![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper examines John Locke's political theory in order to see if it can offer any important insights into how to deal with international terrorism. The paper begins by outlining the central aspects of Locke's social contract theory and the way that Locke thinks that it is mirrored in international relations. A general definition of ‘state of nature’ and ‘legitimate common authority’ is offered that is then applied to both civil conflict and international terrorism. The situation that nation-states find themselves in with respect to international terrorist organisations is then analysed in terms of these concepts. The United Nations and the European Union are then examined in order to see if they fulfil the criteria of legitimate common authority necessary to deal with international terrorism in a just and unbiased manner.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Nigel Dower for initially introducing him to some of the early ideas presented here. The author is grateful to the anonymous referees whose comments and suggestions helped clarify and enhance the initial argument, and for general help and support Steve Duffin, Karen Jillings, James Watson and Lenny Chadwick are thanked.
Notes
1. Pangle (Citation1988) argues that Locke was of particular importance. However, Bailyn (Citation1967, p. 28) questions the true extent of Locke's influence. He points out that although Locke was frequently cited in political pamphlets, the knowledge of Locke's writings was superficial and often used to support whatever view was being presented.
2. Quotations from Locke are taken from the Everyman Edition of the Second Treatise of Government (Locke Citation1689/1924). ‘Sec.’ refers to the section number in the original text.
3. I shall use the term ‘nation-state’ rather than ‘state’ for clarity, as it occurs in many sentences that also use the expression ‘state of nature’. I am not implying that countries can only consist of one nation, and I acknowledge that in many cases terrorism results from the very fact that one country can include many nations.
4. Note that Locke thinks that, even in civil society, each individual retains the right to punish for reparation.
5. For an excellent discussion of Locke's view of political freedom, see Tully (Citation1993, ch. 10).
6. Of course, individuals are not actually born into a state of nature, but rather civil society, and so does it really make sense to say that individuals consent to form civil society? Parry (Citation1978, p. 103) states that on reaching maturity, ‘an individual does consent to joint the political society in the sense that he acknowledges that he will not attempt to take law into his own hands and attempt to enforce natural justice. He will accept the rulings of the community as his parents did before him’.
7. The second italic is the author's own.
8. Simmons (Citation1992, p. 129) proposes a similar definition.
9. For a discussion of this concept, see Valls (Citation2000, p. 151).
10. Locke's discussion of civil unrest and rebellion is complex and, at times, difficult to grasp, and it can be argued, contradictory at times. However, I shall proceed by offering my own interpretation of his view which is likely to differ from others.
11. For an interesting discussion of sexual assault as a form of terrorism, with particular relevance to Pakistan, see Sharlach (Citation2008).
12. Locke's account of rebellion is complex and ambiguous at times. It is also context-driven as the Two Treatise were written to justify the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688. However, the following outline of his view is useful for discussion.
13. I would like specifically to thank the anonymous referee for this point.
14. Although the political ends of al-Qaeda are multifaceted and often unclear, they include the removal of foreign armies from Islamic states by whatever means possible. See the ‘Declaration of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and the Crusaders’ issued in Arabic by al-Qaeda and its allies on 23 February 1998, a translation of which appears in Lewis (Citation1998, pp. 14–19).
15. Is it even intelligible that a nonstate actor and a foreign nation-state could have a common legitimate authority? Some kind of global government would fit the bill.
16. Assuming global population figures as of July 2009.