Machiavelli Vs Grotius Analysis

The fundamental objective of international law, to regulate the relations between sovereign states, has become a standard to evaluating the effectiveness of different approaches to international law. Various philosophical disciplines have interpreted the importance and usefulness of international law in order to establish a better understanding of how international law is to be executed. This paper will take a thorough look at how two different philosophers have explained the concepts and principles that make up international law. Specifically, analyzing how Niccolò Machiavelli and Hugo Grotius present contrasting ideas of the original principles of international law and propose different ways through which international law should be justly …show more content…
Although Machiavelli provides a compelling argument, it is too pessimistic to accept as international law if one believes that people are not always compelled to act in accordance with the powerful state. Machiavelli’s notions on international law are strongly related to his observations of political history. Through his observations, Machiavelli has developed an idea of international law that acknowledges the important of political power, while discrediting other sources of authority. Machiavelli’s argument that political power trumps any type of authority not related to power in all cases provides no room for his idea of international law to be just. Machiavelli’s treatment of human nature seems to advocate the idea that no actions are unjust, as long as they are done in effort to advance the power of the state or principality. Ultimately, Machiavellian international law can’t be just, especially compared to Grotius’ idea of international law, because Machiavelli’s version provides too great a range of what can be a just action, to be practical in regulating relations between sovereign