A symbolic image representing the philosophical debate between conflict and peace, inspired by Hobbes and Locke.

Decoding Global Conflict: Can Ancient Philosophy Help Us Understand Modern Warfare?

Reese Marlowe in Global Affairs June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Hobbes vs. Locke: Unpacking the Philosophical Battle Over International Anarchy"

The specter of conflict looms large in our contemporary world. From the ongoing tensions in Iraq and Afghanistan to the simmering conflicts in Eastern Europe, violence seems perpetually woven into the fabric of international relations. But is this perpetual state of conflict inevitable? Are we doomed to a Hobbesian world of constant struggle, or is there a path towards a more Lockean vision of peace and cooperation?

To understand the roots of global conflict, we must turn to the foundational thinkers who shaped Western political thought. Thomas Hobbes, with his grim vision of a state of nature characterized by a "war of all against all," stands in stark contrast to John Locke, who believed in the possibility of a society governed by reason and natural law. Their contrasting perspectives offer powerful lenses through which to analyze the chaotic state of the contemporary world system.

This exploration will delve into the core arguments of Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, examining their relevance to modern conflicts like the Iraq War and the Russia-Georgia conflict. By comparing and contrasting these philosophical frameworks, we can gain deeper insights into the enduring challenges of international relations and the elusive quest for global order.

The Enduring Anarchy: A Hobbesian Perspective

A symbolic image representing the philosophical debate between conflict and peace, inspired by Hobbes and Locke.

Hobbes argued that in the absence of a common power to enforce order, human life would be a constant state of war, driven by self-interest and fear. In this "state of nature," there is no morality, no justice, and no security. Each individual is driven by a relentless pursuit of self-preservation, leading to a chaotic and violent existence. The international system, according to this view, mirrors this state of nature, with sovereign states constantly vying for power and security in a world without a true overarching authority.

The concept of proximity, as noted by sociologist Zygmunt Bauman, further illuminates this dynamic. Our sense of responsibility and solidarity diminishes with distance, both physical and metaphorical. The further removed we are from the consequences of our actions, the easier it becomes to rationalize violence and disregard the suffering of others. This helps explain how states can pursue their self-interests, even at the expense of international norms and the well-being of distant populations.

Self-Interest: Nations prioritize their own security and advantage.
Lack of Authority: No global power can truly enforce international law.
Moral Distance: Reduced empathy for those affected by conflict.
Constant Competition: States are always vying for power.

Consider the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The United States, driven by its own security concerns and strategic interests, acted unilaterally, despite international opposition. This decision, rooted in a perceived need for self-preservation, exemplifies the Hobbesian logic of international relations. The war in Iraq highlights the limitations of international law and the willingness of powerful states to disregard it when their core interests are at stake. Similarly, Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 underscore the enduring relevance of power politics and the pursuit of national interests in a world where anarchy often prevails.

Beyond Idealism: Reconciling Philosophy and Reality

While Locke's vision of a world governed by reason and natural law remains a compelling ideal, the realities of international relations often fall far short. The enduring influence of Hobbesian thinking reminds us that power, self-interest, and the ever-present threat of conflict continue to shape the global landscape. Understanding these competing philosophical perspectives is crucial for navigating the complexities of international relations and striving for a more peaceful and just world, even if that goal remains perpetually elusive.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.5539/jpl.v3n2p36, Alternate LINK

Title: In Omnia Paratus: Of War, Conflict, And International Law In The Contemporary World System

Subject: Materials Chemistry

Journal: Journal of Politics and Law

Publisher: Canadian Center of Science and Education

Authors: Scott Nicholas Romaniuk, Joshua Kenneth Wasylciw, Christopher Douglas Mott

Published: 2010-08-02

Everything You Need To Know

According to Hobbes, what would human life be like without a common power to enforce order?

Thomas Hobbes, in his work *Leviathan*, argued that without a central authority, human existence would devolve into a perpetual state of war driven by self-interest and fear. He posited a "war of all against all," where morality, justice, and security are nonexistent, and individuals are consumed by self-preservation. The international system, in this view, reflects this state, with nations constantly competing for power in the absence of a global enforcer.

How does Locke's view of global order differ from that of Hobbes, and what are the limitations of Locke's vision in the context of international relations?

John Locke, in contrast to Hobbes, believed in the possibility of a society governed by reason and natural law, as outlined in his *Second Treatise of Civil Government*. While Locke's vision remains a compelling ideal, international relations often fall short. Hobbesian thinking reminds us that power, self-interest, and the threat of conflict continue to shape the global landscape. The text does not explore in detail Locke's mechanism for achieving this peaceful order or address the specific challenges in translating his theories into practical international policy, such as differing interpretations of natural law.

How does Zygmunt Bauman's concept of proximity relate to the understanding of global conflict, and what effect does it have on international norms?

Zygmunt Bauman's concept of proximity explains how our sense of responsibility diminishes with distance. Both physical and metaphorical. The further removed we are from the consequences of our actions, the easier it becomes to rationalize violence and disregard the suffering of others. This moral distance allows states to prioritize self-interest over international norms, contributing to global conflict. This is not fully explained in the article but ties to other psychological and sociological factors that lead to the reduction of empathy towards foreign population.

How do events such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq and Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 illustrate the Hobbesian logic of international relations?

The 2003 invasion of Iraq exemplifies a Hobbesian view of international relations. Driven by security concerns and strategic interests, the United States acted unilaterally despite international opposition. This decision, rooted in a perceived need for self-preservation, demonstrates how powerful states may disregard international law when core interests are at stake. Similarly, Russia's actions in Georgia in 2008 underscore the enduring relevance of power politics and national interests in a world where anarchy prevails. These examples show the practical implications of Hobbes's theory.

Why is understanding both Hobbesian and Lockean perspectives crucial for navigating international relations, and what other factors contribute to international conflicts that are not discussed?

Understanding both Hobbesian and Lockean perspectives is crucial for navigating the complexities of international relations. While Locke's vision offers an ideal to strive toward, the realities of power politics often align more closely with Hobbes's description of a world driven by self-interest and competition. Reconciling these perspectives is necessary for working towards a more peaceful and just world. However, it doesn't directly address the complex interplay of economic factors, cultural differences, and the roles of non-state actors in shaping international conflicts.