Abstract
Traditionally, Hobbes has been seen as a leading prophet of the Realist school. Thinkers such as Morgenthau and Hoffman acknowledge his influence on them (Morgenthau 1978; Hoffman 1965). Many would still share Smith’s judgement that Hobbes’s ‘analysis of the state of nature remains the defining feature of realist thought’ (Smith 1986: 13). Even neo-Realists like Waltz treat Hobbes as a folk avatar of positions that would only gain scientific formulation by Waltz himself (Waltz 1979: Chapter 6). Waltz’s structural determinism has in turn met a neo-Hobbesian riposte by Malnes, who argues that ‘[t]he Hobbesian theory may be mistaken on many scores, but it should serve to put realist thinking and theoretical debate on the right track’ after Waltz’s wrong turning (Malnes 1993). On the other side, Hobbes’s standing has been confirmed by opponents of Realism like Walzer and Beitz (Walzer 2000; Beitz 1979).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Beitz, C., 1979. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brown, C., 2001. Understanding International Relations. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brown, M., 1996. The Quest for Moral Foundations: An Introduction to Ethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R. and Donnelly, J. (eds), 2001. Theories of International Relations. 2nd edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burchill, S., 2001. ‘Realism and Neo-Realism’, in Burchill et al. (eds), 2001.
Bull, H., 1977. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bull, H., 1981. ‘Hobbes and the International Anarchy’, Social Research 48, 717–38.
Covell, C., 2004. Hobbes, Realism and the Tradition of International Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fuller, T., 1990. Compatibilities on the Idea of Law in Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Hobbes’, Hobbes Studies 3, 112–34.
Hampton, J., 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobbes, T., 1994. Elements of Law. Ed. J. Gaskin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbes, T., 1996. Leviathan. Rev. edn. Ed. R. Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobbes, T., 1998. De cive. Trans. and ed. M. Silverthorne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoffman, S., 1965. The State of War: The Theory and Practice of International Politics. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Jahn, B., 2006. Classical Theory in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kagan, R., 2003. Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Knopf.
Kavka, G., 1986. Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Linklater, A., 2001. ‘Rationalism’, in Burchill et al., (eds), 2001.
Malcolm, N., 2002a. ‘Hobbes’s Theory of International Relations’, Reprinted in Malcolm 2002b.
Malcolm, N., 2002b. Aspects of Hobbes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Malnes, R., 1993. The Hobbesian Theory of International Conflict. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Martinich, A., 1992. The Two Gods of ‘Leviathan’: Thomas Hobbes on Religion and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgenthau, H., 1978. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th edn. New York: Knopf.
Murphy, M., 1995. ‘Was Hobbes a Legal Positivist?’ Ethics 105, 846–73.
Newey, G., 2008. Hobbes and ‘Leviathan’. London: Routledge.
Nozick, R., 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rawls, J., 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rousseau, J.-J., 1997. The Discourses and Other Political Writings. Trans. and ed. v. Gourevitch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q., 2002a. ‘Conquest and Consent: Hobbes and the Engagement Controversy’. Reprinted in Skinner 2002b.
Skinner, Q., 2002b. Visions of Politics, Vol. iii: Hobbes and Civil Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, M., 1986. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
Taylor, A., 1999. Hobbes. Bristol: Thoemmes.
Van Mill, D., 2001. Liberty, Rationality, and Agency in Hobbes’s ‘Leviathan’. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Vincent, J., 1981. ‘The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth-Century International Thought’, Millennium 10, 81–101.
Waltz, K., 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley 1979.
Walzer, M., 2000. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
Warrender, H., 1957. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wendt, A., 1992. ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization 46, 391–425.
Wendt, A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M., 1996. ‘Hobbes’s Theory of International Relations: A Reconsideration’, International Organisation 50, 213–36.
Williams, M., 2005. The Hobbesian Theory of International Relations: Three Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2010 Glen Newey
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Newey, G. (2010). Leviathan and Liberal Moralism in International Theory. In: Prokhovnik, R., Slomp, G. (eds) International Political Theory after Hobbes. International Political Theory Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230304734_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230304734_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31687-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-30473-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)