Morality, Law, and the Leviathan: Can International Organizations Make Peace in a World Governed By Chaos?

Throughout our class discussions on the subject of international order, I notice that a very consistent theme continues to surface.  The subject managed to insert itself into nearly every one of our group presentations and to rear its head throughout our second week dialogue.  It is also a subject that I think sits at the very core of Hobbes’ Leviathan.  That subject is the premise of the just and the unjust, good versus evil, right versus wrong, and how these are used to form judgment.  The sovereign alone, according to Hobbes, has the authority to administer this judgment and from this spawns order.  Our acceptance of this order essentially leads to peace.  Our rejecting this order ultimately leads to conflict.  

The first time I read Leviathan, I couldn’t for the life of me understand why he structured the text the way he did.  It simply made no sense to start out a work about how to structure society by addressing subjects like judgement, senses, speech, knowledge, etc.  The more I dissect the piece, however, and aim to apply his ideas into modern day politics, the more his “train of imaginations” seems to make sense.

In Victoria, Amanda and Michael’s excellent week 1 interactive module assignment titled “European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights”, on slides 5 and 7 they speak of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and how it is a “legally binding” agreement.  On slide 7, they state that it is designed to “limit “ what sovereign states within the European Union can do and how they can “interpret and apply EU law”.  Here we have an example of a charter designed to “control” member-states by implementing a law.  This law was instituted by the “sovereign”, and therefore should be considered “just”.  Should a state violate this agreement they will, as stated on slide 8 of their presentation, be held “accountable”. 

The issuance of this accountability, in whatever form it may take, is “justice”.  The law was enacted, the members all agreed, and they must be held to account to ensure that this particular facet of our order is maintained. 

The question I find myself asking is, “why”?  Specifically, why is this law just?  What morality is it based in?  What core premise of “right and wrong” does it pertain to?  Without going so far as attempting to dissect the myriad of questions that arise in asking, “what is meant by ‘human rights’?” and “what does a ‘violation’ actually look like?” I believe it is worth asking whether or not the very premise of the law has merit and if so, what that merit is based in.

The law implies that it is “wrong” to “violate” certain “rights” that should be assured to all human beings.  But why is it wrong?

Similarly, in Celesse, Melissa, and Sarah’s week 1 interactive module presentation titled “The Paris Climate Agreement”, they touch on “binding” and “non-binding” agreements that have varying “requirements” (Slide 2).  Furthermore, they identify its lack of enforceability due to its vagueness and structure (slides 5-8).  All of this in mind, I find myself once again rhetorically asking “why do we care about these emissions?” “Why should states sacrifice anything at all in an effort to honor this agreement?”

Watching all of these class presentations from this perspective brought forth the realization that morality is at the core of “laws” and that because these laws are essential to order, it should be understood.

Leviathan teaches us a great deal about Hobbes’ views on morality and the many mechanisms that have and should (in his opinion) be used to implement that morality.  On page 53, he describes how man has used religion as a bedrock with which to ground society in a moral commonplace.  On page 20, he describes the “good” and “evil” that define morality, which is “whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good; and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable.”

Hobbes teaches us that this is an ever-changing premise and that there simply is no static, persistent definition of “good” and “evil” or “right” and “wrong”.  That it will always be in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, he advocates for the implantation of laws with a single sovereign to judge.  On page 58, he says: “where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no justice”.

Bearing all of this in mind, it seems necessary that one individual (or group of individuals) must employ their reasoning on the matters of “good” and “evil” in order to create these laws that will ultimately maintain justice and order.  All of this would work well, except for the fact that the laws of nature make this rather difficult.

In a world where there is no real "sovereign", it is impossible for this universal vision of "good" and "evil" to exist. 

On page 64, Hobbes says: “in the condition of nature…every man is judge”.  That is to say, every state will have their own views on the basic morality that goes into agreements like these and therefore, even if there is acceptance of the general premise (which is not always the case), there will inevitably be disagreements over how to go about enforcement, notwithstanding the extreme difficulty of enforcing them.

This line of questioning and analysis has led me to question, much to the liberals’ dismay, the possibility of true international order.  Can international agreements exist that don’t produce some specific, tangible gain for individual signatories?  Is there truly some sort of deeper morality within mankind that is universal and that binds them to these contracts?  Hobbes makes it quite clear that he does not believe so.  What do you think?

Becker, V., Boss, A., & Girardi, M. (n.d.). European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. Lecture. Retrieved May 17, 2018, from https://2ir.ironline.american.edu/local/files/lib/download.php?id=94923&userid=2109

Cooling, M., Fitzgerald, S., & Hidrovo-Guidry, C. (2018, May 13). The Paris Climate Agreement. Lecture. Retrieved May 17, 2018, from http://american-ir.adobeconnect.com/pqwlxgmuu5hq/

Hobbes, T. (2000). Leviathan. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com