Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:15:26.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Michael C. Williams
Michael C. Williams
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern Maine, Portland.
Get access

Abstract

Hobbes has long been a central figure in the theory of international relations. He has also been a badly misunderstood one. While often invoked to support contemporary theories of international politics, Hobbes's thinking actually challenges rational-choice theories, the structural realism of Kenneth Waltz, and the “rationalist” approach of the English school. Indeed, the skeptical foundations of his political vision place him closer to contemporary postpositivist positions, though here, too, his views raise difficult and important questions for such a stance. In general, Hobbes's theory of international relations focuses not upon the determinations of anarchy in any conventional sense but upon issues of knowledge, ideology, and legitimacy in the construction of political orders both domestically and internationally.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , Spring 1996 , pp. 213 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ashley, Richard K. 1984. The poverty of neorealism. International Organization 38: 225–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political theory and international relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1977a. The anarchical society. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Hedley 1977b. Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research 41: 717–38.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry. 1993. From international system to international society: Structural realism and regime theory meet the English school. International Organization 47: 327–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David. 1992. Writing security. Manchester, United Kingdom: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Coker, Christopher. 1992. Post-modernity and the end of the cold war: Has war been disinvented? Review of International Studies 18: 189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Claire. 1991. The Grotian tradition in international relations. Review of International Studies 17: 41–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessler, David. 1989. What's at stake in the agent-structure debate? International Organization 43: 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John. 1991. Political obligation. In Political theory today, edited by Held, David. Stanford, Calif.: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Yale H., and Mansbach, Richard W.. 1989. The elusive quest: Theory and international politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Flathman, Richard. 1993. Thomas Hobbes: Scepticism, individuality, and chastened politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1993. International relations theory and the end of the cold war. In The cold war and after, edited by Lynn-Jones, Sean M. and Miller, Steven E.. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1969. The logic of Leviathan. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
George, Jim. 1994. Discourses of global politics: A critical (re)introduction to international relations. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Reinner.Google Scholar
Grant, Rebecca. 1991. Sources of gender bias in international relations theory. In Gender and international relations, edited by Grant, Rebecca and Newland, Kathleen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1984. The emergence of probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, Donald. 1984. Hobbes's, Thomas “highway to peace.” International Organization 38: 329–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Don. 1989. Happy slaves. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. [1682] 1969. Behemoth or the long parliament. Edited by Tonnies, F.. Reprint, New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Herzog, Don [1651] 1993a. De cive. Reprint, Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Herzog, Don [1651] 1993b. Leviathan. Reprint, Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1965. The state of war. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, Naeem, 1994. Hobbes Smith, and the problem of mixed ontologies in neorealist IPE. In The global economy as political space, edited by Rostow, Steven, Inayatullah, Naeem, and Rupert, Mark. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Reinner.Google Scholar
Johnston, David. 1986. The rhetoric of Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes and the politics of cultural transformation. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Fred. 1983. The wizards of armageddon. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Klein, Bradley. 1994. Strategic studies and world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 1989. Rules, norms, and decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1951. In defense of the national interest. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans. 1967. Scientific man versus power politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Navari, Cornelia. 1978. Knowledge, the state, and the state of nature. In The reason of states, edited by Donelan, Michael. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of our making. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Popkin, Richard. 1979. The history of scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James, and Czempiel, Ernst-Otto, eds. 1992. Governance without government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven, and Shaeffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Barbara. 1983. Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael J. 1986. Realist thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Somerville, Johann. 1992. Thomas Hobbes: Political ideas in historical context. New York:St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Keith. 1965. The social origins of Hobbes's political thought. In Hobbes studies, edited by Brown, K.C.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 1991. History and strategy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1988. Optics and sceptics: The philosophical foundations of Hobbes's political thought. In Conscience and casuistry in early modem Europe, edited by Leites, Edmund. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1989. Hobbes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, John. 1981. The Hobbesian tradition in twentieth-century international thought. Millennium 10: 91–101.Google Scholar
Viotti, Paul R., and Kauppi, Mark V.. 1993. International relations theory: Realism, pluralism, globalism. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Walker, R.B.J. 1989. History and structure in the theory of international relations. Millennium 18: 163–87.Google Scholar
Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/outside: International relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, Steven. 1991. The renaissance of security studies. International Studies Quarterly 35: 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1959. Man, the state, and war. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth 1991. Realist thought and neorealist theory. In The evolution of theory in international relations, edited by Rothstein, Robert L.. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organization 41: 335–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization 46: 391–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Martin. 1992. International relations: Three traditions. London: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar