Near the end of class, we touched on the importance of language and clear semantics in Leviathan. I appreciate the power of language at it is a facet of governance that endures today. Language is arguably one of the most important items in drafting international agreements, as the extent to which language is interpretable can have drastic implications. This was evidenced in several presentations for Interactive Activity 1 (ex. Vague verbiage in Paris Climate Agreement; definition of ‘refugee’ in UNHCR).
Given that language is an evolving mechanism, I wonder how Hobbes might view the process of determining appropriate semantics within international politics. As technology and culture advance, so does the study and application of linguistics. I would assume that Hobbes would entrust all authority to determine language in the sovereign, but does this then exclude the application of context, the study of linguistics, and other determining factors? More importantly, in international agreements, there must be some level of debate and consequential consensus regarding the appropriate language to use. As such, how would Hobbes explain the ability of multiple states’ sovereign authorities to reach one consensus? This seems counterintuitive to his realist argument of power-dynamic and inherent coercive nature.
This is a good point, Sarah, and an interesting one. I agree that language is certainly very important in our international system, particularly when speaking of laws, treaties, charters and the like. Throughout history, states have often manipulated both the language in agreements and the interpretation of the language in agreements to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in saying that Hobbes would likely rest the power of language interpretation at the feet of the sovereign. Because there is no true “sovereign” in our international system, however, I think he might struggle a bit with the idea of applying this to a wider scale.
One possible recommendation he might make would be that of arbitration. The parties could appoint a single, mutually-agreed upon member to serve in this role and to make the final call on any contentious language to be incorporated into the agreement and to serve as a sort of filter for potentially misleading language.
That said, however, there is really nothing to bind the states to the arbitrated agreement. Because the international system lacks a single sovereign, states will always have the ability to freely interpret these agreements however they choose and reserve the ability to act (or not to act) based upon what serves to best benefit their needs.
I very much appreciate Hobbes addressing this issue and I like that you brought the discussion into focus!