An interesting question that was asked in the class discussion this week was, "is the State of Nature a good metaphor for international politics?"
A realist would argue that it is an accurate metaphor given that there is no guarantee of security in the international realm, there is no equality, and the main ambition of states is to survive or further their own interests.
I tend to disagree with that view point and side more on the liberal side of the coin and say that this is not an accurate metaphor for modern day international politics. One thing that I think renders this metaphor mute, is the fact that in a true state of nature, one actor can kill another. This is not possible in today's international politics because, realistically, a power like the USA or Russia or China cannot be killed by the smallest actor. Even in a scenario where you have one actor up against an equal power this is a long shot because it would essentially guarantee mutually assured destruction.
In addition to this impossibility of certain actors to be killed, I think international organizations have made this metaphor inaccurate. The UN was mentioned during the discussion quite a bit and I think this institution and others like it have changed the game too much for this State of Nature to be a reality. These international institutions have filled a communication gap that existed in previous centuries and now not only is there a forum for states to meet in, there are independent "actors" (individuals really) who are actively trying to foster communication and cooperation between states to maintain a level of peace and prevent all out war.
These institutions will not succeed every time. There will be periods of anarchy between two (or more) states. I do not think this could be considered a State of Nature, though, because even when there is anarchy or war between two states, these international institutions, such as the UN, will actively be working to to end the conflict and prevent one actor from completely overpowering the other. In a State of Nature, when two actors are in conflict, there would be no end until there was only one power standing.
We didn't get too far down this road of evaluating the roles that IOs play in a State of Nature, but it is something I would like to hear additional opinions on. Will be curious to see what others have to say.
Michael, I was so glad to see you bring back this discussion we had in class.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no strategy, war, or political decision can be explained without considering international events and the state’s allies and adversaries. Your thoughts on actors made me think of the Rational Actor Model (RAM). Based on rational choice theory, RAM sees the state as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximization. There’s also the Domestic Politics Model (Scott Sagan) which explains that nuclear weapons serve parochial bureaucratic and political interests, and the principle actors are: nuclear energy establishment, important military units, and politicians. Certainly, small actors are incapable of wiping any power players off the map, but there are those who have more leverage/power at any given time. Domestic politics, economy, influential trade and relationship to foreign trade, public opinion and relationship with the elites in the state, assessment of the power of parliament, and the president (even the country’s religious leaders in some states), are all important factors.
I agree with your statement that Hobbes's "state of nature" is not an accurate metaphor for international relations today. Your example makes a good point that it is not possible, or likely, that a superpower could be killed by a smaller state. Adding to your statement, I do not believe that the state of nature metaphor works in international relations today, as we have become such a developed world. It is not likely that we will go back to a state of nature because of the technologies that now exist, the cultures that have been created, and the amount of general knowledge that is present. Finally, I also like the point you made that even if two countries of the same size were up against each other, that it would just lead to mutual destruction. This point was not made in the class discussion last week, however now that you made the point, I see it as another good example of how international relations is not comparative to the state of nature.
ReplyDelete