Robert Powell, ‘Anarchy in International Relations theory: the neorealist–neoliberal
debate’, International Organization48 (2) 1994, pp. 313–44; and Hayward Alker, ‘The
presumption of anarchy in World Politics’, in Rediscoveries and Reformulations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1996).
3 As Robert O. Keohane has observed, the significance of Waltz’s Theory of International
Politicslies less in Waltz’s ‘initiation of a new line of theoretical inquiry or speculation
than in his attempt to systematize realism into a rigorous deductive’ theory. Robert O.
Keohane, ed., Neorealism and Its Critics, p. 15.
4 Richard Tuck claims that Hobbes first employed the expression ‘state-of-nature’ but
observes the frequent presence of the basic concept in ancient theorists. The Rights of War
and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1999).
5 For recent analyses, see Richard Tuck, Natural Rights Theories: Their Origin and
Development(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); Anthony Pagden, ed., The
Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987); and Asher Horowitz, Rousseau, Nature and History(Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1992).
6 David Gauthier, ‘Hobbes and International Relations’, appendix to The Logic of Leviathan,
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), p. 207.
7 Donald W. Hanson, ‘Hobbes’s highway to peace,’ International Organization, 32(2), 1984;
Mark Heller, ‘The use and abuse of Hobbes: the state of nature in International
Relations’, Polity, 13 (4), 1980, pp. 21–32; Michael C. Williams, ‘Hobbes and
International Relations: a reconsideration,’ International Organization, 50 (2), 1996,
pp. 213–36; David Armitage, ‘Hobbes and the foundations of modern international
thought’, in Annabel Brett and James Tully, eds, Rethinking the Foundations of Modern
Political Thought(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
8 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, part I, ch. 13, ed. Michael Oakeshott (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1960), p. 82.
9 ‘Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body and mind, the weakest has
strength enough to kill the strongest.’ Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 80.
10 ‘The nature of warre, consisteth, not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition
thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary.’ Hobbes, Leviathan, ch.
13, p. 82.
11 Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 83.
12 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, ‘The state of war,’ ‘Summary of Saint-Pierre’s project for
perpetual peace,’ ‘Critique of Saint-Pierre’s project for perpetual peace,’ in Grace
Roosevelt, Reading Rousseau in the Nuclear Age(Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1990), pp. 185–229.
13 For other readings of Rousseau’s theory of international politics, see Stanley Hoffmann,
‘Rousseau on war and peace,’ in Stanley Hoffmann and David Fidler, eds, Rousseau on
International Relations(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991); Michael Doyle, ‘Constitutionalism:
Rousseau,’ ch. 4, Ways of War and Peace(New York: Norton, 1997), pp. 137–60; and
Michael C. Williams, ‘Rousseau, Realism and Realpolitik,’ Millennium, 18 (2), 1989,
pp. 185–203.
14 Rousseau, ‘Summary,’ in Roosevelt, Reading Rousseau, p. 205, my emphasis.
15 Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws [1748], ed. Cohler, Miller, and Stone (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1987) book 18, ch. 6, pp. 278–79.
16 Rousseau, ‘Summary,’ in Roosevelt, Reading Rousseau, p. 205.
17 For overviews, see Geoffrey Parker, Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century
(New York: St Martin’s Press, 1985); and James E. Dougherty and Robert L. Pfaltzgraff,
Jr., ch. 2, ‘Environmental theories’, Contending Theories of International Relations(New
York: Harper & Row, 1981), pp. 54–84. For the inclusion of liberal industrial globalists
in this grouping, see Daniel H. Deudney, ch. 8 ‘Federalist global geopolitics,’ Bounding
Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village(Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2007).
32 Anarchy and violence interdependence