David Gauthier “neo-hobbesian” The theory holds that collaboration between two independent and selfish parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics.  Gauthier stresses in particular the benefits of cooperation between two parties with regard to the challenge of the prisoner dilemma. It proposes that if two parties comply with the original agreement and the morals set out in the treaty, they should both achieve an optimal result.   In its social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest act honestly and prevent it from breaking the rules.   Quentin Skinner argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory are found in the writings of French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work was in turn led by writers in the Netherlands who opposed their submission to Spain and later to Catholics in England.  Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), of the Salamanca school, could be considered a former social contract theorist, who theorized natural law by trying to limit the divine right of absolute monarchy. All these groups have been led to articulate conceptions of popular sovereignty through a confederation or social treaty, and all these arguments began with proto-“State of Nature” arguments that the basis of the policy is that everyone is inherently free from submission to any government. While Roussau`s social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories supported by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which involve only negative rights and create only a limited state, if any. Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a theory of the will of the treaty, according to which all contractual conditions are binding on the parties because they have chosen these conditions for themselves.
This was not true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; At the time, more emphasis was placed on the review, i.e. a reciprocal exchange of the benefits necessary for the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit clauses that stemmed from the nature of the contractual relationship and not from the decisions made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that the theory of the social contract is more compatible with the contractual law of Hobbes and Locke`s time than with the contractual law of our time, and that certain characteristics of the social contract that seem to us to be unsanquentanomal, such as the belief that we are bound by a treaty formulated by our distant ancestors, Hobbes` contemporaries would not have seemed as foreign as we are.  Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) favours a conception of social treaties that does not imply that one individual hands over sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract did not exist between individuals and the state, but between individuals who did not force themselves or govern themselves, each retaining full sovereignty over himself: the fundamental assumption of the theory of the social contract is the idea that societies and cultures develop on the basis of an agreement generally implicit between individuals on the type of environment in which they want to live. After this assumption, individuals are required to behave according to the rules of the societies and cultures in which they live. The concepts behind the theory of the social contract appeared by the ancient Greek philosophers: Socrates used an argument similar to the theory to explain to Crito why he should submit to prison and the death penalty under the law. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded the theory of the social contract during the Enlightenment; Since then, philosophers from different perspectives have contributed to our understanding of theory.