CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY DAREN BOWYER JUST WAR DOCTRINE

worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; and the life of man,
solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, & short. 9
It is to escape this state that men choose to join together in communities, each
submitting to a central authority. Relations between states, for Hobbes, are in a
similarly anarchic ‘state of nature’. Although he does not address the issue in terms, we
can infer that whereas the threats to man from such a condition existing between
individuals are such that he can clearly see his interests are best served by forgoing a
degree of autonomy in return for the greater security of society, the analogous position
for states is not such that they judge the threat sufficiently great and they prefer,
therefore, to remain in the ‘state of nature.’
Hobbes thus presents two of the key characteristics of realism: a pessimistic view of the
nature of man, and an international system (or more correctly lack thereof) which is
fundamentally anarchic. In considering Hobbes’ assertions it is interesting to note that
in times of crisis, throughout the history of conflict, when states have felt sufficiently
threatened they have been prepared to forego quite considerable degrees of sovereignty
in the interests of collective security. NATO’s formation in 1949 offers a particularly
vivid example of this. But it must be conceded that when threat recedes so the primacy
of sovereignty is quickly reasserted.
Also of interest in Hobbes is his view of how the ‘covenant’ by which the community is
formed (hypothetically, not by any real historical event), can only survive so long as
there is a central authority with a monopoly of power to enforce it. ‘Covenants without
the sword, are but words.’ 10 This clearly has an impact on relations between states:
there is no higher authority, no power of enforcement and hence no validity to
international covenants (except in so far as individual states can enforce them).
Discussion of the development of just war doctrine later will revert to this issue as it is
echoed in the words of Grotius: ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ (there is no right without a
remedy) 11 and it is, of course, a frequent criticism of the UN system. Hobbes says
nothing about the right of states to go to war, but it is simple to deduce from Leviathan
that he would not see the relevance of the question. He does not address the issue of
states’ relations with each other except to perceive them as in a permanent state of war
4