Immanuel Kant's Perpetual Peace

It therefore appears that an increasingly Kantian world should be characterized by a continue effort among states to cooperate with each other in the respect of their sovereignty and independence. Moreover, by using their rationality and therefore morality, peoples can transcend violence and war and create a global cosmopolitan society. In conclusion, according to Wendt, a Kantian world is characterised by mutual aid among states, equality and collective identity, as it can be seen in the example of the European Union, within which states share common values, ideas and purposes (Wendt 1992).

Liberals believe the causes of war are miscommunication, mistrust, and misperceptions. As a solution, Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, believed that to overcome international anarchy and achieve perpetual peace, there needed to be collective action (interdependency between states), and a federation of states in which state sovereignty will be left intact (international organizations). However, for this to occur, states must have a democratic government. This later became known as the Kantian Triangle.

His essay has many modern aspects. He expected that his efforts would be disregarded by those in power, those who decide to make war. In his preface, Kant wrote (1795, p. 85) that “The practical politician assumes the attitude of looking down with great self-satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose empty ideas in no way threaten the security of the state”.

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

“…I do not believe that peace either ought to be or will be permanent on this globe, unless the states pacifically organized preserve some of the old elements of army-discipline. A permanently successful peace-economy cannot be a simple pleasure economy.” (53). Thus, humans need an equal balance of peace and war to attain a faultless

Kant's conceived confederation of states, however, is non-binding and subject to constant renewal, exposing it to the Realist counterargument for Morality of States theorists' convictions that states are able to punish aggressors. Arguably, the greatest divergence between Realists and Kantian Cosmopolitans is the latter's belief that states "must act in accordance with the idea of perpetual peace" regardless of its possibility. To this, Realists likely argue their position's sole concern

If a person's neighbor is unable to pledge to this form of security then they should be treated as an enemy. One of the reasons I don’t agree with Kant is because of his use belief that in order for peace to exist the form of government has to be a Republic. The way that Kant describes the constitution for this Republican government is “firstly, by principles of the freedom of the members of society (as men); secondly, by principals of dependence of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects); and, thirdly, by the law of their equality (as citizens).” (Kant 4) Through this ideal Kant is saying that the people will need to individually vote and agree with one another before a decision is made.

Immanuel Kant was a German Philosopher during the Enlightenment era in which he wrote his social and political philosophy

Kant’s view emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, impartiality, and respect for persons in the way we live our

Although raised in the Christian faith, Immanuel Kant desired to approach the possibility of reaching perpetual peace using reason, and natural laws alone. In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant explains the necessities required within a society that could bring about a form of perpetual peace. In doing so, Kant’s argument mostly focused on the avoidance of war, and keeping peace within the states. Although he envisioned the possibility of this peace occurring within a society, I argue that his notion of perpetual peace actually happening is inevitable. Of course, there are countless ways of approaching the argument against Kant. Therefore, by using the writings of Fahon and Weil, the argument could be shown with the support of both

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

To make it come true, Kant first advocates civic constitution of each state should be republican (99), because he argues that republicanism is where executive power is separate from the legislative power (101). He believes this separation of power is better than despotic regime since when people are associated with power, they would not want the war because they would suffer the consequences. Secondly, in order to further exterminate war and make perpetual peace, Kant promotes “the right of nations shall be based on Federation Free States” (102). He argues the union of peace should not only have the goal for ending the war but also preserves security of the freedom of the states, and when states in an alliance, it is unlikely for them to go to war against each other. The last definitive articles for Kant’s perpetual peace is that he believes

Throughout the history of mankind there has come to be two factors that are seen as inevitable. The first is progress, humans are naturally competitive creatures who not only want to insure their own safety but also get one up on their neighbours. Progress has led to huge leaps forward, not only technologically but also socially. However, aside from progress there is another factor, war. Time and time again throughout history humans have fought and killed each other for their own selfish reasons and security. And according to political theorists such as Hobbes this is simply the state of nature, a perpetual state of ‘war of all against all’, further surmising that it is due to this that mankind is fundamentally selfish. However, just because so far, mankind’s history has consisted of an endless cycle of wars, does that mean that it must continue to be this way? Political Philosopher Immanuel Kant outlines a number of articles that he hypothesises could lead towards a perpetual peace. There are many criticisms of Kant’s perpetual peace, many argue that it is to idealistic and utopian. However, Kant doesn’t deny these claims. Instead Kant argues that if this ‘perpetual peace’ is even a remote possibility then for the good of mankind, we have a duty to try make it a reality.

This means that Kant’s proposal is centered around the idea of how the world of states can exist in a condition of constant peace. The closest thing we have today to a world government is the United Nations. The United Nations was established after the second world war and its main purpose amongst others, is to foster peace among nations so, in what ways did Immanuel Kant contribute to the shaping of the International System and the United Nations? To answer this, the first section of this paper will deal with the theories proposed by Immanuel Kant in perpetual peace and the second section will draw references and compare how his theories have been implemented and see the extent to which the international community, under the umbrella of the United Nations, has shaped itself in a way that closely depicts the prescriptions that he

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.