Peace

Conceptions of Peace

Kant articulated in the 18th century the concept of “republican peace,” which some international relations scholars have called the “liberal peace” or “democratic peace.” Kant developed his concept of republican peace to lead, possibly, to “perpetual peace.” The contours of Kant's writings are instructive because they bring into play the relationship between a condition of absence of war, the development of legal norms facilitating peace, and the development of cosmopolitan ethics. Arguably, however, Kantian conceptions of peace insufficiently address social, cultural, and economic concerns.

Kant's understanding of the institutionalization of a republican peace and movement toward perpetual peace relies on the combination of political and moral action. Coming from a long tradition that understands human nature as inherently flawed, and writing during the period of Enlightenment thinking that espoused human reason can overcome moral and political flaws to engender human progress, Kant combined the creation of republics (which allowed participation and the use of reason at the domestic level) with the creation of an international law of nations to solidify peace at the global level. Both would be made possible by the use of ethical reason. The “enlightened” peoples who institutionalized republics would first connect with each other in a zone of peace, and gradually that zone would enlarge as others saw its benefits until it encompassed the world. However, neither republics nor an ever-growing zone of peace could be imposed from the outside, according to Kant, reflecting the dominant modern view that people themselves must participate in their own governance, and use their reason to do so.

Kant's views of what constitutes peace and how to create it have become a central reference point for scholarship from the 18th century to the present, even when he is not explicitly cited. This is because he ties together the character of domestic and international politics, and also considers “perpetual,” or permanent, peace as having a cosmopolitan ethical component. Each part of this construction of peace is contested. Diplomatic historians are primarily concerned with the international component of peace—whether there is an absence of war between nation-states, and if not, how to come to agreement to end war. Theorists of domestic systems, imperialism, feminism, and postcolonialism, however, debate whether one or another system such as capitalism, socialism, or communism or their variants, or other institutional features that allow for pluralist identities of various kinds, are necessary prerequisites for lasting peace. These theorists, then, look at how wealth is distributed across populations and how identities within political entities are constructed and treated. Theorists of cosmopolitanism, communitarianism, gender, and postcolonialism debate whether there can be agreement on ethical foundations or processes that can travel worldwide.

...