Hobbes and International Relations: Leviathan Between Realism and Rationalism

Yıl 2024, , 99 - 120, 30.05.2024

Yasin Avcı

https://doi.org/10.20990/kilisiibfakademik.1435503

Öz

Abstract
Purpose: In this study, the theoretical positioning of Hobbes, one of the important figures of modern political philosophy, in International Relations (IR) is examined.
Design/Methodology: In the study, Hobbes’ political philosophy was examined in the context of the socio-political conditions in which it emerged, and thus, an attempt was made to prevent the absolutization of his assumptions. In addition to Hobbes’ work titled Leviathan, which is the most emphasized by IR, his work titled Behemoth was also examined, and in this way, his political philosophy was discussed in a holistic rather than eclectic way.
Findings: The conclusion reached in the study is that the political philosophy put forward by Hobbes is not only related to realism in terms of IR theories, but also includes rationalism at times. However, the harmony between Hobbes’s political philosophy and IR practice continues to a large extent, especially in the 21st century.
Limitations: The place of Hobbes’s political philosophy in terms of IR theories has been examined in terms of Martin Wight’s distinction between traditional IR theories as realism, rationalism and revolutionism.
Originality/Value: Hobbes is generally associated with the realism tradition in IR. As a matter of fact, Hobbes’s malevolent perspective on human nature, his conflictual state of nature fiction, and his emphasis on security have led him to be considered one of the philosophical predecessors of realism in IR. Again, Hobbes is considered a liberal theorist in other social science fields due to the rational content of his state theory and the fact that he is a social contractarian. Considering this contradictory situation, the invalidity of confining any political philosopher to a certain theoretical category in the eyes of IR becomes apparent. Therefore, within the scope of the study, Hobbes was examined without being confined within any theoretical framework.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Thomas Hobbes, International Relations, Political Philosophy, Realism, Rationalism

Thomas Hobbes ve Uluslararası İlişkiler: Realizm ile Rasyonalizm Arasındaki Leviathan

Öz

Öz
Amaç: Bu çalışmada modern siyaset felsefesinin önemli figürlerinden olan Hobbes’un Uluslararası İlişkiler (Uİ) nezdindeki teorik konumlanması irdelenmiştir.
Tasarım/Yöntem: Çalışmada Hobbes’un siyaset felsefesi, ortaya çıktığı sosyo-politik şartlar bağlamında incelenmiş ve böylece varsayımlarının mutlaklaştırılmasının önüne geçilmeye çalışılmıştır. Bununla birlikte Hobbes’un Uİ nezdinde üzerinde en çok durulan Leviathan başlıklı çalışmasının yanı sıra Behemoth başlıklı çalışması da irdelenmiş ve bu yolla siyaset felsefesi eklektik değil bütüncül bir şekilde ele alınmıştır.
Bulgular: Çalışmada ulaşılan sonuç Hobbes’un ortaya koyduğu siyaset felsefesinin Uİ teorileri nezdinde yalnızca realizmle ilişkili olmadığı yer yer rasyonalizmi de içerdiğidir. Bununla birlikte Hobbes’un siyaset felsefesi ile Uİ pratiği arasındaki uyum 21. yüzyıl özelinde ve büyük ölçüde devam etmektedir.
Sınırlılıklar: Hobbes’un siyaset felsefesinin Uİ teorileri bakımından yeri, Martin Wight’ın realizm, rasyonalizm ve devrimcilik şeklindeki geleneksel Uİ teorileri ayrımı bakımından irdelenmiştir.

Özgünlük/Değer: Hobbes Uİ’de genellikle realizm geleneğiyle ilişkilendirilmektedir. Nitekim Hobbes’un insan doğasına yönelik kötücül bakış açısı, çatışmalı doğa durumu kurgusu ve güvenlik vurgusu Hobbes’un Uİ’de realizmin felsefi öncüllerinden sayılmasını beraberinde getirmiştir. Yine Hobbes ortaya koyduğu devlet teorisinin rasyonel içeriği ve bir toplumsal sözleşmeci olması sebebiyle diğer sosyal bilim alanlarında liberal bir teorisyen olarak değerlendirilmektedir. Bu çelişkili durum göz önüne alındığında herhangi bir siyaset felsefecisini Uİ nezdinde belirli bir teorik kategori içine peşinen hapsetmenin geçersizliği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Dolayısıyla çalışma kapsamında Hobbes herhangi bir teorik çerçeve içine hapsedilmeden incelenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Thomas Hobbes, Uluslararası İlişkiler, Siyaset Felsefesi, Realizm, Rasyonalizm

Kaynakça

• Aktan, C. C. & Yay, S. (2019). Tesviyeciler Hareketi (1647-1649) Anayasal Demokrasi Yolunda Bir Mücadele. Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 96-114.
• Armıtage, D. (2006). Hobbes and the Foundation of Modern International Thought. In A. Brett & J. Tully (eds.), Rethinking the Foundations of Modern Political Thought (pp. 219-235). Cambridge University Press.
• Aydın, M. (2004). Uluslararası İlişkilerin “Gerçekçi Teorisi”: Kökeni, Kapsamı, Kritiği. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 1(1), 33-60. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43925897.
• Aygen, A. (2021). Kendi Korkularından Kaçanlar: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke. KHM, 1(2), 293-309.
• Baumgold, D. (2004). The Composition of Hobbes’s “Elements of Law”. History of Political Thought, 25(1), 16-43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26220183.
• Baumgold, D. (2017). Three-Text Edition of Thomas Hobbes’s Political Theory The Elements of Law, De Cive and Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
• Baykent, U. Ö. (2023). Totalitarianism and Individualism Unveiled: Hobbes and Orwell. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 22(2), 648-659. DOI: 10.20981/kaygi.1348193.
• Brandon, P., & Fatah-Black, K. (2016). For the Reputation and Respectability of the State: Trade, the Imperial State, Unfree Labor, and Empire in the Dutch Atlantic. In J. Donoghue & E. P. Jennings (eds.), Building the Atlantic Empires: Unfree Labor and Imperial States in the Political Economy of Capitalism, ca. 1500-1914 (pp. 84-108). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004285200_006.
• Bring, O. (2000). The Westphalian Peace Tradition in International Law From Jus ad Bellum to Jus contra Bellum. International Law Studies, 75, 57-80.
• Bull, H. (2016). Hobbes ve Uluslararası Anarşi. In F. Yalvaç (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyasal Düşünce (pp. 81-95). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
• Carley, S. (2009). Limping Toward Elysium: Impediments Created by the Myth of Westphalia on Humanitarian Intervention in the International Legal System Note. Connecticut Law Review, 41(5), 1741-1783.
• Clark, I. (2008). Westphalia: The Origins of International Legitimacy? In Oxford (ed.), Legitimacy in International Society (pp. 51-70). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199219193.003.0004.
• Covell, C. (2004). Hobbes, Realism and the Tradition of International Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Croxton, D. (1999). The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty. The International History Review, 21(3), 569-591. DOI: 10.1080/07075332.1999.9640869.
• Curtler, W. T. (1967). Iron vs. Gold A Study Of The Three Anglo-Dutch Wars, 1652-1674 (Publication No. 262) [Master’s Thesis, Virginia University].
• Cutler, A. C. (2016). Uluslararası İlişkilerde ‘Grotiusçu Gelenek’. In F. Yalvaç (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyasal Düşünce (pp. 121-152). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
• Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
• Dumitrescu, M. (2020). Hobbes’s theory regarding the hypothesis of a natural state of mankind. AGATHOS, 11(1-20), 17-31.
• Dülger, C. (2022). Anlaşılması Zor Birliktelik; Birey, Korkuya Dayalı Devlet, Thomas Hobbes ve Vergileme. Anadolu Economics, 4(2), 78-96.
• Ertan, Ş. (2022). Logic As An Integral Aspect of Philosophy Proper: A Case Study of Thomas Hobbes (Yayın No. 762140) [Yüksek Lisans Tezi, ODTÜ]. Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp.
• Fukuda, A. (1997). Thomas Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty, 1640-1647: Private Judgement, Fear, Covenant. In Oxford (ed.), Sovereignty and the Sword: Harrington, Hobbes, and Mixed Government in the English Civil Wars (pp. 38-51). Oxford Historical Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206835.003.0003.
• Fukuyama, F. (2018). The Last English Civil War. Daedalus, 147(1), 15-24. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48563403.
• Gaubatz, K. T. (2001). The Hobbessian Problem and the Microfoundation of International Relations. Security Studies, 11(2), 164-186. DOI: 10.1080/714005330.
• Gelderblom, O., De Jong, A. & Jonker, J. (2013). The Formative Years of the Modern Corporation: The Dutch East India Company VOC, 1602-1623. The Journal of Economic History, 73(4), 1050-1076. doi: 10.1017/S0022050713000879.
• Haan, E. (2017). A Multi-Causal Approach to the Thirty Years’ War. Grand Valley Journal of History, 7(1), 1-25. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/gvjh/vol7/iss1/6.
• Hamilton, J. J. (2014). The Social Context of Hobbes’s Political Thought. Modern Intellectual History, 11(1), 1-29. doi:10.1017/S1479244313000310.
• Heikka, H. (2005). Republican Realism: Finnish Strategic Culture in Historical Perspective. Cooperation and Conflict, 40(1), 91-119. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45084416.
• Hobbes, T. (1680). The Life of Mr. Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Printed for A.C.
• Hobbes, T. (1889a). The Elements of Law: Natural and Politic. Routledge.
• Hobbes, T. (1889b). Behemoth Or The Long Parliament. Simpkin, Marshall and Co.
• Hobbes, T. (1949). De Cive or The Citizen. Appleton Century Crofts Inc.
• Hobbes, T. (2007). Leviathan veya bir Din ve Dünya Devletinin İçeriği, Biçimi ve Kudreti. (Çev. Semih Lim). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Hoffe, O. (2015). Thomas Hobbes. (Çev. Nicholas Walker). New York University Press.
• Hoye, J. M. (2024). Sovereignty as a Vocation in Hobbes’s Leviathan New Foundations, Statecraft and Virtue. Amsterdam University Press.
• Hurtgen, J. R. (1979). Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty in Leviathan. Reason Papers, 5, 55-67.
• Janzekovic, I. (2022). The Balance of Power from the Thirty Years’ War and the Peace of Westphalia (1648) to the War of the Spanish Succession and the Peace of Utrecht (1713). History of European Ideas, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2022.2077401.
• Jessen, H. M. (2012). The State of the Company: Corporations, Colonies and Companies in Leviathan. Journal of Intellectual History and Political Thought, 1(1), 56-85.
• Johnson, D. (2022). The Invention of Necessity: Hobbes on Preservation [Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University]. Harvard Library.
• Jones, J. R. (2013). The Anglo-Dutch Wars Of The Seventeeth Century. Routledge.
• Karaduman, İ. A. (2020). Thomas Hobbes ve Leviathan’ı Üzerine Bir İnceleme: Yönetim Bilimi’ni İçeriye Almak. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 3(1), 114-137. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7302-5063.
• Kelly, P. (2022). Conflict, war and revolution: The problem of politics in international political thought. LSE Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31389/lsepress.cwr.e.
• Kılıçbay, M. A. (2007). Önsöz. In T. Hobbes, Leviathan veya bir Din ve Dünya Devletinin İçeriği, Biçimi ve Kudreti (pp. 9-17). (Çev. Semih Lim). Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
• Krasner, S. D. (2001). Rethinking the sovereign state model. Review of Intarnational Studies, 27, 17-42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45299503.
• Long, J. A. (1961). Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan”: A study in interpretation (Publication No. 5590) [Master’s thesis, Montana State University]. Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers.
• Luard, E. (1992). The Balance of Power The System of International Relations, 1648-1815. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Lund, W. R. (1992). Hobbes on Opinion, Private Judgement and Civil War. History of Political Thought, 13(1), 51-72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26214189.
• Macgillivray, R. (1970). Thomas Hobbes’s History of the English Civil War A Study of Behemoth. Journal of the History of Ideas, 31(2), 179-198. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708544.
• Maddicott, J. R. (1984). Magna Carta and the Local Community 1215-1259. Past & Present, 102, 25-65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/650759.
• Malcolm, N. (2016). Thomas Hobbes: Liberal illiberal. Journal of the British Academy, 4, 113-136. DOI 10.5871/jba/004.113.
• Martinich, A. P. (1997). Thomas Hobbes. Macmillan Education.
• Müftüoğlu, A. (2022). Hobbes On The Problem of Secularism. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (FLSF), 33, 61-74.
• Neocleous, M. (2014). The Monster and the police. Radical Philosophy, 185, 8-18.
• Onbaşı, F. G. (2013). Morality in Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke: A Comparative Amalysis. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (FLSF), 15, 25-40.
• Onwe, S. O. & Nwogbaga, D. M. E. (2015). Conceptual Issues and Theoretical Analysis of Sovereignty. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(3), 19-24.
• Osiander, A. (2001). Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth. International Organization, 55(2), 251-287. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3078632.
• Rady, M. (2020). The Habsburgs To Rule The World. Basic Books.
• Rogers, G. A. J. (1992). Introduction. In W. Molesworth (ed.), The Collected Works of Thomas Hobbes Volume I (pp. iii-viii). Routledge/Thoemmes Press.
• Runciman, D. (2021). Confronting Leviathan A History of Ideas. Profile Books.
• Salihpaşaoğlu, Y. & Boyacı, Ö. T. G. (2020). Bir Modern Devlet ve Egemenlik Miti: Westphalia Barışı. ERÜHFD, 15(1), 191-224.
• Salihpaşaoğlu, Y. (2013). Mutlak Monarşiye Laik Savunma: Tevratın Canavarı Leviathan. AÜHFD, 62(3), 819-853. https://doi.org/10.1501/Hukfak_0000001726.
• Schmidt, S. (2011). To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations Literature. International Studies Quarterly, 55, 601-623. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00667.x.
• Scott, D. (2004). Politics and War in the Three Stuart Kingdoms, 1637-49. Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sheikh, A. M., Hassan, M. M. & Rashid, S. (2020). Thomas Hobbes’ views on Philosophy, State of Nature and International Relations. Journal of Humanities and Education Development (JHED), 2(1), 37-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/jhed.2.1.6.
• Sirico, L. J. (1999). The Trial of Charles I: A Sesquitricentennial Reflection. Constitutional Commentary, 16(51), 51-62. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/648.
• Skinner, Q. (1966). Thomas Hobbes and His Disciples in France and England. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 8(2), 153-167. https://www.jstor.org/stable/177702.
• Spingborg, P. (2014). A Very British Hobbes, or A More European Hobbes? British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/09608788.2014.896248.
• Stirk, P. M. R. (2012). The Westphalian model and sovereign equality. Review of International Studies, 38(3), 641-660. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41681482.
• Straumann, B. (2008). The Peace of Westphalia as a Secular Constitution. Constellations, 15(2), 173-188.
• Subaşi, E. (2020). Between Perpetual War and Perpetual Peace: Liberal Social Order As Perpetual (In)Security. Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi (FLSF), 29, 79-94.
• Şahin, A. & Doğan, A. (2017). Mitolojiden Genel Kamu Hukukuna “Canavar Yaratık” Olgusu: Leviathan, Behemoth, Rahav, Yılan ve Ejderha. Uluslararası Ekonomi ve Yenilik Dergisi, 3(2), 149-184. https://doi.org/10.20979/ueyd.333172.
• Ünlü, Ö. (2015). Thomas Hobbes’un Mitik Figürü Leviathan’ın İkonografik Anlamı. Yenidüzen. https://www.yeniduzen.com/thomas-hobbesun-mitik-figuru-leviathanin-ikonografik-anlami-82777h.htm.
• Ünlü, Ö. (2018). Thomas Hobbes and Carl Schmitt on the Tension Between Sovereign and Law (Yayın No. 531726) [Doktora tezi, ODTÜ]. Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu Tez Merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp.
• Vincent, R. J. (2016). 20. Yüzyıl Uluslararası İlişkiler Düşününde Hobbesçu Gelenek. In F. Yalvaç (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyasal Düşünce (pp. 69-80). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
• Von Ranke, L. (2009). A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century Volume III. Cornell University Library.
• Wıght, M. (1992). International Theory: The Three Traditions. Holmes & Meier Publishing.
• Williams, M. C. (1996). Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration. International Organization, 50, 213-226. DOI: 10.1017/S002081830002854X.
• Wilson, P. H. (2008b). Dynasty, Constitution and Confession: The Role of Religion in the Thirty Years War. The International History Review, 30(3), 473-515. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40110988.
• Wilson, P. H. (2008b). The Causes of the Thirty Years War 1618-48. The English Historical Review, 123(502), 554-586. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20108541.
• Yalvaç, F. (2007). Rousseau’nun Savaş ve Barış Kuramı: Adalet Olarak Barış. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 4(14), 121-160.
• Yalvaç, F. (2016). Uluslararası Siyaset Kuramına Giriş. In F. Yalvaç (der.), Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyasal Düşünce (pp. 1-4). Uluslararası İlişkiler Kütüphanesi.
• Yılmaz, A. (2020). Çevirmenin Önsözü. In T. Hobbes, Behemoth Ya Da İngiltere İç Savaşının İç Yüzü (pp. 8-43). Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları.
• Yurdusev, A. N. (2007). Thomas Hobbes and International Relations: An assessment. METU Studies in Development, 34, 413-432. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.60165/metusd.v34i2.170.
• Yurdusev, N. (2006). Thomas Hobbes and international relations: from realism to rationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 60(2), 305-321. DOI: 10.1080/10357710600696191.
• Zreik, M. (2021). The Westphalia Peace And Its Impact On The Modern European State. Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 2(1), 1-16.
• Zsolt, P. (2011). Improvisation and directive: development of naval warfare tactics in the Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652-1674). Mediterrán tanulmányok, 20, 17-28.