type of legal system, authorities, or any governing institution. If it did, then the short answer to the question of justice in the state of nature would be, no.

With the new addition of this class to my count, I have had to read Thomas Hobbes's "State of Nature" a total of 4 times, most times including the whole Leviathan. It never gets any easier to read, but I now feel like I have a greater understanding and vision of Hobbes' idea of the state of nature. I just hope, ignorantly, that is the last time I will have to study this exhausting text.


https://auisgroup1summer18.blogspot.com/2018/05/justice-if-you-take-it.html

The Poison of Seditious Doctrines

I want to bring it back to one of the topics covered in class today on the question of who is “to judge” moral action and who is the “the judge” and reference what I think sums up Hobbes’ answer to that question on page 163.

 In Chapter 29 Hobbes talks about those things that weaken a common-wealth. He compares those things that can weaken a common wealth to diseases and the manner in which they infect a natural body. He believes that the diseases of the common wealth stem from “the poison of seditious doctrines,” one of which is the idea that “every man is judge of good and evil actions.” He goes on to explain that this might be true in the condition of nature where civil laws are absent. It’s even true under civil governments in such cases that are not determined by the law, BUT, “otherwise it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the Civil Law; and the Judge the legislator who is always representative of the commonwealth.”

According to Hobbes, adherence to these seditious doctrines results in the idea that it is okay for men to think they can disobey or obey the commands of the commonwealth as they see fit, ultimately distracting and weakening the commonwealth. 

It would seem that in trusting the commonwealth to choose their legislators as representatives, Hobbes also trusts legislators as judges of the law, and only in the absence of  civil law and legislative body might it be acceptable for man to become his own judge. 

In applying this to international relations... 

If there is a presence of international law within separate legislative bodies (e.g. UN or EU) but there is no overarching legislative body selected by an international commonwealth to administer these laws equally, actors are free to act as their own judges.We see this in cases with members of the EU or even within the UN where, in the absence of their own judgement, the international institution leaves it up to a member state to act as judge within their own civil laws.