Rousseau – The State of War

Introduction
In Rousseau's state of nature, humans are isolated with little demands and desires. There
are no conflicts since there is an abundance of resources and empathy for one another.
The state of nature without society or tribe is therefore non-confrontational.

Human behaviour changes when societies form. People then need to measure the
relative power of their own societies against that of the others.

On the Social Contract

Rousseau does not see the state of nature as positive. According to the Second Discourse,
he believes that people in the state of nature eventually realised that it is insufficient, but
they did not realise that moving away from the state of nature would put them in chains.
Hence 'man was born free but everywhere he is in chains'.

The Social Contract begins by discussing the legitimacy of the state, not its empirical
development. People only obey themselves, that's how they were able to make the social
contract. They are then both citizens, who make the law as sovereign, and subjects, who
obey the law.

We find the notion of 'citizen' in Hobbes and Pufendorf but only Rousseau talks about
sovereignty of the people. In a republic, if you are subject, then you are subject to the
laws given by the people, not by an external force which you have no control.

The general will allows you to understand what are the right things and determines what
laws should be in place. People need to be forced to believe in the general will in order
for them to live in a state that is legitimate and protects individual liberty. The general
will needs to be forcefully taught by the Legislator (Tocqueville claims that this claim
turns Rousseau into a despotic revolutionary). Those who think they have the right
approach and concept would force it on others, but problem arises in determining who is
right. If Rousseau does not want this determined by a majority opinion, then it needs to
be determined by the general will.

Further background remarks

Rousseau wrote the constitution for Corsica and the proposal of the constitution for
Poland. As a citizen of Geneva, he is writing for small city states and realises the need for
representation. Republics were exceptions in Rousseau's time since most states are
empires.

Rousseau also takes a dialectic approach and develops his arguments as he writes.

Benjamin Constant criticises Rousseau's call for political participation as outdated,

burdensome and unnecessary for a modern society or republic. People want to go about
their own business instead of participating in politics like the Greeks.
And now into the text...
Whereas Hobbes claims that cities are artificially created to prevent war, Rousseau
claims that war is the product of state organisation and the consequent desire for
security and increasing power.

Relationship between man and man is in constant flux but state of war demands
permanence. Therefore only states can go to war but not individuals. Individuals are
accidental enemies not as men or citizens but as soldiers.

Rousseau does not deny that conflicts arise between individuals and between groups, but
claims that war is a specific conflict that requires state sovereignty. Note that Hobbes'
natural law doctrine aims to reduce war by legal restriction but law is deficient since
what engage in war are sovereign states.

Rousseau characterises war as the destruction of the enemy for self-preservation. Even
without action, the state of war exists so long as there is a mutual and prolonged
disposition to weaken and destroy the counterpart (see Clausewitz). But man neither has
any intention or use in destroying other man. Rousseau claims that, contrary to Hobbes,
individuals are not really in a 'war' of all against all and the state of nature is not a state
of war. War also requires a declaration, whereas individuals do not make declarations in
everyday conflicts.

Further Issues and Applications of Rousseau

Terrorist groups declare war but they need a different approach in fighting big nations
and so do not follow rules of war, nor are they recognisable as open combatants. 'War' on
terror is a conflation of the term because there are no two states in conflict. See Schmitt
and Gentili for the concept of enemy, also Hegel for perception and qualification of the
enemy.

Pirates are not addressed by Rousseau and only briefly mentioned by Kant since their
focus is on interstate conflicts.

Cold war is a state of war because both sides had been arming themselves and making
preparations to fight. But it is not actual war since there is no direct military action
between the two parties.

What would Rousseau say about private wars? (e.g. legitimacy of East India Company
impounding a Portugese vessel)