Is a universal sovereign, or what we would today call a world state, necessary for peace? Answer with reference to Kant, Hobbes, and Grotius.

intro

• taking initially a traditional interpretation of peace (lack of war), this essay will explain the importance of a state to create peace between individuals, before exploring how a multi-state system impacts on peace, arguing that peace cannot be achieved without equality.

• In order to maintain equality, a world state could then only encourage peace if it acts as an overseeing body.

P1 - interpretation of human nature

• to determine if a world state is necessary for peace it is essential to understand the link between human nature and states

• Hobbes’ (Williams 2006) belief most commonly known ‘nasty, brutish and short’ - state is needed to prevent the state of nature and allow individuals with similar interests to cooperate to meet them

• Grotius (Bain 2021) is more positive - believes humans are naturally sociable and desire to live peacefully and cooperatively.

• From both perspectives, it can be seen that the state enables peace between individuals

P2 - hierarchical relationships between states

If states create internal peace, do we truly need an overarching state to control their interactions?

• Grotius (Bain 2021) believes states exist in a mutually dependent hierarchy and cooperate for the sake of mutual advantage

• Similarly, while Hobbes (Williams 2006) believes individuals are relatively equal, states are not. The international system functions because it relies in mutual rules, norms and interest.

• This can be interpreted in two ways:

  • peace must exist in order for states to continue benefiting from mutual advantages

• Therefore a world state serves no purpose

P3 - sceptical interpretation of hierarchy

• hierarchies create peace as disadvantaged states do not have the power to protest the international order

• true peace cannot be achieved as there will always be unrest/protests in oppressed states

• the realist belief that states act primarily in their own interest means that peace is impossible - there is never equality. While cooperation is preferable, war is an inherent feature of the anarchical world political system

• A world state could be advantageous if it acted as an oversight body to maintain equality and ensured powerful states did not exploit weaker ones to meet their own ends

P4 - different interpretations of peace

• However, absence of war is not the only metric for peace

• Kant (Nardin 2017) believes that peace cannot exist unless all states are fully independent - a world state would inhibit this.

• Additionally, a common language would be needed in order for international law to be interpreted and enforced accurately by all states

• A universal sovereign would therefore not create peace as it cannot effectively reflect the will of all its subjects

• A voluntary federal republic is superior - states maintain their independence while actively agreeing on international law, rather than it being forced upon them

• Links to earlier argument - state acting as an oversight body rather than in an imperial nature