10 CHAPTER OnE ■ ApproAches to InternAtIonAl relAtIons
Rousseau posed the dilemma in terms of the story of the stag and the hare. In a hunt-
ing society, each individual must keep to his assigned task so the hunters can find and
trap the stag for food for the whole group. However, if a hare happens to pass nearby, an
individual might well follow the hare, hoping to get his next meal quickly and caring
little for how his actions will affect the group. Rousseau drew an analogy between
these hunters and states. Do states follow short- term self- interest, like the hunter who
follows the hare? Or do they recognize the benefits of a common interest?^8 Rou sse au’s
solution to the dilemma posed by the stag and the hare was diff er ent from Hobbes’s
leviathan. Rousseau’s preference was for the creation of smaller communities in which
the “general will” could be attained. Indeed, according to Rousseau, it is “only the
general will,” not a leviathan, that can “direct the forces of the state according to the
purpose for which it was instituted, which is the common good.”^9 In Rou sse au’s
vision, “each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme
direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible
part of the whole.” 10
Still another philosophical view of the characteristics of international society was
set forth by the German phi los o pher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), in both Idea for a
Universal History and Perpetual Peace. Kant envisioned a federation of states as a means
to achieve peace, a world order in which man is able to live without fear of war. Sover-
eignties would remain intact, but the new federal order would be both preferable to a
“super- leviathan” and more effective and realistic than Rousseau’s small communities.
Kant’s analy sis was based on a vision of human beings that was diff er ent from that of
either Rousseau or Hobbes. In his view, though man is admittedly selfish, he can learn
new ways of cosmopolitanism and universalism.^11
The tradition laid down by these phi los o phers has contributed to the development
of international relations by calling attention to fundamental relationships: those
between the individual and society, between individuals in society, and between socie-
ties. These phi los o phers had varied, often competing, visions of what these relation-
ships were and what they ought to be. (See Table 1.1.) The early phi los o phers have led
con temporary international relations scholars to the examination of the characteristics
of leaders, to the recognition of the importance of the internal dimensions of the state,
to the analogy of the state and nature, and to descriptions of an international com-
munity. History and philosophy permit us to delve into foundational questions— the
nature of people and the broad characteristics of the state and of international society.
They allow us to speculate on the normative (or moral) ele ments in po liti cal life: What
should be the role of the state? What ought to be the norms in international society?
How might international society be structured to achieve order? When is war just? Should
economic resources be redistributed? Should human rights be universalized?^12 Philo-
sophical methods may not be useful for helping us answer specific questions; they may
tell us what should be done, providing the normative guide, but philosophy generally