CONTRIBUTIONS OF ARISTOTELIANISM, HOBBESIAN REALISM, GROTIUS LEGALISM AND KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY ON GEOPOLITICS, SECURITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
Abstract
This paper examined the philosophical foundations of Aristotelianism, Hobbesian realism, Grotius’ legalism, and Kantian philosophy and their impact on geopolitics, security, and social transformation. Through a comparative analysis of key philosophical texts, the study explored how each framework contributed to modern political order, state behavior, international norms, and the evolution of just and secure societies. The research found that Aristotelianism’s emphasis on virtue ethics and civic participation informs democratic governance and social cohesion, Hobbesian realism’s focus on state sovereignty and security justifies the role of strong central authority, Grotius’ legalism underpins the foundation of international law, and Kant’s cosmopolitanism advocates for universal rights and global cooperation. Collectively, these traditions continue to shape contemporary global governance and peacebuilding efforts. The study revealed that Aristotelianism offers a moral framework that influences democratic governance by emphasizing the role of ethical leadership and active civic participation. Hobbesian realism, with its emphasis on state security in an anarchic international system, advocates for the preservation of state sovereignty through strong authority. Grotius’ legalism provides the basis for international humanitarian law by establishing the moral and legal responsibilities of states in wartime. Lastly, Kantian philosophy promotes perpetual peace through cosmopolitanism and human rights, suggesting that global peace can be achieved through cooperation based on justice and universal respect. These findings demonstrate that the philosophical traditions of Aristotle, Hobbes, Grotius, and Kant have ongoing relevance in shaping modern international relations. The study recommended integrating Aristotelian virtue ethics into modern political governance to foster ethical leadership and active civic engagement, which would improve democratic governance and reduce corruption. It also suggests that Hobbesian realism should be balanced with greater global cooperation to address contemporary international challenges. Additionally, the study recommended strengthening international law based on Grotius’ principles, particularly in conflict zones, to ensure state accountability and humanitarian protection. Lastly, it advocates for a more widespread commitment to Kantian cosmopolitanism and human rights within international institutions to promote peaceful cooperation and global stability.
References
Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (T. H. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
Beitz, C. (2009). The idea of human rights. Oxford University Press.
Boucher, D. (2009). The limits of ethics in international relations: Natural law, natural rights, and human rights in the exploration of world politics. Oxford University Press.
Brown, C. (2002). Sovereignty, rights and justice: International political theory today. Polity Press.
Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, legitimacy, and self-determination: Moral foundations for international law. Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states, and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155.
Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and method (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Grotius, H. (2005). On the law of war and peace (M. M. Knight, Trans.). Batoche Books. (Original work published 1625)
Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (C. B. Macpherson, Ed.). Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1651)
Hurd, I. (2007). After anarchy: Legitimacy and power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton University Press.
Kant, I. (1991). Perpetual peace: A philosophical essay. In H. Reiss (Ed.), Kant: Political writings (2nd ed., pp. 93-130). Cambridge University Press.
Kegley, C. W., & Blanton, S. L. (2010). World politics: Trend and transformation (13th ed.). Wadsworth Publishing.
Linklater, A. (2014). The transformation of political community: Ethical foundations of the post-Westphalian era. Polity Press.
Linklater, A. (2022). Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a world of strangers. Cambridge University Press.
McDonald, M. (2009). The ethics of war and peace: An introduction to legal and moral issues. Pearson Education.
McMahan, J. (2009). Killing in war. Oxford University Press.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). The great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2021). Justice for animals: Our collective responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Oppenheim, L. (2011). International law: A treatise (H. Lauterpacht, Ed.). Longmans, Green and Co. (Original work published 1905)
Puchala, D. J. (2019). International relations theory: A critical introduction. Routledge.
Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Harvard University Press.
Reus-Smit, C. (2001). The moral purpose of the state: Culture, social identity, and institutional rationality in international relations. Princeton University Press.
Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. Yale University Press.
Tuck, R. (1999). The rights of war and peace: Political thought and the international order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford University Press.
Tully, J. (1995). Strange multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an age of diversity. Cambridge University Press.
Turner, B. S. (2001). The sociology of globalization. Sage Publications.
Walzer, M. (1977). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic Books.
Williams, M. (2005). The realist tradition and the limits of international relations. International Relations, 19(2), 147-167.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (2nd ed.). Routledge.
