Kant and The Kantian Paradigm in International Relations (Hurrell) (1990)

Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations Author(s): Andrew Hurrell Source: Review of International Studies, Vol.
16, No. 3 (Jul., 1990), pp. 183-205 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20097222 . Accessed: 11/09/2013 12:54
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Review of International Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:54:49 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review
of International
Studies
(1990),
16, 183-205
Printed
in Great
Britain
Kant
and the Kantian relations*

HURRELL
paradigm
in
international
ANDREW
Although relations
on international in number and limited in scope, Kant's writings a lasting influence and have given rise to a wide range of famous pamphlet, Perpetual Peace, has been seen as advo interpretations. Kant's a League of Nations-type world government, cating federalism, security system and few have had
much of the debate on Kant lies a divergence over the outright pacifism. Underlying between what relationship might broadly be called the 'statist' and the 'cosmopolitan' sides of Kant's writings. On one side, there are those who argue that Kant is primarily it is argued, did not concerned with order at the level of interstate relations. Kant, want to transcend international which would This view to subject the the state system but to improve it. He wanted a war to to to find law and solution the of but in a way problem anarchy not sacrifice the essential autonomy and independence of states. stresses Kant's It explicit and clear-cut rejection of world government. the value that Kant places on the autonomy of states and his insistence on
emphasizes the importance of non-intervention. It points to the extent to which progress depends not on grandiose for the reform of the state system but on the internal plans states in of the achievement of republican government. and, improvement particular, It underlines view of cosmopolitan law. And, most the limited nature of Kant's crucially, it argues that, when Kant speaks of a 'federation of states', he is thinking
states that have come together for the sole only of a loose league of republican war. purpose of abolishing to downplay The tendency the universalist and cosmopolitan side of Kant's on a to in and focus his Peace ideas for limited association of writings Perpetual one states most received from of the influential strong backing independent single in English, that of F. H. Hinsley, in Power and the Pursuit of Peace, interpretations in 1961.x Hinsley's first published central argument is that earlier commentators 'have assumed that he [Kant] envisaged more than he did.2 Hinsley stresses that Kant did not see the solution to the problem of war in terms of a merger of states: Itwas no more logical to hope to solve the international problem by the supersession of the states than itwould have been to try to end the civil strife by the abolition of individuals.3 He then argues that, when Kant speaks of a 'federation of states', he is thinking only
* I am to John Vincent, Peter Lyon and Benedict Kingsbury on an earlier for their comments grateful draft of this article. 1 F. H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace, and (Cambridge, 1980), ch. 2. See also his Nationalism the International (New York, 1973), ch. 4. System 2 Power and the Pursuit of Peace, p. 69. Hinsley, 3 Ibid. p. 62.
183
184
Andrew Hurrell league of republican war. states that have come together for the sole purpose of
of a loose abolishing
universal
Everybody knows that he did not advocate world government or the complete but less
of states: he explicitly this solution. But because of his use of such merger rejects most believe that he advocated international federation in our modern phrases people firmly . . .This sense of the term as the only alternative is not the case. He derived these phrases from the word foedus and used that to mean is what it still means. Like the 'treaty', which
Founding Fathers when they constructed

replacement international of the existing based society
the American Constitution,

international independent law by states.4
he was envisaging
a structure of
the
customary imperfect, on a treaty between
sees Kant's W. B. Gallie federation as a 'bond of mutual non-aggression' where 'their [the states'] union or "free-federation" must be of the barest kind, confined to the repudiation of war-like or war-making acts against each other'.5
Complete essential proposed. non-interference precondition the first Kant, of in the faithful systematic internal adherence, affairs by of every any signatory state, one of state to the seemed to him which an he sovereign was thus treaty the most steadfast
internationalist,
'statists' in the history of political thought.6 There are, however, others who view Kant in very different terms and who have taken Kant as the paradigm for the existence of a cosmopolitan or universalist tradition in international relations. This characterization with the ideas of originated Martin Wight and was Bull.7 The Kantian subsequently by Hedley developed tradition was set in contrast to a Hobbesian tradition that viewed international tradition which viewed international politics politics as a state of war and a Grotian as taking place within an international 'traditions society. Bull stressed that Wight's were merely paradigms, to which no actual thinker did more than approximate'.8 in his unpublished lecture notes, Bull pointed to the contrast between the Moreover, in The Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan universalism Purpose and the more limited proposals in Perpetual Peace. Nevertheless, to Bull, adopted according Kant 'does hold out a universal republic as an ideal', in which, following the domestic the international analogy, anarchy would be resolved by the creation of a civitas and gentium only reluctantly comes to accept the 'negative substitute' of a pacific federation.9 More the use and widespread of the term importantly, acceptance
4 Ibid. p. 66. 5 W. B. Gallie, Philosophers of War and Peace 1980), pp. 10 and 20. (Cambridge, 6 Ibid. p. 21. Other writers who tend towards a more on the limited statist view of Kant, particularly nature of Kant's include Ian Clark, Reform and Resistance in the International Order federations, 1980), ch. 2; Patrick Riley, Kant's Political (Cambridge, (Totowa, NJ, Philosophy 1983), especially Kant's Political pp. 118-19; and to a lesser extent, Howard Williams, (Oxford, 1985), Philosophy ch. 10. especially 7 See Hedley in International in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Bull, 'Society and Anarchy Relations', 'An Anatomy of International Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London, 1966); Martin Wight, Review of International Studies and the 13, 3 (July 1987); Hedley Thought', Bull, 'Martin Wight of International British Journal of International Studies 2, 2 (July 1976); Hedley Theory Relations', Bull, The Anarchical 'Patterns of Thought and (London, 1979), pp. '25-6; and Brian Porter, Society Practice: Martin Wight's "international inMichael Donelan theory" (ed.), The Reason of States or cosmopolitan view of Kant is not of course limited to Bull and (London, 1978). The universalist For a survey of earlier views of this kind, see Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace, Wight. p. 374 and Gallie, Philosophers of War and Peace, pp. 9 and 144. For a further interpretation along these lines which relates Kant to the broader tradition of cosmopolitanism see in the eighteenth century, Thomas The Cosmopolitan Ideal in Enlightenment Schlereth, Thought (Notre Dame, 1977), pp. 124-5. 8 and the Theory of International Bull, 'Martin Wight p. 106. Relations', 9 lecture notes on Kant which formed part of a series on 'International Thinkers'. Unpublished
Kantian
paradigm
in international
relations
185
that are relevant to this there is the that the interstate belief First, argument. system is of only derivative and life should be that viewed instead in terms of a global international significance of mankind of the and existence of transnational ties society linking all human beings.
The dominant theme among will of states, international and is really relations, on the Kantian among view, all men the relationship of states into is only apparently in the community the of
to examine 'Kantian' makes it legitimate the relationship tradition or paradigm that he is?albeit imperfectly?held the broader debate over the relevance of trying to discern further jusitifcation. There are three main elements of this Kantian tradition
between Kant and the to embody. In addition, such traditions provides
relationship comes
mankind?which
into being
exists potentially,
sweep the
even if it does not exist actually, and which when

limbo.10
it
system
Second,
peoples malevolent actions the stress on the importance of morality in international life and, above all, on the move a more moral even if this involves the to towards world imperative peaceful creation of a new form of international political organization:
these imperatives overthrow of the enjoin system not of coexistence states and and cooperation states among its replacement by a cosmopolitan but rather the
there is the claim and that conflict
that there are no unresolvable conflicts of interest between or from the results either from a lack of enlightenment of those with a vested interest in fostering conflict. Third, there is
society.11
Martin Wight
as this:
summarizes
the Kantian
tradition
as follows: is international society? in such a fashion
They [theKantians] will answer the question, What

international fiction they archaic persons,
is none other than mankind, encumbered and thwarted society by the are not of an international states. of sovereign States society composed have no wills but the wills of the individuals who manage their affairs, and
behind the legal facade of the fictitious Society of Nations

composed of men.
is the true international society firstly, that the

invalid and of by the course
. . . this third pattern of ideas is distinguished by two master-premises:

existing state of affairs, illegitimate; secondly, events itself.12 the existing of international arrangements to be modified or swept that they are going life, are away
This article seeks to reassess the balance between the statist and cosmopolitan elements of Kant's relations. The first section examines thinking on international Kant's view of the international system and considers the possible solutions discussed to war. Kant the In particular, of it reassesses the claim that Kant was by problem a in interested limited without federation solely any power to enforce the law. pacific examines the relative roles of individual moral the improvement, states and the impact of an international in federation emergence republican Kant's view of how progress towards a more peaceful world might be achieved. The final section argues that, whilst the statist view of Kant ismore broadly correct, the of reaction against Kant's universalism and cosmopolitanism has been carried too far; and that, whilst Kant did believe in the state system, he believed in more than the
state system.
The
second
section
10 Bull, The Anarchical p. 25. Society, 11 Bull, The Anarchical p. 26. Society, 12 'The Anatomy of International Wight,
Thought',
pp. 223-4.
186 Kant's
Andrew Hur re II view of the international system
A convenient is to consider
relations starting point in a discussion of Kant's views on international of the state of nature. Both for states and individuals, his conception a bleak picture of chronic and unmitigated in Kant, presents echoing Hobbes, on consistent this He is point. completely security.
themselves into who have grouped Peoples men in state of the individual nature, living standing offence to one another by the very states in the same way judged of external law; for they independent fact that they are neighbours.13 may be as are a
Insecurity is not simply a question of actual fighting or even the frequency of war. of the state of nature. As Kant puts characteristic Rather insecurity is a fundamental it in Perpetual Peace:
But man injures me state in a mere (or an individual people) in which he of this very state by virtue of nature coexists robs me with me.14 of any security and
a 'permanent threat to me'.15 It is the 'very lawlessness of his state' which consititutes as 'in their external in Morals: it he the Or, relationship with one puts of Metaphysics a in condition devoid of right. . . . this exist like lawless states, savages, another, condition is one of war (the right of the stronger), even if there is no actual war or continuous active fighting (i.e. hostilities)'.16 Or again in Theory and Practice:
Nowhere between does peoples. human No nature state is for less admirable appear a moment secure than from in the the others which exists relationship in its independence and its
possessions.17
society beings can only enjoy moral freedom in an organized for moral progress and indeed it regulated by law. Such a society is the precondition of is reflected in history. 'The highest purpose is the means by which morality of all natural capacities?can be fulfilled for mankind nature?the only development a twofold obstacle to the states constitutes in society'.18 The state of war between war In first itself is in law. the of moral achievement progress place, through source It all evils and moral is 'the of with of any conception morality. compatible the evils of the state of war: 'We and Kant never tires of denouncing corruption' coarseness as of humanity'.19 Second and brutish debasement this barbarism, regard or to at to least is so the of the need solve war, explore possible solutions, problem ly, For Kant, human central because international establishing
13 Perpetual otherwise Perpetual
of Kant's society.
political
Peace, stated in Hans
between domestic and belief in the inseparable connection all attempts at So long as the international anarchy continued, frustrated. 'The would be of problem liberty domestically
Reiss (ed.), Kant's Political Writings 1970), p. 102. Unless (Cambridge, are to this edition and the following abbreviations will be used: a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan IH; On the Common Purpose: of Kant,
all references
Peace: PP; Idea for 'ThisMay be True in Theory but it does not Apply in Practice ': TP; The Metaphysics Saying: The Contest texts are from Immanuel Morals: MM; CF. Original German of the Faculties: in Sechs Banden Werke (Wiesbaden, 1960). 14 PP, Reiss, p. 98. 15 PP, Reiss, p. 98. 16 MM, Reiss, p. 165. 17 TP, Reiss, p. 91. 18 IH, Reiss, p. 45. 19 CF, Reiss, p. 183 and PP, Reiss, p. 103.
Kantian
paradigm
in in terna tional re la tions
187
to the problem of a law-governed is subordinate solving a perfect civil constitution external relationship with other states, and cannot be solved unless the latter is also solved'.20 Perpetual peace therefore becomes the 'supreme political good'.21 sets Kant apart from that This point is worth it immediately stressing because in broad tradition inWestern which the resolution of anarchy in political thought domestic society through the creation of a state is considered sufficient?or at least all that can be reasonably hoped for. Kant thus stands in sharp contrast to Hobbes who does not follow through the logic of the analogy between international anarchy and the condition of individuals in the state of nature by suggesting the need for some or some kind of international wider political organization social contract. As Hedley Bull puts it:
On anarchy worth the contrary, are the the sovereign same sovereign powers, powers which, which, facing facing outward, inward, create provide the international of social the possibility
life. The international anarchy may have its problems, but for Hobbes, perhaps, the price is
paying.22
This
that international anarchy can be tolerated is one which Kant totally we As have he that social life is possible without first tackling denies seen, repudiates. state of war. The exact kind of 'law-governed external relationship' the international varies from work to work. Yet Kant's universalism is nowhere more apparent than in his wholehearted of view of the moral and political progress whereby rejection partial a solution to one part of the problem (i.e. the creation of domestic society) ismerely notion the precondition for another (i.e. the international anarchy). How might this 'law governed external relationship' be achieved? One possible answer might seem to lie in the application of existing international law. Kant's as some of his attitude towards international law is not as completely dismissive seem to suggest. It is of course true that, for Kant, all existing statements inter
law?the law of those 'sorry comforters' Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel? an on in a more itself to insufficient basis which build towards represents progress on to world. law be based the command of the peaceful Holding sovereign, Kant, like can or provisionally believes that international law be Hobbes, only conditionally valid until the state of nature has been abandoned. In view of the strength of this belief, it is perhaps surprising how much space Kant to existing devotes international law and how closely his treatment of the subject should follow the arguments ofthat 'sorry comforter', Emerich de Vattel. In his most discussion of the thorough subject in The Metaphysics of Morals Kant deals with various aspects of international law as it then existed: the right to go to war (jus ad helium), the laws in war (Jus in bello), the law after war and the laws of peace. Like Vattel, he argues that, as far as the law that is directly applicable to states is concerned (Vattel's 'voluntary law'), no one state can sit in judgement over another and there can be no such thing as a just or unjust war. As he puts it in Perpetual Peace, 'neither life is necessarily party can be declared an unjust enemy'.23 Justice in international defined. subjectively In the state of nature, the right tomake war (i.e. to enter into hostilities) is the permitted means by which one state prosecutes its rights against another. Thus if a state believes that it
IH, Reiss, p. 47. 21 MM, Reiss, p. 175. 22 Bull, 'Hobbes Hedley 23 PP, Reiss, p. 96. 20
national
and
the International
Anarchy',
Social
Research
48 (Winter
1981), p. 727.
188
has been
Andrew Hurrell
to use it is entitled state, injured by another satisfaction through legal proceedings?* violence, for it cannot in the state of
nature
gain
to this permissive system of law, in addition to 'an actively inflicted injury', According Kant again follows Vattel in accepting the justification of wars waged in the interests of maintaining the balance of power. Speaking of an 'alarming increase in the power of another state', Kant argues that:
This offering balance is an injury to the less powerful is more offence, any active among all states state by the mere On active fact this that the other state, even without a
of power
powerful... which have
is based with
contact
the right to maintain one another.25
regards yks in hello, Kant's attitude ismore complex. On the one hand, he calls this the 'most problematic task of international law', 'For it is very difficult to form at all of such rights and to imagine any law whatsoever in this lawless any conception state without involving oneself in contradictions'.26 Yet, on the other hand, Kant goes some way towards accepting restraints on the conduct of war that derive their effect As from reciprocity
The attacked state
and the recognition

is allowed to use
of mutual
interest.
except as a person those whose use would
any means
of defence
render its subjects unfit to be citizens. For if it did not observe this condition,
itself and unfit to share in the eyes equal of international with them.27 right to function in relation rights
itwould
to other
render
states
reason why Kant devoted time and space to discussing existing international of a more satisfactory relate to his belief that the achievement 'law governed relationship' was a long-term goal that could only be reached gradually and In the meantime, in existing with much difficulty. Kant appears to see some merit international law that draws its force from common interest and reciprocity. This is in Perpetual Peace: clear from the Sixth Preliminary Article One law may external
6. 'No state at war impossible with another shall confidence of assassins treason These have and a future as would such acts of hostility make mutual permit time of peace. Such acts would include the employment breach the instigation (venefici), of agreements, of state, For of etc.' itmust still remain possible, peace even could not in wartime, be concluded to
(percussores) within (perduellio) are dishonourable sort of trust would
during or poisoners the enemy strategems. in the attitude turn into
some
the enemy,
otherwise
the hostilities
a war
of extermination
{helium
internecinium).2%
This
mented
for Kant, a law 'of the strictest sort' that could be imple state of anarchy) and that would be 'valid (i.e. in a continuing immediately circumstances'. of differing irrespective article represents,
the crucial point for Kant remains that all existing Yet, despite this qualification, international law represented an inadequate basis on which to make progress towards law perpetual peace. Thus in Perpetual Peace he argues that existing international 'cannot have the slightest legal force, since states as such are not subject to a common
external constraint'.29
24 MM, Reiss, p. 167. 25 MM, Reiss, p. 167. 26 MM, Reiss, p. 168. 27 MM, Reiss, p. 168. 28 PP, Reiss, p. 96 29 PP, Reiss, p. 103.
Kantian
Since one well the state ought as all of nature among in order property the state nations
paradigm
in international
relations
189
to abandon the external until
to enter
purely
provisional
human individual is a state which (as among beings) a state governed as all international law, by rights, or preserved are such as can be acquired of states by war, of nature has been abandoned.30
This stress on the insufficiency of existing restraints on international behaviour is also visible in Kant's discussion of the balance of power. In The Idea for a Universal History Kant appears to accept the necessity for 'a law of equilibrium [ein Gesetz des to the which Gleichgewichts] essentially regulate healthy hostility prevails among states'.31 He speaks of 'a principle of equality [Gleichheit] governing the actions and counter actions of these energies, lest they should destroy one another'32 Yet, although important, the balance of power is too fragile an institution on which to base any hopes of perpetual
For
peace.
peace of of a so-called by means the house which the builder that it collapsed had balance is a pure European of power in such perfect constructed as soon as a sparrow on alighted
a permanent universal like Swift's illusion, story with all the laws
harmony it.33
of equilibrium
Because
Kenneth political Thus,
of this fragility the task for Kant Waltz maintains, but rather a system of united power, introducing
is not to supersede the balance of power, as 'to reinforce this law by [my emphasis] hence a cosmopolitan system of general
security'.34 for Kant, neither existing international law nor the balance of power provided an adequate answer to the problem of war. He is very clear in arguing that 'Peace can neither be inaugurated nor secured peace must be formally established: without a general agreement between nations'.35 What kind of 'general agreement' does Kant then examine? The most to end the lawless state of nature, way logical to Kant, would be to form an international state [V?lkerstaat] through a according universal union of states [ein allgemeiner Staatenverein]:
There lawless and state peoples is only one condition rational of pure way warfare. in which Just states like states can with other coexisting renounce individual men, they must coercive continue laws to grow and thus form until emerge their an from savage the a
lawless (civitas of
adapt which gentium) the earth.36
freedom,
themselves would
to public necessarily
international all
it embraced
that such a Yet, whilst theoretically optimal, Kant is all too aware of the problems solution would entail. In the first place, says Kant, such a solution is 'not the will of to their present conception nations according of international right'.37 This may well an odd objection because it is directly contradicted be true but it is nevertheless by Kant's philosophy of history. As we shall see, central to his view of progress is the that nature 'compels us to follow a course which we would not readily choice'.38 such a solution is held to be inapplicable because states adopt by Secondly, argument
30 MM, 31 IH, 32 IH, 33 TP, 34 TP, 56 35 PP, 36 PP, 37 PP, 38 TP, Reiss, p. 171. Reiss, p. 49. Reiss, p. 49. Reiss, Reiss, (1961), Reiss, Reiss, Reiss, Reiss, p. 92. p. 90, and Kenneth p. 338. p. 104. p. Waltz, 'Kant, Liberalism and War', American Political Science Review
107. p. 105. p. 90. See also PP, Reiss,
p.
112.
190
Andrew Hurrell
are different to individuals. 'For as states, they already have a lawful internal and have thus outgrown constitution the coercive right of others to subject them to a wider constitution in accordance with their present conception of right'.39 Again, whilst the prohibition of coercion may be accepted, there does not seem to be any reason here why a state should not voluntarily decide to merge its sovereignty within some larger body. In the third place, and a state is an organic entity and Kant points to differences in as factors which states and prevent them from separate religion
language
intermingling.
For a state, unlike which and of men roots, the ground no one to graft on which other than another . . .40 it is based, itself can as is not command if it were a possession or dispose a shoot It is a (patrimonium). of. Like a tree, it has is to terminate its
society its own existence
it onto
state
as a moral
personality
still far from the emphasis on cultural and linguistic uniqueness that is Although found in early German nationalist writers such as Herder or Hamann, Kant shows here that he is closer to the modern conception of the nation than is often supposed. Kant's fourth and most powerful argument against the idea of an international state is that it is both impractical and contrary to the idea of freedom. As he puts it in Perpetual
For the soulless
Peace:
laws progressively after lose crushing their the as the government impact last germs of goodness, increases will finally its range lapse into and a
despotism,
anarchy.41
Or,
But
in The Metaphysics
if such an international become
of Morals:
state of this kind and require extends thence must over too wide each an area of of land, it will and the to govern this would to protect lead again
eventually multitude
impossible
its members of war.42
of corporations
to a state
The point ismade most Limits of Reason:

Each strives polity state, separate to aggrandize wherein all so
graphically
in a little quoted
footnote
to Religion
within
the
state which it dares to conquer, long as it has a neighboring hope a world a such a conquest, itself through and thus to attain empire, and as a consequence would freedom, taste, and virtue, learning, Yet this monster in which laws gradually of lose their force, after it has
necessarily breaks republic war,
expire. into many of federated
swallowed all its neighbors, finally dissolves of itself, and through rebellion and disunion
smaller states. These, instead striving game over toward again, a free nations, the same begin not be allowed may a league of nations, each for itself, so that
the scourge
of humanity,
to cease.43
Kant
as that
even goes
tomb,
so far in the same passage

autocracy'.
to argue
that 'war is not so incurably
evil
a universal
therefore doubts the viability and desirability of an international state and, in is drawn like Rousseau and to consider the consequence many others, possibility of a
39 PP, Reiss, p. 104. 40 PP, Reiss, p. 94. 41 PP, Reiss, p. 113. 42 MM, Reiss, p. 171. 43 within the Limits Religion 1949), p. 381.
Kant
of Reason,
in Carl
Friedrich
(ed.), The Philosophy
of Kant
(New York,
Kantian
paradigm
in international
relations
191
federation of separate states.44 Yet the exact nature of such a federation varies from one work to another. In the Seventh Proposition of The Idea for a Universal History a Kant of He introduces the idea federation. the (1784) speaks of man 'abandoning lawless state of savagery and entering a federation of peoples [V?lkerbund] in which every state, even the smallest, could expect to derive its security and rights not from its own power or its own legal judgements, but solely from this great federation'.45 On the one hand, Kant is clearly speaking here of a plurality of states ('every state, even the smallest'). Yet on the other, it seems clear that this federation would have the the law, both in terms of the authoritative of power to administer interpretation common rules and the enforcement of those rules. The sovereignty of the partici of the federation and its power to pating states would be qualified by the constitution enforce the law. Law and security would derive 'from a united power and from the decisions of a united will [von einer vereinigten Macht und von der law-governed Entscheidung nach Gesetze des vereinigten Willens]'.46 The emphasis on coercive force is also visible in a further statement in the same section: 'Men are compelled to reinforce this law by introducing a system of united power, hence a cosmopolitan in the Ninth Proposition, Kant talks of system of general political security'.47 Finally, a plan of nature which aims at 'a perfect civil union of mankind der Natur, der [Pl?ne die vollkommene der auf b?rgerliche Vereinigung Menschengattung abziele]'4* The same is the with which Kant earlier describes phrase 'b?rgerliche Vereinigung" phrase the need for a domestic civil society based on coercive laws. In Theory and Practice (1793) Kant at first rejects the idea of a 'cosmopolitan a commonwealth under single head [ein weltb?rgerliches gemeines Wesen unter einem because of the danger of such a state leading to 'the most fearful Oberhaupt]' Instead, he favours a 'lawful condition of federation with a commonly despotism'.49 law [ein rechtlicher Zustand der F?deration nach einem gem agreed international verabredeten V?lkerrecht]'.5? Yet only two pages later Kant's argument einschaftlich of international law being based on coercion brings him back to the necessity [Zwangsgesetze]. And there is not possible way of countering this [war and the will to subjugate others] except
a state submit.51 of international right, based on enforceable public laws to which every state much
The German leaves no doubt: mit Macht begleitete Gesetze?laws accompanied by force. Criticizing those who ridicule the idea of St Pierre and Rousseau, Kant goes on to argue that 'we should proceed in our disputes in such a way that an international
44 of Kant are complicated terms (V?lkerbund, F?deration, Interpretations by the variety of German to translate many of these terms with the F?deralit?t, Genossenschaft), by the tendency Verbindung, and by the preconceptions that arise from modern 'federation', usage. This article uses single word term 'federation' or the general but endeavours to demonstrate the different kinds of organizations associations that Kant was discussing in his various works on the subject. It should also be pointed own usage is not always helpful. For instance, out that Kant's the phrase V?lkerbund is used in The Idea for 45 a Universal History and The Metaphysics of Morals to describe two very different kinds of
organization. IH, Reiss, p. 47. 46 IH, Reiss, p. 47. 47 IH, Reiss, p. 49. 48 IH, Reiss, p. 51. 49 TP, Reiss, p. 90. 50 TP, Reiss, p. 90. 51 TP, Reiss, p. 90.
192
Andrew Hurrell
state may be inaugurated'.52 Here then, in a work published only two years before Perpetual Peace, Kant begins with the idea of a limited federation but ends up, as in The Idea for a Universal History, arguing for the necessity of some form of universal to the able enforce law. system political Kant was attracted by the idea of some form of universal political system able to seemed to enforce the law for two reasons. Firstly, because coercive enforcement represent the most effective way of abolishing war. Secondly, and more importantly, or a federation because of his belief that even though an international government the law might be impractical, such ideas help us to discern the able to enforce a on our more world limited efforts towards should be which peaceful principles
based. But if an international become state impossible of this kind to govern extends it and over thence too wide to protect an area each of of land, it will and the
eventually multitude
its members,
of corporations It naturally this would lead to a state of war. again require must is an idea incapable that perpetual the ultimate end of all international follows peace, right, of realization. But which i.e. those principles which this aim, the political have principles to approach the idea itself by a of international alliances the formation encourage designed continual process, are not impractical.53
in arguing that 'a perfect solution is impossible', because, to is quite consistent a from such warped famous passage, 'Nothing straight can be constructed quote wood as that which man is made of.54 Thus Kant speaks in Perpetual Peace of an Yet the idea that an impractical 'infinite process of gradual approximation'.55 ideal can provide a valid guide to action raises a major problem. If the conditions of the Kant it does not ideal solution cannot be fulfilled, and indeed have serious drawbacks, a on based will follow that second-best solution similar be able necessarily principles to provide an answer. After all, the League of Nations remains a clear example of an to system that not only failed to work according attempt to reform the international an active obstacle to the maintenance its original premises but constituted of order by more traditional means. In Perpetual Peace of Kant's the conclusion is very argument (1795), however, have shown, the emphasis of this work different. As many of Kant's commentators lies in rejecting the 'positive idea of a world republic' in favour of the 'negative federation substitute in the shape of an enduring and gradually expanding likely to a is free 'a war'.56 The federation here 'federation of prevent peoples', particular kind of league which we might call a pacific federation'.57 Kant is at pains to underline the of states and to uphold a strict principle of the independence need to maintain clear from This is particularly non-intervention. Articles. The need to find a 'law governed external of the separate ever, but the 'amalgamation in favour of a 'f?derative Vereinigung' .5% and fifth Preliminary remains as strong as relationship' nations under a single power' is rejected the second
This federation does not aim to acquire any power like that of the state, but merely to preserve and secure thefreedom of each state in itself along with that of all the other
52 TP, 53 MM, 54 IH, 55 PP, 56 PP, 57 PP, 58 PP, p. 92. Reiss, p. 171. Reiss, p. 46. Reiss, p. 130. Reiss, p. 105. Reiss, pp. 102 and Reiss, Reiss, p. 113.
104.
Kantian
confederated to a coercive states, power this does not mean although them as men which enforces
paradigm
that do
in international
relations
to public laws
193
and
to submit they need in the state of nature.59
The sole purpose of this federation will be to abolish war, although its powers to do so will be strictly limited. The force of the federation will derive from its ability to secure and guarantee peace between its members and to set an example which others will be drawn to follow. In Perpetual Peace, such a federation appears to Kant to be the limit of what is possible of state sovereignty and the given the constraints on one a state of the hand and the for need lawful framework autonomy importance for international relations on the other. The conditions which must be fulfilled before any kind of international right is possible is
that a lawful state must already be in existence. For without this, there can be no public association which of can be
right, and any right which can be conceived of outside it, i.e. in a state of nature, will be
merely states a private whose sole right. Now intention we have already seen above war is to eliminate is the only that a federative arrangement lawful
reconciled with theirfreedom.6? of the international discussion in The Metaphysics problem of Morals follows the main the lines in of argument developed (1797) Perpetual Peace, but with an important difference of emphasis. Listing the main elements of international law, Kant repeats the argument for a limited federation. Thirdly, it is necessary to establish a federation of peoples [V?lkerbund] in accordance with
the idea of the original while social contract, from so that state will in one protect one internal another against external And aggression refraining interference another's disagreements.
Kant's
fourthly, this association [Verbindung]must not embody a sovereign power as in a civil constitution, but only a partnership [Genossenschaft] or confederation [F?deralit?t].61 Kant to preserve the peace that this 'union of several states designed a. states be called should be congress may permanent [which] of [Staatenkongressf seen as 'a voluntary gathering of various states which can be dissolved at any time, not an association like that of the American states, is based on a political which, and is therefore constitution indissoluble'.62 The major difference with Perpetual Peace is that the emphasis here is placed on the protection of the confederated states outside than rather the them.63 between peace against agression simply maintaining This points to a basic dilemma. Unless such a federation is able to become truly its effect ismerely to rearrange the units within the international anarchy, universal, rather than overcome that anarchy. Indeed by making the units larger and more powerful the potential dangers of the state of war may actually be increased. There are two further points that emerge from Kant's discussion of a limited is insistent in Perpetual Peace and The Metaphysics federation First, the purpose of of Morals. such a federation to argue that a purely is indeed a limited one. Kant appears rhetorical renunciation to allow of war will help create the necessary confidence
59 60 104. 129.
61 MM, 62 MM, 63 This
PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, Reiss,
p. p.
p. 165. Reiss, p. 171. takes Kant closer to Rousseau's view of the need for a confederation as the only way of small and politically virtuous states against the vicissitudes of the international safeguarding anarchy. See Stanley Hoffman, 'Rosseau on War and Peace', American Political Science Review 57, 2 (June 327-31. 1963), pp.
194
Andrew Hurrell
nations to settle their differences by peaceful means and, perhaps in time, lead them to accept a more form of federation. Michael that suggests Doyle developed a 'guarantee of respect'.64 law helps the cause of peace by providing international International reinforces law enshrines normative barriers the mutual of the legitimacy of states, acceptance to the use of force and helps increase the expectation of beneficial behaviour. Yet whilst there are clearly important of the beneficial
and mutually cooperative in favour Kantian arguments role of Kant's free federation
effects of international law, the exact remains unclear. In Doyle's reconstruction persuasive of Kant's argument the federation seems to have only symbolic importance, certainly with no institutional embodiment but with hardly any legal character either. Indeed Doyle argues that a defacto 'pacific union' has existed for the past 180 years without any formal treaty or federation.65 What we are left with, then, is Kant's belief that, the creation its weaknesses, of such a limited federation would shift whatever constraints on the use of force?something attitudes to war and reinforce normative which has indeed occurred and to which the League, the Kellogg Pact and the United have contributed. Nations (for all their weaknesses) is that the problem of ideas for a limited federation The second point about Kant's war is abstracted from all other aspects of international relations. There is very little as to how all the conflicts and indication, apart from vague references to arbitration, pressures that are the underlying causes of war can be regulated. Some have regarded is concerned only with it as an example of Kant's positive realism that his federation the abolition of war. But it is hard to believe that a rhetorical renunciation of war will mean a great deal unless more attention is paid to the political context within which differences and conflicts will continue to arise. Two conclusions emerge from this first section. In the first place, there is no single on the subject is to the international Kantian solution problem. Kant's writing characterized by a tentative and exploratory approach and he is keenly aware that all it is clear that Kant solutions involve trade-offs and costs. Second, is not solely stressed by Hinsley and others. concerned with the kind of limited pacific federation In Perpetual Peace and The Metaphysics of Morals Kant does indeed reject both of war. and a federation with the power to enforce the proscription world government Yet in both The Idea for a Universal History and Theory and Practice Kant's is much universalism stronger and he embraces both the idea of some kind universal political system and a federation with the power to enforce the law. of
Kant's
view of progress
to a peaceful world
Yet how is progress towards perpetual peace possible? Kant's answer is usually seen in terms of his insistence on the pacific tendencies of republican governments. Yet, whilst clearly important, both his analysis of the causes of war and his discussion of solutions all three embrace of the Waltz: the Kenneth possible 'images' developed by character of individual human the nature of domestic beings, society and the most constraints of the international One of the anarchy.66 important features of
64 Michael and Foreign 'Kant, Liberal Legacies, Doyle, (Summer 1983), p. 230. 65 and Foreign Affairs', 4Kant, Liberal Legacies, Doyle, 66 Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York, Affairs', p. 227. 1959). Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, 3
Kantian Kant's thinking war must come importance

levels.
paradigm
in international
relations
195
is his awareness that any progress towards solving the problem of to terms with each of these three sets of problems. Indeed, the real of republican government is that it provides the link between the three
War for Kant is the result of factors at all three levels. One level, it is the product a pessimistic of human nature. Kant shares with Hobbes view of man and rejects notion that man's propensity Rousseau's for evil is the result of the malign influence of society. He speaks of the 'depravity of human nature' or of man's 'selfish and animal tendencies'.67 'War itself does not seem to require any particular kind of seems for it to be engrained motivation in human nature'.68 On a second level, the frequency of war is clearly influenced by the character of domestic governments. Kant never tires of denouncing the bellicosity of despots, referring to 'heads of state (who can never have enought of war)' or the 'warlike inclinations of those in power', or the to order thousands ruler whose to immolate of people glory lies 'in his power for a cause which does not truly concern themselves them'.69 On a third level, is less explicit than Rousseau in depicting the constraints of the although Kant he nevertheless and intrinsic argues that war is a fundamental security dilemma, characteristic of the international anarchy that exists between states. The starting point for Kant's answer as to how peace will be achieved concerns his stress on domestic reform.70 Some aspects of this reform are military. Kant, for to disband are armies because instance, wants standing expensive, politically they threaten other states with war by oppressive and fuel arms races: 'For they constantly the very fact that they are always prepared for it. They spur on the states to outdo one . . .'71 in arming unlimited another numbers of solderiers More is his important an optimal arrangement of the civil constitution'.72 Kant emphasis on achieving believes that republics will be less inclined to engage in wars. By the term republic state with a separation of the executive and legislative Kant means a constitutional and with some degree of representation of the active citizens. Why should a republic be 'by its nature inclined to seek perpetual peace'?73 The first reason is a purely mechanistic that the argument based on the assumption are more to inclined than their Peace will be bellicose rulers. peace 'people' naturally more likely in a republic because of the power of the citizens to restrain the aggressive tendencies
If, as decide
of their leaders.
under this constitution, the consent natural For is required they will have great on this means down calling that of the citizens to
is inevitably the case or not war whether
hesitation themselves
is to be declared, it is very on so dangerous in embarking an enterprise. all the miseries of war.74
67 68 69
PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, Schlereth,
p. p.
103, and 111.
IH, Reiss,
p. 42.
was the view that war was the sport of kings see pp. 95 and 103. On how widespread The Cosmopolitan Ideal, pp. 112-17. 70 reform is to be achieved remains a problem for Kant. This is due partly to his Exactly how domestic a perfect of establishing It is also due to his belief that 'the problem denial of the right of rebellion. civil constitution is dependent of a law-governed upon the problem [my emphasis] relationship states'. There is a chicken and egg dilemma here that Kant never fully resolves. between 71 PP, Reiss, p. 94. 72 IH, Reiss, p. 48. 73 is a large literature dealing with the nature of Kant's See especially PP, Reiss, p. 104. There republics. Kant's Political p. 100. Philosphy, chs. 5-8.
Williams, 74 PP, Reiss,
196
Andrew Hurrell
state must costs be organized internally in such it at war a way that the head of i.e. state, for whom
. . . each the war no longer
actually have
(for he wages nothing vote on whether the deciding
the expense
of others, or not,
is to be declared
must the people), for the people who
pay for itmust decide . . .For the people wil not readily place itself in danger of personal want (which would not affect the head of state) out of a mere desire for aggrandizement, or
because of some supposed and purely verbal offence.75
The
'miseries' of war are in part the risk of death and injury but they also refer to the increasing economic costs of war.
increasing armies, one will war, can last while culture which of . . must . cause on likewise increasingly high expenditure ever more be kept in constant readiness and equipped with of warfare. Meanwhile the price of all necessities will rise, steadily in the corresponding for any proportionate increase metal currencies. states must for of the resources saved debt, during though it to meet ingenious, the national the expenditure is an ultimately of
The
standing numerous while No no peace
instruments hope
the next
long enought the invention
self-defeating
expedient.76
It is clearly important that the people should directly experience the costs of war. This is one of the reasons why Kant favours militias rather than professional armies. It also partly explains his attack on the financing of war through the accumulation of that debt?an which follows of Adam Smith.77 very closely argument The second reason for Kant's preference for republican government ismore subtle commentators. not Kant does and has been underestimated accept the naive by many liberal assumption that the 'people' are always peaceful or virtuous. Progress towards on the moral progress of individuals. Yet dependent perpetual peace is ultimately 'In the such progress in turn can only come about within a good political constitution. same way, we cannot expect their moral a good political to produce attitudes on the contrary, it is only through the latter that the people can be constitution; a to attain level of moral culture'.78 As Dick Howard points out: 'Kant expected good is that the the argues Republic only political form that is capable of instancing the of and the first and then, is the link between politics'.79 This, harmony morality the framework within which moral progress is possible, second images. By providing is an essential step on the road to perpetual peace. republican government kind of moral and education does Kant point What improvement most fundamentally, but powerful moral there is the straightforward find a means of abolishing war.
Now, moral-practical . . .Thus be no war or whether we Reason it is no are not within longer perhaps efforts
to? First,
and imperative to
not,
us pronounces veto: There the following irresistible a question of whether is peace really possible perpetual in our theoretical if we assume mistaken judgement that constitution which seems most
shall or that
it is.On the contrary, we must simply act as if it could come about (which is perhaps
impossible), suitable for and turn our towards establishing this purpose.80
TP, Reiss, TP, Reiss, 77 See Adam 76 455-6.
pp. 90-1. p. 90. Smith, The Wealth
of Nations
(Chicago,
1976),
II, pp. 462-3.
See also pp. 338-9,
444-6
and
78 79
80 MM,
113. PP, Reiss, Dick Howard, 'Kant's Political 1980), p. 346. (December Reiss, p. 174.
Theory:
The Virtue
of his Vices',
Review
of Metaphysics
34
Kantian
paradigm
in international
relations
197
This kind of generalized moral imperative has always been open to the realist criticism that it cannot in itself provide a viable guide as to how war should be ended. But this moral passion to abolish suffering and sin lies at the heart of Kant's view of the forceful and repeated restatement of the immorality of war progress. Moreover, serves an essential purpose in helping to shape the normative climate of international relations. Despite the claims of many realists, Kant is right in arguing that attitudes to the use of force can change and do, at least to some degree, affect state behaviour.81 second moral capacity that Kant stresses is the ability to learn from experience to act on the realization is reformed, that, unless the international anarchy to The learn conflict is inevitable. from is a destructive ability experience increasingly central feature of Kant's moral view. He believes man to be neither wholly evil nor wholly virtuous. On the one hand, there is man's egoism, his desire to live as an The and and his innate inclination to aggression. On the other, Kant's whole moral is based on the assumption that human beings are capable of discovering philosophy and acting upon universally valid moral 'possesses imperatives. Thus man, for Kant, a great moral capacity' and is 'animated by respect for right and duty'.82 Kant's view of progress is based essentially on the dialectical process by which the asocial and evil a more peaceful qualities act as a constant stimulus to the need to create and maintain individual and law-governed society.83
or even roused and these desires all man's power. Without to develop.84 state must the resultant distress which every are the means by which nature
Nature should thus be thanked for fostering social incompatibility, enviously competitive
for possession and insatiable desires vanity never be would excellent natural capacities Wars, tense and unremitting preparations in the midst feel within itself, even to make
eventually drives nations
initially imperfect of inner exhausation and even complete upheavals reason to them even without have could suggested . . ,85 state of savagery their lawless abandoning
of peace?these but finally, attempts,
their powers, so many sad experiences?that
after many devastations, to take the step which of
of past suffering and destruction and, above all, the itself, the memory a state into that forms the essential back such of ever-present possibility slipping Kant back into the of At times Kant's view force behind progress. slips driving view of history and common but rather simplistic eighteenth-century providential progress, best exemplified of the Human Race. In by Lessing's On the Education the status quo, addition, there is the more serious problem that, however dangerous it does not provide an adequate guide to the viability of the necessity of reforming of evil realistic view of man's propensity doing so.86 Yet, for the most part, Kant's provides the essential backcloth against which his views on the possibility of progress liberal emphasis on towards perpetual peace must be judged. Inverting the common human to which
81 For
It is war
and wars goodness, Kant stresses man's selfish instincts and the catastrophes they inevitably give rise as the essential features of 'Nature's hidden plan'.
assessment Abolition 1989). p. 92. Kant's of Ideas on international see James Lee of the impact of ethical constrants behaviour, of Slavery and the End of International War', International 43, 3 Organization
a recent
'The Ray, (Summer 82 TP, Reiss, 83 There is a
84 IH, Reiss, p. 45. 85 IH, Reiss, p. 47. 86 For a detailed analysis
of history. See especially, Williams, large literature dealing with Kant's philosophy ch. 1;G. A. Kelly, Journal of the History Political Philosophy, 'Rousseau, Kant and History', of History', 48 (1956-7). 29 (1968); and E. L. Fackenheim, 'Kant's Concept Kant-Studien
of the realist
critique
of utopianism,
see Clarke,
Reform
and Resistance,
ch. 2.
198
Andrew Hurrell
concerns The third kind of moral the gradual process by which improvement individuals become increasingly able to see themselves as part of a global community a 'universal cosmopolitan of mankind, existence'. This level of cosmopolitan right was not to have any political embodiment and Kant believed that its effect could be seen most visibly in the growth of trade and commerce. Yet Kant firmly believed that, to the nation state would not (nor should not) disappear, whilst obligations the range of moral obligation could expand beyond the state and that individuals could develop a growing sense of moral interdependence. '[A]s culture increases and men gradually come closer together', this would lead 'toward a general agreement on the principles for peace and understanding'.87 of the individual and the benefits of republican govern The moral improvement ment are also strengthened by the material advantages of peace. Thus we find inKant a clear example of the common liberal argument that the growth of peaceful trade states will make war and economic between interdependence on because it is based interests, and secondly firstly naturally congruent it increasingly counterproductive. raises the costs of war and makes relations
For by the spirit of commerce . . .Thus side with war not though in addition, sooner states or find later takes hold of every themselves compelled people, to promote and it cannot the noble
less likely, because it
exist cause of
side
of morality.88 from motives exactly an upheaval in any state produces the effects which our continent, where all are so closely linked by trade, are so perceptible as arbiters, to offer states are forced themselves by their own insecurity peace, And future.89
upon that albeit
all
the others other any
in
those without
legal authority, so that they indirectly prepare the way for the great political body of the He also follows the liberal tradition in believing that unfettered economic activity surest way of both maximizing wealth and guaranteeing politicial freedom.
Furthermore, trades and its external welfare business civil industries, relations freedom and will can no especially also decline which also the longer be so easily infringed to commerce, in the event ... If the citizen with of is deterred the freedom [state] without of which from disadvantage the state's seeking to all power in
is
in any way in general
he chooses and hence
is consistent strength
the whole
of others, are held in check.90
his personal the vitality of
Kant
is, however, closer to Smith than strength of the state must be protected unlimited blessing. Thus in contrast to for Kant no inherent right to trade. The and Kant
to Cobden in his awareness that the economic and that economic is not an interdependence earlier natural lawyers such as Vitoria, there is conditions of universal hospitality are limited
on and Japan for laying down very strict conditions praises China communication and trade with the European must nations. More trade importantly, be conducted in the interests of ones own people 'and not for the advantage of and the of the of because the State without others, strangers encouragement industry the prosperity of the people would not possess sufficient power to resist external enemies or to maintain itself as a commonwealth.91 Kant's emphasis on the importance of change at the level of both the individual and
87 88
domestic
Peace, p.
society
in Friedrich, 114.
allows
him
to overcome
of Kant, p. 454.
a basic
dilemma
that
faces
all
Eternal
The Philosophy
PP, Reiss, 89 IH, Reiss, 90 IH, Reiss, 91 Principles
p. 51. p. 50. of Political
Right,
quoted
inWaltz,
'Kant, Liberalism
and War',
p. 334.
Kantian international
of The nature. case for world that
paradigm
in international
relations
199 state
reformers who
take as their starting point
the idea of a Hobbesian
proposition escape Hobbesian by
sovereign
as it is made out by Kant government, state states are in a Hobbesian
and
others,
of nature,
to a common themselves subordinating state of nature, the contract be means if covenants without the sword
take place. For towards directed agreements on
But government. it cannot of which from they are to emerge are but words, this will be true of covenants government, just as it will hold true of
the begins with to from which they need if states are indeed in a
the establishment other subjects.92
of universal
of progress of both individuals and states, By focusing on the need and possibility in a way Kant is able to envisage a situation in which states will be able to cooperate which was previously impossible. Yet Kant could never be satisfied simply with the moral of in improvement when the international dividuals and of domestic itself had society. Only anarchy states was progress between been reformed through a formal agreement towards and the perpetual peace possible. Here is the second role for republican governments link between the second and third images: the idea that a morally and politically republic will form the essential focal point around which a federation well-organized of states can be built. 'For if by good fortune one powerful and enlightened nation can form a republic (which is by its nature inclined to peace), this will provide the of other states'.93 focal point for a federal association towards Progress perpetual peace is therefore based on both moral improvement of factors working at the level of the individual, and self interest, on a combination domestic society and the international system. Michael Doyle has given an account of to explain the generally peaceful relations that how these factors can be combined have in fact increasingly existed between liberal states over the past 200 years.94 For Kant, though, the validity of his ideas was only partially based on the evidence of what he called 'history proper'. Kant argued consistently that we should assume a a to it is moral duty, be possible because progress imperative un categorical conditionally
This
binding
on all men
be
by virtue of their rational nature.
at times may progress to endless doubts about my to desist from I cannot
me
. . but never broken may well give rise interrupted off. History if and these doubts could be hopes, proved, they might persuade an apparently task. But so long as they do not have the force of futile my duty for a rule of expediency (as a liquidum) since it is purely (i.e. the illiquidum), which says that
certainty, not I ought
exchange to attempt the
impractical
hypothetical.95
Kant: statist or cosmopolitan? It is clear that there ismuch very emphatically

92 93 94 Bull, The Anarchical p. 103. PP, Reiss,
both
Society,
'statist' view of Kant. He rejects strength in a narrower, the desirability and the viability of any move towards world
p. 262.
differs from Doyle's in laying and Foreign Affairs'. My 'Kant, Liberal Legacies, interpretation Doyle, on Kant's of individuals and on the specific role of belief in the moral improvement greater weight that Kant discusses. various types of federations 95 in Kant's considerations view of the primacy of moral TP, Reiss, p. 89. This brings out once more ideas were 'une philosophie has said, Kant's relations. As Pierre Hassner international political sans politique'. 'Les concepts de guerre et de paix chez Kant', Revue Pierre Hassner, politique 11 (September de Science Politique 1961), p. 642. Fran?aise
200
Andrew Hurrell
He is very much aware of the need for states to defend themselves and their economic, political and military strength. In contrast to the earlier from Bull, the moral and quotation imperative for Kant enjoins the cooperation coexistence of states and rejects the idea of overthrowing the state system. He is concerned not with abolishing the society of states but with improving and perfecting it. Inmany ways Kant aims at what Barry Buzan has called a 'mature anarchy', where government. to maintain 'the benefits of fragmentation could be enjoyed without the costs of continuous struggle and instability' and where stability rests both on the internal strength and cohesiveness of states and on the universal acceptance of each others' independence and legitimacy.96 the means of that improvement have a great deal to do with strength Moreover, ening the international legal order and with building on the mutual rights and duties that exist between states rather than peoples. As we have seen, Kant is not completely dismissive law. More international the limited pacific existing importantly, in Perpetual Peace and The Metaphysics that he discusses is of Morals to underwrite indeed designed international law in such way as to protect the and independence of states. This points to a view of international order autonomy federation that of
or is in fact much closer to Bull and Wight's of the Grotian depiction concern In international tradition. Kant's with the internal addition, arrange society ments of states need not be seen, as it sometimes is, as subversive of interstate order, of perfecting but rather as another means it. First, because of this belief that means a stable states inclined the represent peacefully republican only whereby can of states to be maintained. extent because of the Second, system independent which citizens
state
states which guarantee constitutional the moral and political rights of their remove an important element of instability and add to the legitimacy of the
as a whole.
system
Kant's views on non-intervention of the degree to provide an important measure which with he is primarily concerned inter-state order. The principle of non as the after much of what Michael Walzer has described all, intervention, underpins as what of Charles Beitz and has characterized 'the of 'legalist paradigm' morality states'.97 Kant explicity upholds the principle of non-intervention in the fifth pre state shall forcibly '5. No in Perpetual Peace: interfer in the liminary article and government of another constitution state'.98 The only exception that he was to was to allow state when internal discord had led the prepared breaking up into two as a set state 'each of which itself and claimed up parts separate authority over the
whole'.99
another exception, which, if true, would alter Kant's would 'Kant have asserted the right of other position very significantly: probably a to when is of intervene its civil constitution powers people being deprived by a totalitarian coup d'?tat.m There is, however, no textual basis for this assertion and In The Metaphysics Kant's argument seems to run in exactly the oppsite direction. of Morals,
96
Carl Friedrich
has claimed
for example, Kant
accepts
(speaking
of colonialism)
that 'there are plausible
Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear (London, 1983), pp. 96-7. 97Michael Just and Unjust Wars (London, Part II, and Charles Beitz, Walzer, 1980), especially Relations (Princeton, 1979). Theory and International 98 PP, Reiss, p. 96. 99 PP, Reiss, p. 96. 100 Carl Friedrich, Inevitable Peace (Cambridge, 1948), p. 178. On this point, see R. J. Vincent, Non-intervention and International Order (Princeton, 1974), pp. 56-8.
Political
Kantian
paradigm
in international
relations
201
enough arguments for the use of violence on the grounds this is said in relation of the world as a whole'. Although this principle seem to carry more general weight.
But means perhaps violence condition reform all these which supposedly are used
that it is in the best interests to colonialism, his denial of
cannot wash the stain of injustice from the intentions away good to implement them. Yet one might that the whole world would object still be in a lawless condition of men had had any such compunction about using a can as state. But when first created this little annul the above they law-governed as can by force the plea of political revolutionaries if they have become corrupt. that . .101 the people are entitled to
of right constitutions
More
telling still is this attack on both the use of force and on confederations seek to reform the internal structure of other states:
war is not so incurably to hasten creates evil as that tomb, a universal autocracy (or even in any single state) as a [my
that
Although confederacy emphasis],
which yet.
exists . .war
the weakening of a despotism more evil than it destroys.102
Kant
non-intervention? First, because of that international represent an legal restraints buttressed by a federation bulwark against the dangers of the international indispensable anarchy. Second, at least republican states?represent because of his belief that states?or values and fulfil purposes that deserve to be protected. Although Kant is not clear about exactly what constitutes a state worthy of inclusion in international society, he stresses two elements. First, as we have seen, the extent to which a state embodies a particular his belief linguistic, historical and cultural identity. Second, states provide the social framework for individual
The free citizens from of a civil state share concern derives a common and from care their derived individuals country past the overbearing have in common share, and, at and
is clearly aware here of the problems which and his upholding of rigid principle domestically have both for the emergence of republics and the Why does Kant uphold such a rigid principle of
of the right or rebellion of non-intervention internationally spread of his pacific federation. his denial
and more freedom.
important,
the fact that
is not but this common interest interest, of a paternalist Rather what government. as independent status inhabitants of the same culture for whose existence they owe a debt to of civil to a duty to ward future been won. In this way
. . . They
preserve becomes within nation.
generation, this culture an
therefore, the same
a common time,
the freedoms
they that have
have
generations the extent
freedom
individual
something the confines The
a matter his state becomes of national enjoys within more an abstract Since than merely political principle. state of a particular can only be free it becomes if he the attribute is a member
pride. Liberty it is enjoyed or
individual
of a particular people . . .103 of a free nation
Third, the rigidity of Kant's position does not stem solely from the fear of damage to international in exceptional intervention society that might follow from permitting circumstances. Rather it results also from his approach to the foundations of morality to a universal moral and his refusal to accept that there could be any exceptions law.104This rigidity is indicative of a broader problem in Kant's argument. He never fully faces up to the tension that exists in the real world between a moral code that is
101 MM, Reiss, p. 173. 102 in Friedrich Religion within the Limits of Reason, (ed.), The Philosophy 103 Kant's Political Williams, p. 131. Philosophy, 104 For a discussion see H. B. Acton, of the weaknesses of this argument, (London, 1970), pp. 60-5.
of Kant,
p. 381. Philosophy
Kant's Moral
202
Andrew Hurrell
to both intensely individualist and cosmopolitan and a view of politics that continues state. He is thus an uncertain to the accord special states to the sovereign guide and moral conflicts which the demands of the inevitably arise between political on one on states of the hand and of the other.105 cosmopolitan justice morality its weaknesses, the rigidity of Kant's position directly contradicts Yet, whatever tradition as one in which of the Kantian Bull's depiction '[T]he rules that sustain and social intercourse among states should be ignored if the imperatives coexistence of this higher morality require it'.106 It also goes against the idea that the importance to crusades or coercion need involve of ideological interventions, homegeneity
'convert the heretic'.
side of Kant cannot be so thoroughly and universalist yet the cosmopolitan state but he believed in more than the state Kant in the did believe system rejected. mean not of nations and did the abolition for Kant system. Cosmopolitanism national frontiers but it did mean that his view of man's moral, and to a certain extent solely within a Vattelian society political, rights and duties could not be encompassed of states based on what Vattel called 'the natural liberty of nations'. In the first place there is the fact that his ideas for a federation were not limited treaty to solely to a loose league of republican states that had signed a metaphorical And abolish war. Kant was at times drawn to the view that self-enforcement might not be a part of a a more to form federation have and that might developed adequate a course 'state still be of system' but the system of peace. This would working to determine and enforce the law and the existence of centralized power, the ability on state sovereignty would represent a major structural reform of limit corresponding law would no longer derive from pragmatic consideration that system. International interest between of common power and the law-governed
Universal History.
independent sovereignties decisions of a united will'
but rather from the 'united as he puts it in The Idea for
is concerned primarily with there is an important sense in which Kant as of derivative and does view the interstate system significance. The is after all with the moral starting point of Kant's moral and political philosophy of the individual. From that base he is then led to consider freedom and autonomy for that the kinds of domestic society that are necessary society and international to towards the impulse for progress be safeguarded. freedom perpetual Similarly, peace comes largely from the individual: from the moral outrage at the destructive ness of war, from the ability to learn from experience, and from the gradual moral Secondly, individuals improvement of mankind. to moral laws that we discern Kant saw freedom in terms of obedience Although were valid. As laws within ourselves, he believed also that those moral universally in the moral has argued, Kant believed very strongly Howard Williams unity of This was not a and in the existence of a global ethical commonwealth.107 mankind that is, 'the relation of men to each other in which they all 'juridico-civil condition', alike stand socially under public coercive laws (which are, as a class, laws of coercion)'.
105 On
see James Fishkin, 'Theories of Justice and International Relations: The Limits of in Anthony Ellis (ed.), Ethics and International Relations Theory', (Manchester, 1986) and the between Michael Walzer and David in Charles Beitz et al. (eds.), International Luban Ethics (Princeton, 1985), Part IV. 106 Bull, The Anarchical p. 26. Society, 107 Kant's Political Williams, pp. 260-8. Philosophy, this point, Liberal debate
Kantian But rather:

An ethico-civil alone state . . . because the duties of virtue is that in which they
paradigm
in international
relations
203
are united
under
non-coercive
laws,
that
is, laws
of
virtue
Further, ethical
commonwealth
is extended
to the entire human apply to the whole of mankind ideally
race, the concept . . J08
of an
Even more than in the case This presumption of universality is of course problematic. of natural law theorists (who at least laid claim to the discovery of a system of values independent of individual will), neither the generalized nature of Kant's categorical to morality imperative and nor the subjective character of his approach represent a convincing challenge to the historical and cultural variability of moral beliefs.109 The between ends and means conflicting obligations, problem of moral conflict?between and between competing moral codes and world views?has always been a central to apply morality feature of attempts 'beyond the state' but it poses a particular difficulty relations both for Kantian in particular. ethics in general and their application to international
the global society of mankind has a reality that is not solely based on Third, universal moral laws. This iswhere Kant's discussion of cosmopolitan right comes in. in an external right exists 'in so far as individuals and states, coexisting Cosmopolitan influences, may be regarded as citiziens of a universal state of relationship of mutai mankind Kant underlines the limits of this cosmopolitan [Menschenstaat]\m right. In The Metaphysics he makes it clear that 'this is not a legal community of of Morals . . .nor a possession community of ownership'.111 In Perpetual Peace he states that it is limited to 'the conditions of Universal Hospitality'.112 Hospitality includes the right to of access, of safe shelter and, most the maintain the conditions important, duty within which commerce and peaceful intercourse between peoples are possible.
This right, of creating be termed in so far as universal cosmopolitan it affords laws to regulate the prospect that all the nations unite for the purpose may one the intercourse have with another, may may they
(ius cosmopoliticum).113
Kant saw the reality of this global society in the trade and economic interdepend ence that existed between states and in the transnational ties between individuals on which this was based. In the first place, transnational ties of this kind generated Kant ties of interest that would mutual believed powerful provide an important?if Kant towards does peace. appear to see the free interaction self-interested?impulse to harmony. There is nothing of Rousseau's of peoples as leading naturally insight ever more that distributional conflicts will remain and that states will become concerned with the relative gains created by interdependence.114 Second, Kant
108 within Religion 109 For a discussion
the Limits of Reason Alone, Friedrich (ed.), The Philosophy see Andrew of this problem, Linklater, Men and Citizens (London, 1982), especially ch. 7.
of Kant, pp. 405-6. in the Theory of
International Relations 110 PP, Reiss, pp. 98-9. 111 MM, Reiss, p. 172. 112 PP, Reiss, p. 105. 113 MM, Reiss, p. 172. 114 Let us add finally that,
to commerce from a great and lasting peace though the advantages resulting are in themselves certain and indisputable, to all States, they will be appreciated still, being common make felt only by contrast, themselves and he who wishes to increase by none. For such advantages his relative power to seek only such gains as are exclusive', is bound on Rousseau, Judgement Saint-Pierre's et al. (ed.), The Theory of International inM. Forsyth Peace, Project for Perpetual Relations. Selected Texts (London, 1970), p. 160.
204 believed
Andrew Hurrell that
the reality of these ties would lead to the growth of the 'spirit of on to and the principles on which the peaceful agreement increasing enlightenment' and orderly relations between states should be based. This spirit would draw men away from 'its rulers' self-seeking schemes of expansion'.115 Third, Kant believed that these ties were creating a sense of moral the moral that buttressed interdependence laws of his ethical commonwealth.
peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community,
The
and it has developed

everywhere.116
to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world
is felt
in The Idea for a Universal History where his universalism Finally, particularly its strongest, Kant holds out great hopes that the embryo of this global society he sees in his own time will develop in the future. Although
nonetheless interest with all
is at that
this political body exists for the present only in the roughest of outlines,
seems in maintaining their as if a feeling the whole. effects, realized is beginning And this the highest as the matrix to stir encourages purpose within in all its members, each of which the hope of nature, which all that, a universal the original after many
it
has an revolutions,
existence, human
transforming will at last be
cosmopolitan of capacities
the
race may
develop.117
Kantian
is certainly much more of a statist than tradition would suggest, the continuing interest two the tension between the sides of his by writings. This the answers and there are many difficulties with that Whilst Kant
the characterization of the of his work is strengthened tension remains unresolved Kant gives and with his
of rigorous moralism and political realism. fascinating but frustrating combination in the history of thought about international Yet much of his achievement relations rests on his attempt to come to terms with both the deep-rootedness and benefits of statism on the one hand and the increasing moral and practical of demands on the from his the that conventional other; separation cosmopolitanism recognition of domestic political and moral theory from what happens 'beyond the state' is both practically and logically untenable; and from his awareness that change and progress of the state of war in should not be viewed as a stark choice between the continuation is endlessly reproduced on the one hand and which the logic of the security dilemma the complete transcendence of the state system and its replacement by some form of on the other. universal political organisation advocate a single solution to the problem of war Kant, then, does not consistently but is concerned to explore the strengths and weaknesses of various solutions. On the one hand, the status quo of international anarchy was unacceptable to Kant and was so war more as the On the destructiveness of increased. the other, becoming an was state solution of international would unattainable, theoretically optimal involve the loss of the state's positive functions as the provider of localized order and soon degenerate the focus for linguistic and patriotic into a loyaties, and would condition of universal oppression. Any solution between the two would have to be balance between the reality of state sovereignty based on a tenuous and problematic a to firmer basis for those institutions and obligations that work and the need provide to curb the excesses of that sovereignty.
1,5 IH, Reiss, 116 PP, Reiss, 117 IH, Reiss, p. 51. pp. 107-8. p. 51.
Kantian
paradigm
in international
relations
205
Kant was a statist in that he was aware of the positive functions of the state system and the practical difficulties of trying to reform, let alone transcend, it. But he was a in that he was also very much aware of the limits of the state system and cosmopolitan of the existence of rights and obligations that bound all individuals as individuals and not as citizens of particular states. The difficulty of finding a politically and morally remains a central challenge acceptable bridge between statism and cosmopolitanism to the creation of a viable international order. Indeed the contemporary relevance of Kant's work is strengthened by the validity of his prediction that the imperatives of economic modernization and the increasing destructiveness of war would make both ever of a cosmopolitan the limits of the society of states and the obligations morality
more important.118
118 An
can be seen in the following indication of the reemergence of Kantian interesting perspectives lu. A. Zomoshkin: 'This ideal [general disarmament] is quotation by the Soviet philosopher as a moral in the sense of the term used by I. Kant, whose law, a categorical expressed imperative reflections in our time. It is an upon the role of the ideal have become profound especially precious as a moral-legal "maxim" imperative which emerges as the voice of duty and conscience, possessing lu. A. Zamoshkin, 'Ideal iadernogo i problema razruzheniia general, universal significance', ego realizatsii i psikhologicheskie and the (filosofskie [The ideal of nuclear disarmament aspekty', of its realization?philosophical and psychological 1 (1988), p. 90. problem aspects], Voprosy Filosofii

Kant and The Kantian Paradigm in International Relations (Hurrell) (1990)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kant and The Kantian Paradigm in International Relations (Hurrell) (1990)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations Author(s): Andrew Hurrell Source: Review of International Studies, Vol.

and the Kantian relations*

Founding Fathers when they constructed

the American Constitution,

customary imperfect, on a treaty between

between Kant and the to embody. In addition, such traditions provides

even if it does not exist actually, and which when

there is the claim and that conflict

as follows: is international society? in such a fashion

They [theKantians] will answer the question, What

behind the legal facade of the fictitious Society of Nations

is the true international society firstly, that the

. . . this third pattern of ideas is distinguished by two master-premises:

Andrew Hur re II view of the international system

in in terna tional re la tions

powerful... which have

the right to maintain one another.25

and the recognition

(percussores) within (perduellio) are dishonourable sort of trust would

during or poisoners the enemy strategems. in the attitude turn into

to abandon the external until

Kenneth political Thus,

adapt which gentium) the earth.36

107. p. 105. p. 90. See also PP, Reiss,

society its own existence

its members of war.42

The point ismade most Limits of Reason:

necessarily breaks republic war,

expire. into many of federated

so far in the same passage

that 'war is not so incurably

(ed.), The Philosophy

to submit they need in the state of nature.59

61 MM, 62 MM, 63 This

PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, Reiss,

Kantian Kant's thinking war must come importance

is inevitably the case or not war whether

is to be declared, it is very on so dangerous in embarking an enterprise. all the miseries of war.74

PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, PP, Reiss, Schlereth,

103, and 111.

Williams, 74 PP, Reiss,

. . . each the war no longer

(for he wages nothing vote on whether the deciding

must the people), for the people who

standing numerous while No no peace

long enought the invention

TP, Reiss, TP, Reiss, 77 See Adam 76 455-6.

pp. 90-1. p. 90. Smith, The Wealth

II, pp. 462-3.

See also pp. 338-9,

eventually drives nations

of peace?these but finally, attempts,

their powers, so many sad experiences?that

after many devastations, to take the step which of

'The Ray, (Summer 82 TP, Reiss, 83 There is a

84 IH, Reiss, p. 45. 85 IH, Reiss, p. 47. 86 For a detailed analysis

less likely, because it

upon that albeit

the others other any

in any way in general

he chooses and hence

of others, are held in check.90

his personal the vitality of