Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Thomas Hobbes, a 17th-century English philosopher, profoundly influenced political thought with his work *Leviathan* (1651). He posited a bleak “state of nature” – a condition of war of all against all – where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes argued that covenants (agreements) are only effective when backed by a sovereign power capable of enforcing them. His famous dictum, “Covenants without swords are but words,” highlights the necessity of coercive power for maintaining order. This assertion remains pertinent in understanding both domestic and international political landscapes, particularly concerning the enforceability of international law and agreements.
Hobbes’s Philosophy and the Social Contract
Hobbes believed that individuals, driven by self-preservation and a desire for power, would inevitably clash in the absence of a common authority. To escape this state of nature, individuals enter into a social contract, surrendering certain rights to a sovereign power – ideally an absolute monarch – in exchange for security and order. This sovereign possesses the “sword” – the power to punish transgressors and enforce covenants. Without this power, agreements are merely expressions of intent, easily broken when self-interest dictates.
The Relevance to International Relations
Hobbes’s ideas are particularly relevant to international relations, which can be seen as a perpetual “state of nature” among sovereign states. Unlike domestic politics, there is no overarching global sovereign to enforce agreements. International law, treaties, and organizations like the United Nations rely on the voluntary compliance of states.
- The Security Dilemma: States, fearing attack, build up their military capabilities, leading other states to do the same, creating a cycle of insecurity. This illustrates the lack of a central authority to guarantee security.
- Treaty Violations: History is replete with examples of states violating treaties when it suits their interests. The Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990, despite UN resolutions condemning the action, demonstrates the limitations of international law without robust enforcement.
- The Role of Great Powers: The effectiveness of international covenants often depends on the willingness of powerful states to uphold them. The US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) in 2018, despite it being a multilateral agreement endorsed by the UN Security Council, undermined the agreement’s effectiveness.
Limitations and Counterarguments
While Hobbes’s perspective offers valuable insights, it is not without limitations.
- International Institutions: The existence of international institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the UN Security Council provides mechanisms for dispute resolution and enforcement, albeit imperfect ones.
- Soft Power and Reputation: States are not solely motivated by self-interest and power. Reputation, norms, and the desire for international cooperation can incentivize compliance with agreements.
- International Law as a Constraint: International law, even without a central enforcement mechanism, can constrain state behavior by establishing norms and providing a framework for legitimate action.
Contemporary Challenges
The rise of non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations and multinational corporations, further complicates the picture. These actors operate outside the traditional framework of state sovereignty and pose challenges to the enforceability of covenants. Cyber warfare and climate change also present new challenges, requiring international cooperation and agreements that are difficult to enforce due to their complex and transnational nature.
| Concept | Hobbesian View | Contemporary Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty | Absolute, indivisible | Increasingly pooled or shared through international organizations |
| Enforcement | Requires a central, coercive power | Relies on voluntary compliance, international institutions, and soft power |
| State of Nature | War of all against all | Complex interdependence with elements of cooperation and conflict |
Conclusion
Hobbes’s assertion that “covenants without swords are but words” remains a powerful reminder of the importance of power in upholding agreements. While the international system has evolved beyond the purely Hobbesian state of nature, the absence of a global sovereign continues to pose challenges to the enforceability of international law and cooperation. A nuanced understanding of Hobbes’s philosophy, coupled with an appreciation for the role of international institutions, norms, and soft power, is essential for navigating the complexities of contemporary international relations.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.