Does Order Exist in World Politics?

There were three competing traditions of thought.

1. The Hobbesian or realist tradition: which views of international
politics as a state of war
2. The Kantian or universalist tradition: which sees at work in
international politics a potential community of mankind
3. The Grotian or internationalist tradition: which views
international politics as taking place within an international
society.
He talks about the differences between these three groups.
1) The Hobbesian tradition describes international relations as a
state of war of all against all.
Pure conflict between states and resemble a game that is
wholly distribution or zero sum: the interests of each state
exclude the interests of any other.
The Peace is a period of recuperation(toparlama) from the last
war and preperation fort he nex. The interests of each state
exclude the interests of any other.
The state is free to purseu its goals in relations to other states
without moral or legal restrictions(snrlama) of any kind.
The only rules or principles may limit the behavior of the
states are rules of prudence and expediency.
2) In the Kantian tradition the natre of international politics lie
in the trans-national social bonds that link the individual
human beings who are the subjects or citizens of states.
The relation among all men in the community of mankind.
Within the community of all mankind, the interest of all men
are one and the same. International politics considered from
this perspective is not a purely distributive or zero-sum game,
but a purely cooperative or non-zero game.
It is a purely cooperative or a non-zero sum game.
The interests of all people are the same.

In contrast to the Hobbesian conception, there are moral

imperatives in the field of international relations that limits the
actions of states.
The community of mankind is the end or object of the highest
moral endeavour(aba).
3) The Crotian or international tradition describes international
politics in terms of society of states or international society.
States are not engaged in simple struggle, but are limited in
their conflicts with one another by common rules and
institutions.
As like Hobbesian tradition, sovereigns or states are the
principal reality in international politics: the intermadiate
members of international society are states rather than
individual human beings.
It express neither complite conflict of interest nor complete
identity of interest: it resembles(benzemek) a gamet hat is
partly distributive but also partly productive.
Trade: or economic and social intercourse between one
country and another.
All states, in their dealings with one another are bounds by
the rules and institutions of the society they form. They are
bound by imperatives of morality and law.
There were three pattern of thought
1) Thinkers like Machiavelli, Bacon and Hobbes saw the emerging states as confronting
one another in the social and moral vacuum left by the receding respublica Christiana.
2 )Other one papal and imperialist writers fought a rearguard action on behalf of the ideas
of the universal authority of Pope and Emperor.
3) Third group thinkers relying upon the tradition of natural law, the possibility that the
princes now making themselves supreme over local rivals and independent of outside
authorities were nevertheless bound by common interests rules.
In the 18th and 19th centuries references to Christendom or to divine law as
cementing the society of states declined and disappeared. References to Europe
took their place.

 The international society conceived by theorists of this period was identified as

European rather than Christian in its values and cultures.