It is only in the early decades of the twentieth century that the “Hobbesian state of nature” and the “discourse of anarchy” came to be seen as virtually synonymous. In examining Hobbes’ international state of nature, this article rejects two common views. In one, International Relations is seen as a warlike “Hobbesian” anarchy, and in the other, Hobbes is regarded as the progenitor of Realism. Far from defending anarchy of states, Hobbes in fact constructs a largely ameliorative international arena.

This essay offers a philosophical critique of modern accounts of liberal internationalism in light of two early modern European formulations of international order developed by Hugo Grotius and Emmerich de Vattel. The major problem in theories of international relations has been the straightforward extension of principles of domestic order to relations between states to achieve a peaceful co-existence. Conventional theories see ?international order? in terms either of a hierarchical order in which states pursue a common interest and interact strategically, or (...) an anarchical order in which common purposes are lacking and warfare is paramount. Elements of both views are found in Grotius and Vattel and this allows us to understand the failure of modern accounts of liberal internationalism in order to grasp the global transformation of power between states that is underway at present. (shrink)