Notes on Kant, Emmanuel (1724-1804)

Liberalism is not reliant on the idea of balance of power. Rather one might argue that Disciples of Kant, or ‘international’ Liberals have created a world where liberal societies are viewed in a separate light in comparison to those who are considered Non-liberal. Kant himself is considered the theorist of liberal International interaction. In international affairs those Sovereign states that interact, any sort of analysis found in those states not involved rarely predicts the outcomes they arrive at. Rather the foundation of inter-state interaction that is prevalent for Kant is the idea that Like states in Liberal nature as a rule of thumb are not at odds with one another choosing peace because of similar structure and war only with those states which are viewed as Non Liberal by nature. Though Kant felt that it was entirely possible for a perpetual peace to be a reality for Liberal states, he found this to be unlikely for states of a different and clearly Non-liberal nature. However for the acceptance of the peace between states, there must first be three main points to which each state adheres to that in a sense binds it to a larger world wide state of international federalism. Only by an unofficial acceptance of these three binding items can there be an unwritten peace that exists between ONLY liberal states.

* Main Points and Characterizations of Kant (introduction of themes)

I. Morality

1. Definition

2. 3 Fundamental Principles of Morality

3. Religious Influence

4. Moral Man

II. Human Nature

1. Two Worlds

2. Nature’s Plan

3. Civil Society

4. Formation of the state

III. Morals and War

1. Has positive attributes

2. Morals and War

3. Federal Union

4. 3 factors to develop peaceful relations

-Detailed outline based on initial points

*The idea of international relations is found in reactions between pairs and not simply analysis of individual states

I. p. 254 “The Behavior of State A and state B cannot be understood in Isolation from its pair”

II. Though states do continue to live in international anarchy, anarchy in an international system is subject to taming factors which determine what states are a threat and which aren’t.

*For a state to engage in war, it must first have a sense of injury or when another state takes pre-emptive action. Finally, when another state grows far too power, action is authorized.

I. When war DOES commence, it is total war, a war of inhuman nature where the only regulations followed are those of a nation’s citizens behaving in a manner that makes them fit to be considered as such. Wars are not fought for personal gain or punishment, subjugation, etc, but rather in a defense nature as just wars are to be considered!

1. However no peace should violate the rights of a conquered nation, even if a new government is to be forced upon it.

I. Kant did eventually go on to suggest the idea of preliminary articles for confidence to be granted to states in Warfare:

* No peace treaty will be valid if it contains hidden clauses and/or alliances

* No states shall be conquered, purchased or otherwise removed

* Standing military forces must be dismantled

* International debt is banned; the only revenue to be used for warfare is that already within a nation’s Coffers

* Political independence will be Sovereign and free from interference by other states

* War crimes defined here in as: Poisoners, Assassins, Subversion shall be used as they endanger any future peace treaty from being created on a foundation of trust

II. Definitive articles

* States must be republican to be states

I. Republican states are by necessity representative in the theory that no man would create tyrannical laws if he too himself were to be subject to them

II. Liberal republicans have a tendency to establish peace among themselves to maintain their rights.

1. Only in this “Pacific Federation” will all know true freedoms. This leads to perpetual peace

2. Note it’s a federation, with Sovereign rights first guaranteed to individual states, which then exist in a state of mutual nonaggression/collective security

* Cosmopolitan Law exists in each state

I. Defined as free national barriers, allowing foreigners to be treated with respect in all nations. This regulation however does not extend necessarily beyond the forms of commerce. It does not mean grant universal citizenship, nor does it allow for free removal of items and plundering by free entry.

III. Liberal internationalism:

* These policies have aided in creating a separate peace for Liberal states, Aggression against Non Liberals and acting in courtesy when dealing with matters of Security and economic cooperation between ‘liberal’ states.

I. Examples of non violence; Italy, Britain, France WWI, U.S. and Britain V. Germany

* The idea of war against non liberal forces include the wars of Napoleon vs. the “Concert of Europe,” and recently in WWII of the Allied powers against the Axis forces

1. Some might argue that Liberal states engage in action more so then aggressive nations, however, though it is odd that Liberal states ARE often involved in aggression, One should make note that rarely, if ever are two liberal states involved in warfare against one another, even when in direct contact with each other.

I1. Though it might be argued that such nations as Britain and France and the Netherlands were constantly in warfare during the 18^th century, however upon the development of Liberal systems in each, a general peace was established, although at least for Doyle this still could be mere coincidence! However, do note that it’s only AMONG liberal states, even if they are located in regions less then hospital to Liberal government.

* The argument does exist that perhaps Socialist foundations have a level of Pacifism that exists, however this idea of pluralism does not adhere to the strict Kantian theories behind Liberal foundation and because of the rarity of such foundations do not adequately have data to support their claim of peace.

-In acting in what is labeled a “Separate Peace” however non Liberal States and Liberal states are the basis for all military action as far back as Louis XIV and Napoleon and as recently as Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, who, through Authoritarian Dictatorships, often under the guise of ‘the people’ have marked careers in direct opposition with Liberal states.

*This is not to say that said Liberal states are not War proned, rather the opposite

Albeit in conflicts involving liberal states, there is usually a defensive initiative

Which leads to the outbreak of hostilities.

I. Liberal states acted as initiators in 24 out of 56 Interstate wars in which

They participated between 1816-1980 where Authoritarian regimes

Initiated 91 out of 187 total conflicts since then. (Doyle, P. 269)

II. Furthermore, the interaction between Non Liberal and Liberal

States is often times suspicious

1. Examples involve the Kaiser’s Germany and the British

During the early 20^th century and the United States and

it’s relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold war

III. Fellow liberals benefit from a presumption of peace and cooperation between one another; concurrently, non-Liberals suffer from a presumption of mistrust or fear of outside influence, which has often driven them to internal suppression and external aggression.

-War can be averted between similar Liberal states with an adoption of Kant’s three

principles which when rephrased Courtesy of Doyle (p. 286-287) are (note that peace

can only be found if ALL of them are present, not simply one or another)

*Representative, Republican Government, i.e. elected legislature, rule of law,

separation of powers

*Principled respect for nondiscriminatory Human Rights; i.e., a commitment to

respect the rights of fellow liberal republics and be suspicious of non-liberal

republics

*Social and economic independence; i.e. Trade and social interaction engender

cooperation and between fellow liberal states there should be no need for

security motivated restrictions.