Hobbes's View of Realism vs. Liberalism

Hobbes's State of Nature is often referenced by Realists as a way of explaining the anarchy that exists between sovereign state actors on the world stage.  The way Hobbes describes the State of Nature as  being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" is often seen as the way in which Realists view the international realm.  Over the last century, the world has seen large-scale devastation from "the sword."  Coercion has not come without a cost, and the sovereign states of the world have paid the price of both coercing another or being coerced themselves.

In this way, Realists can point to the State of Nature and argue that the global stage is nothing more - he with the biggest weapon wins.  And there is certainly a case to be made for that.  One can look to the situation in Crimea and see the international relations version of the State of Nature in that one sovereign actor has no right over another, but one can certainly force their will through nothing more than brute strength.  Is this anarchy?  Is this what Hobbes was describing when he talked about the nastiness between individuals or individual states?  Realists would certainly point to this as an example of the chaos that we must acknowledge between the states.

Hobbes refers to this as "the natural condition" and Realists would claim that no matter what advances we might make in society and civilized interaction, the natural condition will always remain.  Hobbes makes the point that even within civilized society, individuals still arm themselves and families still lock their doors at night.  Is this because we are all aware of the natural condition that exists?  Realists would say that all states acknowledge the natural condition even as they build institutions of cooperation.  In "The False Promise of International Institutions," John J. Mearsheimer discusses international security and claims that "International relations is not a constant state of war, but it is a state of relentless security competition."  He claims that the cooperation among states will always have limits because of the "dominating logic" of this competitive world.  Realists would claim that this is the natural condition of world politics and international relations - that we are seeing what Hobbes has described and that no amount of cooperation will ever erase what is our natural state of competition.

Liberalists would want to discuss ways in which Hobbes provides an escape or a way out of the State of Nature.  This can, of course, be seen in Hobbes's value on reason.  As an enlightenment thinker, Hobbes held reason above all else.  Realists counter that there must not always be a "war of everyone against everyone," but rather reason and institutions aimed at promoting reason between the sovereign states will stop the brutish chaos of the international natural condition.

Hobbes describes each person in the state of nature as looking out for their own interests above all else.  However, he provides a path for peace and security for the individuals as they surrender certain levels of autonomy in order achieve a more stable state of being.  While reserving the right of self-preservation, the individuals can enter into mutual contracts.  There seems to be a contradiction in his work when he states that contracts are only valid through the sword, yet Liberalists still use Hobbes's way out of the State of Nature as a method to establish their theory of the dominance of international institutions.

Robert Koehane and Lisa Martin provide a Liberalist-Institutionalist view of the international stage in their article "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory."  They argue that, "When states can jointly benefit from cooperation, on the other hand, we expect governments to attempt to construct
such institutions. Institutions can provide information, reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible, establish focal points for coordination, and in general facilitate the operation of reciprocity."  This points to Hobbes's way out for reasonable actors.  When reason is applied, an individual can exist in his or her own natural state of self interest, yet the individual can reason that that self interest and preservation is best served by cooperation and forming contracts with other actors.