International Studies Group 4

These last two weeks, we have been analyzing Hobbe’s work Leviathan in order to come to some understanding of how power structures are formed, why we form them, and what keeps them running (or tears them down).  The answers, according to Hobbes, boils down to two main concepts: coercion and rational bargaining.  To me, his views seemed to be a little too contradictory and I could not help but wonder what sovereign power (leviathan) would I (or anyone else) could possibly trust to maintain security and look after the people they have a “Covenant” to protect, if all humans are as horrible and opportunistic as Hobbes seems to describe.  Overall, though, I think he is on to something, when you apply his theory of bargaining and coercion into today’s international arena.

The United Nations plays both sides.  You have institutions like the International Court of Justice and the World Bank that rely heavily on rational bargaining and then, there is the Security Council which acts as the organization’s coercive force.  Anytime bargaining either does not get the job done or it infringes on the sovereignty or interests of an SC member, the council uses its coercion power to have the final say in how things will end in the matter. What I gathered from Hobbes and real life examples are that rational bargaining does not work without coercion to give it legitimacy and coercion needs rational bargaining to keep a “Leviathan’s” actions from looking like tyranny. 

That is not to say that it always works that way.  One of the biggest complaints against the Security Council is the blatant use of position by the members of P5 to further their own interests, as seen in the cases of the U.S. v. Nicaragua and U.S. v Libya.  America used its SC position to avoid adhering to the ICJ’s verdict and then the country but then placed sanctions on another country to get them to comply with the verdict.  This brings me back to Hobbe’s earlier comments on human nature and the idea of self-preservation, especially, when it concerns sovereignty.  If people are so bad and things are destined to crumble, then what is the point of even trying to form a society?

In class, we discussed what drove Hobbes in his theories of sovereign powers and why these “Leviathans” are necessary.  Looking through the scope of history, the reason for his way of thinking began to make more sense.  He had a job where he was surrounded by the rich and royal and he seemed to be conditioned in their absolute “right” to exist to protect people.  One person mentioned that this book was Hobbes thinking back to before the civil war in England (the good old days), when there was order and people adhered to a clear set of rules.  You can really see his respect for the monarch in his Machiavellian defense of the use of a sovereign’s coercive force for the good the people from their own inherent selfishness.  Which (again) begs the question, how do you avoid anarchy with a selfish government?

In my opinion, nations will do what is necessary to protect its people, ideals and sovereignty.  Nicaragua and Libya were both large issues, but when looking at grand scheme, possible World War III type of situations, big powers will set their interests aside for the good of all.  World War II showed the world what the worst of humanity is capable of and I think that has pushed us, for reasons of self-preservation, to institute safeguards against any selfishness that Hobbes thinks is too ingrained in our “Self” to overcome.