The Concept of Civil War in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan

Maciej Wilmanowicz

doi:10.18778/0208-6069.115.08

Autor

Maciej Wilmanowicz The Mazovian University in Płock https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3641-6940

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.115.08

Słowa kluczowe:

Lewiatan, Tomasz Hobbes, wojna domowa, teoria państwa, suwerenność

Abstrakt

Niniejszy artykuł ma na celu wykazanie, że pomimo faktu, iż Hobbes kilkakrotnie użył terminu „wojna domowa” w dziele Lewiatan, jeśli jego teoria ma być próbą sformułowania kompletnej, spójnej, logicznej struktury, to nie ma w niej miejsca na żadną charakterystyczną, istotną analitycznie cechę, która wyraźnie odróżnia wojnę domową od zwykłej wojny. Ta obserwacja służy następnie podkreśleniu, że Hobbes był w stanie dokonać rozróżnienia między dwoma rodzajami konfliktu wyłącznie opierając się na powszechnym, standardowym rozumieniu terminu „wojna domowa”, co z kolei podważało jego twierdzenie dotyczące obecności powszechnie uznanej, jednoczącej władzy suwerennej jako jedynej podstawy istnienia wspólnoty politycznej.

Pobrania

Statystyki pobrań niedostępne.

Bibliografia

Abizadeh, Arash. 2013. “Sovereign Jurisdiction, Territorial Rights, and Membership in Hobbes.” In The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes. Edited by Aloysius Martinich and Kinch Hoekstra. 397–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199791941.013.20

Armitage David. 2017. Civil Wars: A History in Ideas. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Beaulac, Stéphane. 2003. “Emer de Vattel and the Externalization of Sovereignty.” Journal of the History of International Law 5: 237–292. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.471382

Boucher, David. 2018. Appropriating Hobbes: Legacies in Political, Legal, and International Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bull, Hedley. 1981. “Hobbes and the International Anarchy.” Social Research 48(4): 717–738.

Burgess, Glenn. 1990. “Contexts for the Writing and Publication of Hobbes’s Leviathan.” History of Political Thought 11(4): 675–702.

Coyle, Sean. 2003. “Thomas Hobbes and the Intellectual Origins of Legal Positivism.” The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 16(2): 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0841820900003714

Daly, James. 1978. “The Idea of Absolute Monarchy in Seventeenth-Century England.” The Historical Journal 21(2): 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00000522

Elden, Stuart. 2013. The Birth of Territory. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226041285.001.0001

Forsyth, Murray. 1979. “Thomas Hobbes and the External Relations of States.” Review of International Studies 5(3): 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210500114810

Franklin, Julian H. 1991. “Sovereignty and the mixed constitution: Bodin and his critics.” In The Cambridge History of Political Thought 1450–1700. Edited by James H. Burns and Mark Goldie. 298–328. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gauthier, David. Et al. Eds. 2022. Hobbes and Political Contractarianism: Selected Writings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hobbes, Thomas. 2012. Leviathan. Vol. 2. Edited by Noel Malcolm. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hoekstra, Kinch. 2015. “The Clarendon Edition of Hobbes’s Leviathan: Leviathan and its Intellectual Context.” Journal of the History of Ideas 76(2): 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2015.0016

Hoye, Matthew J. 2024. Sovereignty as a Vocation in Hobbes’s Leviathan: New Foundations, Statecraft, and Virtue. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.14170591

Luban, Daniel. 2024. “Prisoner, Sailor, Solider, Spy: Hobbes on Coercion and Consent.” Journal of the History of Ideas 85(2): 185–208. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2024.a926146

Malcolm, Noel. 2012. “From the English Leviathan to the Latin.” In Leviathan. Edited by Noel Malcolm. Vol. 1. 146–195. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Oeter, Stefan. 1997. “Civil War, Humanitarian Law and the United Nations.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1: 195–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/187574197x00083

Olsthoorn, Johan. 2021. “Leviathan Inc.: Hobbes on the nature and person of the state.” History of European Ideas 47(1): 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2020.1779466

Pocock, John G.A., 1987. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rahe, Paul A. 2004. “The Classical Republicanism of John Milton.” History of Political Thought 25(2): 243–275.

Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Vol. 2. The Age of Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 1991. “Machiavelli’s Discorsi and the pre-humanist origins of republican ideas.” In Machiavelli and Republicanism. Edited by Gisela Block, Quentin Skinner and Maurizio Viroli. 121–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 2004a. “Conquest and Consent: Hobbes and the engagement controversy.” In Visions of Politics. Vol. 3. Hobbes and Civil Science. Edited by Quentin Skinner. 287–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 2004b. “Hobbes and the purely artificial person of the state. In Visions of Politics. Vol. 3. Hobbes and Civil Science. Edited by Quentin Skinner. 177–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 2004c. “Hobbes’s changing conception of civil science. In Visions of Politics. Vol. 3. Hobbes and Civil Science. Edited by Quentin Skinner. 66–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skinner, Quentin. 2007. “Hobbes on Persons, Authors and Representatives.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan. Edited by Patricia Springborg. 157–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vinx, Lars. 2022. “Personality, authority, and self-esteem in Hobbes’s Leviathan.” Intellectual History Review 32(1): 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496977.2021.2003002