Imperialism and New Forms of Subjectivity: National Liberation Movements

2021 ◽  
pp. 193-222
1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wil D. Verwey

On December 11, 1979, Anthony C. E. Quainton, Director of the U.S. State Department’s Office for Combatting Terrorism, responded to an inquiry about the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages, in particular its Article 12, by stating that the Convention “does not provide a loophole for members of national liberation movements or anyone else and does not supply a means by which any State Party to the Hostages Convention can escape the prosecute or extradite requirement.”


Author(s):  
David James

Hobbes attempts to show that practical necessity and human nature are related in such a way that colonization is unavoidable by virtue of its naturalness. Colonization is practically and historically necessary because unavoidable constraints generated by human nature combine with material and social factors to produce certain inevitable outcomes. Hobbes’s account of colonization can also be understood in terms of his negative idea of freedom. Hobbes fails, however, to provide a sufficient explanation of one aspect of modern colonialism, namely, the existence of national liberation movements, while the role of the sovereign implies a different idea of freedom to Hobbes’s purely negative one. This makes colonization appear less natural and necessary than he suggests. Finally, I explore the implications of Hobbes’s account of the causes of colonization in connection with the possibility of a ‘science’ of history and the idea of historical necessity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document