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.