Explaining War and Peace: Kant and Liberal IR Theory

Abstract

Liberal IR theory accepts as axiomatic that the domestic "nature" of the state "is a key determinant" of its "behaviour" toward other states. 1 This assumption rests on the centrality within liberal politi cal thought of the view that peace is a quality achieved by civil soci eties within states, while the external world of relations between states remains an arena of, at least potential, conflict. 2 Within recent IR thought however, there has been a growing acknowledg ment of the need to question this boundary, evinced by growing interest in questions of identity that cut across the divide between the domestic and international realms. 3 Nevertheless, the bound ary between "inside" and "outside" of an exclusive community of citizens within and a potentially threatening world of hostile states without remains central to liberal thought. 4 What this division implies is that while liberal or civil societies within states practice a politics of universal principles, of peace, rights, and citizenship, relations outside the state are shaped by "contingency . . . bar barism . . . violence and war." 5 Liberal IR theory has responded to this apparent problem by arguing that liberal states are at least more peaceful than illiberal states and that global conflict can be reduced by the spread of liberalism worldwide.In contrast to liberals, realists are inclined to accept the persis tence of war as an enduring phenomenon of an international sys tem that imposes its requirements on the behavior of states. Lib eral IR theorists tend to respond that liberal states are "inherently peaceful," and engage in warfare only with illiberal and undemocratic states. 6 For a variety of liberal theorists, the implicit acceptance of this latter proposition can be detected in the consistent ascrip tion of violent motives to illiberal and nondemocratic states to

Civilisation, Sovereignty and War: The Scottish Enlightenment and International Relations

“…Democratic peace theorists in particular contend that similarly civilised states with civil societies will regulate their conduct toward one another in r i peaceful ways. 5 It will be argued here, however, that the concept of civilisation and its association with peace has a more ambiguous history. By focussing on some Scottish Enlightenment thinkers in particular, it will be argued here that the term 'civilisation' was used to explain how domestic processes of pacification created civil societies connected to powerful sovereign states with enhanced capacities for the successful waging of war.…”

The Impact of the Theory of Liberalism on the United Nations’ and African Union’s Approach to Global Peace and Security

“…Realism is framed around the unitary sovereign state primarily based on a view of humanity whereby people are purely self-interested and required to guard their interests through military capacity and a balancing power with primary intent on survival and ensuring that its national interest is maintained at any cost (Engel & Pallas, 2015). They frequently use the example of having no one to call in an international emergency (Antunes & Camisão, 2017) emphasizing anarchy, power politics, and violence (Buchan, 2002). Realists believe that International Governmental Organizations are either founded by a hegemon or formed through great-power collaboration and that they serve as hegemonic extensions or as great-power directorates whose activities are inexorably tied to the powerful governments that dominate them (Pease, 2008).…”

Is ideal theory practical?

“…65 Nor does he address the concern that even if the democratic peace hypothesis is proven true, the existence of illiberal societies still makes it necessary for liberal democracies to attend to the problem of preservation, unless a plausible further theory of the diffusion of liberal democratic ideals is offered (a process which, history tells us, can easily prove a precursor to a self-serving imperialism). 66 Furthermore, while Rawls does offer an account of why liberal democracies ought to peacefully tolerate 'decent hierarchical societies', his analysis does not extend to explaining how liberal democracies are to transform illiberal societies into such acceptable counterparts. In other words, what Rawls provides is an account of how international relations might be structured in one possible world, but he does not explain how we might arrive at such a world.…”