1. Mario Fernando Miralles II
June 1st, 2015
Reason of State and Ius Gentium: An Analysis on Machiavelli and De Vitoria
Keene: Reason of State, Natural Law and State of Nature
Machiavelli’s philosophy was Realism on steroids as his theory on ‘reason of state’
heavily focused on maximizing the power of the state. Keene (2005) writes that Machiavelli felt
indifferent to the notion of morality, emotion, and even religious values since he felt that these
were weak attributes for a leader to exert (aside from using them as a cover in order to conceal
malevolent policies) (pg. 109). He chose rather to aim his ideas towards a Stoic-like perception
which centralized the approach of reason and he did so from the viewpoint of the leader and his
state. My counter-argument to his reason of the state philosophy is that it makes for a leader’s
actions to be based on purely political motives. In this style of society there is no room for
honesty, justice, or openness, therefore, why should the people of this society trust and assimilate
themselves to this government when its actions are devious and sinister in its nature?
A comparable modern example of Machiavelli’s school of thought on reason of the state
can be analyzed through the actions of the North Korean government and its leaders. In the 21st
century, leaders Kim Jong-Il and his son Kim Jong-Un adopted a “military-first” policy, known
as songun, which gives preference to the Korean army in all aspects of society, namely in
economic and social decision-making (Vorontsov, 2006). According to Kathleen T. Rhem (2003)
North Korea has a robust national military program of over 1.2 million soldiers with various
Special Forces and an alarming amount of military weapons including 800 missiles of various
ranges along with the reinstatement of its nuclear programs. Regardless of its lacking
technology, its immense military places the North Korean Army among one of the largest of the

2. Reason of State and Ius Gentium 2
world. In comparing songun policy to Machiavelli’s reason of the state philosophy one can agree
that military power is important in maintaining control of one’s sovereignty and it could have
many benefits in regards to issues of security and the economy to a certain extent as seen in
North Korea.
I agree that Machiavelli’s philosophy applies to this situation in the country’s current
state affairs although I disagree that this is a good philosophical position for governing. Songun
policies have led to a mismanagement of funds, isolationism from global politics, and suspicions
of foreign behavior; 30% of aid has gone to the military and political elite while the rest has been
funneled elsewhere secretly (Haggard & Noland, 2009, pg. 2). Stephen Haggard and Marcus
Noland (2009) write that these government actions have prolonged famines since the 1990s that
have killed as many as six hundred to one million people in North Korea (roughly 3%-5% of the
population) (pg. 1). In this case, while reason of the state may seem to be unaffected by the
famine of its people so long as its military is strong, by idly watching its people die the state is
inadvertently and gradually deteriorating the foundation of its society by neglecting the key
component of its structure; its citizens. Without citizens to rule, leaders are just titles,
government policies have no value, and the security of a vacant territory becomes meaningless.
Salas: Fransico De Vitoria on the Ius Gentium and the America Indios
Ius gentium or the “law of nations” was a theory of customary law concerning human
rights which De Vitoria believed should be applied to all nations. His argument for this political
behavior was influenced by the vile mistreatment of Native Americans during Spanish conquest
in the New World (Salas, 2012, pg. 331-332). Salas (2012) writes that De Vitoria argued for ius
gentium as a reasonable ideology as all men are free and all men have natural rights under
natural laws based on the value that we give to individual and collective human life (pg. 336). I

3. Reason of State and Ius Gentium 3
would counter-argue that a push for universal customary laws like ius gentium is a violation of
state sovereignty and is, ironically, a hindrance to the advancement of humanity. An equal and
worldwide recognition of human rights could prohibit a state from doing what is in the best
interest of its own citizens. Had the far more advanced Spanish operated on pacifism and not
terrorized the weak American Indios and not colonized the Americas to extract the land of its
rich resources for the benefit of its own people, we may still be living in an underdeveloped
world as there would be a lack of ambition in the psyche of humanity. Some of those resources
may well have served to stimulate the economy and in return advanced the cause for a fertile
environment friendly to education, arts, and science as is evident by the many great philosophic
frameworks, leaders, theories, and institutions that arose during that era.
If we attempt to apply ius gentium to the modern day world we would come to find that
De Vitoria would be highly disappointed with the global political atmosphere of the 21st Century.
While this philosophy has certain credibility in international institutions such as the United
Nations, it is completely irrelevant in economic negotiations, specifically in the trade of strategic
resources. A highlight in the failure of this theory is the US oil trade and security negotiations
with Saudi Arabia, an extreme violator of human rights. According to Adam Taylor (2015) Saudi
Arabia has been labeled one of the worst countries in the world in protecting human rights. It is
home to public executions, public shaming, unjust laws that strip away freedom of speech, an
extreme religious police authority that identifies ‘blasphemy’ as a crime, discrimination against
women and children, bias towards other religious affiliations, and countless other crimes against
humanity (Taylor, 2015). And yet, the US and Saudi Arabia have a healthy bilateral economic
relationship due to Saudi Arabia’s possession of the world’s largest oil reserves (US Department
of State, 2013). De Vitoria’s philosophy does not apply in this case.

4. Reason of State and Ius Gentium 4
Conclusion
In conclusion, by analyzing Machiavelli’s reason of state philosophy and De Vitoria’s ius
gentium we are made aware of two opposing sides: one on statecraft (and the importance of
military strength), while the other on universal human rights (collectively and individually). A
debate between Machiavelli and De Vitoria would have surely been lively. Had I acquired the
privilege to moderate such a debate, I would pose two important questions. Taking into
consideration reason of the state, is militaristic competition aiding in exponentially advancing
human development? To De Vitoria: if natural law is valued individually, then wouldn’t valuing
them collectively contradict the entire concept of individual human rights (i.e. viewing each
human as an individual and not labeling them into groups: men, women, blacks, whites, Jews,
Muslims)?

5. Reason of State and Ius Gentium 5
References
Haggard, Stephen & Noland, Marcus (2009). Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform.
USA: Columbia University Press.
Keene, Edward (2005). International Political Thought: An Historical Introduction. UK: MPG
Books, Bodmin, Cornwall.
Rhem, Kathleen T. (2003). North Korean Military ‘Very Credible Conventional Force’.
Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=27769
Salas Jr., Victor M. (2012). Francisco De Vitoria on the Ius Gentium and the American Indios.
Retrieved from FIU Blackboard Readings
Taylor, Adam (2015). The facts - and a few myths – about Saudi Arabia and human rights.
Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/02/09/the-
facts-and-a-few-myths-about-saudi-arabia-and-human-rights/
US Department of Defense (2013). U.S. Relations With Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3584.htm
Vorontsov, Alexander V. (2006). North Korea’s Military-First Policy: A Curse of a Blessing?
Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2006/05/26northkorea-
vorontsov