My initial interest in international relations sparked from watching China’s power moves in the south pacific sea. I recall watching a brief segment on my local news channel that displayed satellite images of massive dredging vessels strategically situated in the middle of the ocean. The report proceeded to explicate that these soon to be islands would become tactical military compounds. As such, I began thinking to myself, how is it China can simply claim international waters as they did and not face any sort of repercussions? What right do they have to occupy and militarize the middle of the ocean where numerous countries border and billions of dollars are funneled through by container ships. This situation raised a lot of questions for me due to its sheer magnitude of scale and rather discreet reporting. As a young Canadian, I had little experience with anything to do with modern war. I couldn’t help but want to learn more.

As I venture further into my undergraduate degree in political science and philosophy, I’ve begun to understand why states exist and how they operate. Theorist like Hobbes, Machiavelli and Nietzsche have shown me a different side of politics. Instead of always focusing on operating for “the greater good”, I got a taste of the darker side of politics. These theorists, among others, illustrate how individuals, states and other agents often act cynically. That is, they do what is best for them because it is the rational choice. Take, for example, structural realism, which we have just begun to touch on in class. One of its many assertions is that an international body does not exist to save the day when a state is in trouble. Put simply, during times of war, if your state is losing, you don’t have an external police force to call upon. As such, it is in your best interests to become as powerful as possible to defend your state.

This theory is largely evident in Hobbes’ Leviathan. I am particularly intrigued by his writing because of his exploration of the state of nature. He argues, inside the state of nature, there is no incentive to trust other people because contracts or agreements cannot be enforced. As such, it is in your best interest to become as powerful as possible. Only then do you experience liberty. This simplification of Hobbes’ argument is interesting because it parallels many of the assertions of structural realism but conversely places the unit of analyses on the individual instead of the state.

Both philosophy and particularly political philosophy have provided me with an understanding of normative issues inside the realm of politics and assumptions about human nature. I now wish to push further inquiry into the state level, particularly to understand how states coexist. I want to comprehend what power incentives lay at the international level and what goals states are pursuing. Rational choice, game theory and the dark side of politics and human nature are of interests. David Hume, John Locke, and Plato are fun to read but I prefer the cynical approach favored by theorists like Machiavelli and Hobbes.