According to Stanlick’s reading of Hobbes, the sovereign has a duty to
maintain its sovereignty, and undermining that sovereignty by surrendering part
of its power to another sovereign, i.e. by creating an international legal system
between sovereign states with binding legal norms, would mean the sovereign
acting against its fundamental objectives and the principle of self-preservation.
26
Tarlton goes even further, by claiming that the maintenance of the sovereign
political order depends on the efficacy of the sovereign’s control mechanisms, i.e.
how effectively the sovereign can prevent individuals from attacking one
another.
27 Furthermore, Kingsbury and Straumann describe the sovereign’s duty
to protect its people as a dual function, operating both within the state and
outside its territory in relation to other sovereigns: on the one hand, the
sovereign resolves internal conflicts and, on the other hand, guarantees protection against external attack.
28 Thus, interpretations of Hobbes suggest that
providing efficient dispute resolution is a part of the sovereign’s responsibility,
transforming the sovereign’s rights into duties.
The Lockean safety valve of ‘objective’
While Hobbes can be viewed as advocating an absolutist monarchy, Locke’s
social contract theory is commonly seen as promoting majority democracy.
29 In
Locke’s natural state, penal authority belongs to all individuals, who act as both
judges and enforcers in offences against themselves; however, their obvious bias
causes them to act from emotion and revenge rather than from fairness and
objectivity.
30 For Locke, natural laws do exist in the state of nature; nevertheless,
they are poorly enforced because all individuals possess the right of enforcement.
Consequently, sovereign power is given to the communal majority by consent,
31
in order to preserve the individual’s right to property and to act for the good of
the society.
32
In Locke’s theory, the power surrendered to the sovereign is absolute yet
limited to the objective for which it was constituted, for the good of the public.
Owing to these restrictions on the scope of its prerogative, we may ask whether
Locke’s concept of the scope of sovereign power is different from that of
Hobbes. Still, Hobbes and Locke both define sovereignty through the objectives
of the social contract: the sovereign’s existence is based on its capability to
protect and maintain peace.
Concerning the relations between states, Locke examines the possibility of
global commonwealth that arises from the international state of nature. In this
natural state, every country’s freedom is limited by the freedom of others.
According to Cox, Locke’s global state of nature ‘leaves little room for choice
as to whether a government will or will not engage in the general competition for
power and advantage’.
33 In the state of nature, a state’s foreign policy aims at
maximising military and economic power in relation to other states, resulting in a
rat race for domination. This leads to the incentive for establishing a global
commonwealth. Regardless of this incentive, creation of a global commonwealth
might fail owing to a lack of common cultural and national background.
114 Three quests for justification
maintain its sovereignty, and undermining that sovereignty by surrendering part
of its power to another sovereign, i.e. by creating an international legal system
between sovereign states with binding legal norms, would mean the sovereign
acting against its fundamental objectives and the principle of self-preservation.
26
Tarlton goes even further, by claiming that the maintenance of the sovereign
political order depends on the efficacy of the sovereign’s control mechanisms, i.e.
how effectively the sovereign can prevent individuals from attacking one
another.
27 Furthermore, Kingsbury and Straumann describe the sovereign’s duty
to protect its people as a dual function, operating both within the state and
outside its territory in relation to other sovereigns: on the one hand, the
sovereign resolves internal conflicts and, on the other hand, guarantees protection against external attack.
28 Thus, interpretations of Hobbes suggest that
providing efficient dispute resolution is a part of the sovereign’s responsibility,
transforming the sovereign’s rights into duties.
The Lockean safety valve of ‘objective’
While Hobbes can be viewed as advocating an absolutist monarchy, Locke’s
social contract theory is commonly seen as promoting majority democracy.
29 In
Locke’s natural state, penal authority belongs to all individuals, who act as both
judges and enforcers in offences against themselves; however, their obvious bias
causes them to act from emotion and revenge rather than from fairness and
objectivity.
30 For Locke, natural laws do exist in the state of nature; nevertheless,
they are poorly enforced because all individuals possess the right of enforcement.
Consequently, sovereign power is given to the communal majority by consent,
31
in order to preserve the individual’s right to property and to act for the good of
the society.
32
In Locke’s theory, the power surrendered to the sovereign is absolute yet
limited to the objective for which it was constituted, for the good of the public.
Owing to these restrictions on the scope of its prerogative, we may ask whether
Locke’s concept of the scope of sovereign power is different from that of
Hobbes. Still, Hobbes and Locke both define sovereignty through the objectives
of the social contract: the sovereign’s existence is based on its capability to
protect and maintain peace.
Concerning the relations between states, Locke examines the possibility of
global commonwealth that arises from the international state of nature. In this
natural state, every country’s freedom is limited by the freedom of others.
According to Cox, Locke’s global state of nature ‘leaves little room for choice
as to whether a government will or will not engage in the general competition for
power and advantage’.
33 In the state of nature, a state’s foreign policy aims at
maximising military and economic power in relation to other states, resulting in a
rat race for domination. This leads to the incentive for establishing a global
commonwealth. Regardless of this incentive, creation of a global commonwealth
might fail owing to a lack of common cultural and national background.
114 Three quests for justification