8. M.

Feb 10
Monday, February 10, 2014 11:56 AM

Clothing of realism state of hierarchy, etc. "Cosmopolitanism" vs Raison d'Etat" (reason of state) -Raison d'Etat -- we have to do bad things, but it's okay because we're doing it for the sake of the state What is cosmopolitanism"? An Answer in Two Stages A. Realist viewpoint: STATE OF WAR World is at a state of war, or close to it -- Thucydides and Weber; therefore states need to be preparing for war Therefore don't expect moral constraints because people will act as the Athenians did Put all your chips on power, not communication, diplomacy To be constantly in state of war; gain advantage when opportunity presents itself; state in perpetual readiness for war ('red storm rising' view); very pessimistic of norms B. TROUBLED PEACE Categorizing Theorists on War and International Relationswhat is the baseline? State of troubled peace; we can distinguish between times of peace and war People are worried about security, but it is not relentlessly constant Realist viewpoint is an exaggeration and therefore becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy There are norms that contain the conflict between states; within states as well Diagnosis of war differs from realist viewpoint -- build on norms that exist; extend the areas of cooperation that do exist and spill over to areas of traditional conflict; o (commercial trade are able to connect people for mutual advantage) o Economic trade theory; globalization; benefit not seen as a zero-sum game; you can strengthen ties C. Implications of Bothhow tolerable? how necessary to change? You can manage a balance of power (as long as you have leadership, good followers not blinded by a utopian/idealistic society) Immanuel Kant -- "war was a constant problem that we had to overcome, and the hardest problem, nevertheless must try to solve or else well live a morally stunted life" o Peace is a moral imperative -- not an extra; we have to work for it; won't just happen; therefore citizens and leaders have a moral obligation o "there shall be no war" Cosmopolitanism Definedemphasis on norms that (should, and, potentially, do) operate across and above nation-state boundaries Not restricted to one country; We are looking beyond one state Doesn't regard the state having exclusive claim on our loyalty Emphasizes norms that work across borders; and should take precedence than those that exist in the state A. A paradox illustrated: the Olympics o Cosmopolitan ideals never really die -- even in bad times

I.

II.

Olympics represent a type of cosmopolitan ideal -- doesn't advertise the negative aspects of one's history Brings about the idea of bringing the best from all over the world for a friendly competition Paradox --- Show case of national prowess (nationalism) versus a friendly comingtogether of all the great athletes of the world Live in a world dominated by nation-states while yearning and acting upon cosmopolitan values; higher calling of moral values

III.

The Importance of Immanuel Kant A visionary who thought peace was a moral imperative A. Peace as a Moral Imperative As long as war exists we are living stunted lives Direct experience by being censored by the state -- religion within the boundaries of mere reason o All of us has a duty to bring about peace o However, Kant didn't have a romanticized view of human nature o Thought competition was built into us and that all of us as an 'asocial sociability' - we want our own way all the time but at the same time we also want the recognition/acceptance from our peers (the best of both worlds) Given this constraint, we need to make laws for ourselves - we need to consent to laws that are fair o Humankind has a great capacity due to reason; which would lead us to diagnosis the problem of war o Autonomy and the relation to his moral theory: Moral-practical reason pronounces within us the following irresistible dictum: There shall be no war.

IV.

Kants Plan for peace: a league/confederation of states a. The Argument in Perpetual Peace 1. Preliminary Articles a. No peace as prelude for future war Doesn't say we should do away with states and start a new system; being realistic without being a realist Restrains that would work would be the ones we put on ourselves That's why tyranny; all powerful sovereign wouldnt work; Disagrees with Hobbes Therefore if want peace we need to work within the system of states States need to change the way they see treaties/truce as peace -- when you end a war, you have to understand it's peace, not just a temporary suspense of tension b. No acquisition of other states and territories State is not a possession but a society of people; 'community is like a tree' Against the idea that you can 'acquire' states -- a little bit of ambiguity of the definition of state; quite anti-imperial c. Gradual abolition of standing armies Because they're there for a looming war Need to justify it Understands the logic of the security dilemma; so gradually need to get rid of standing armies d. No national debt for external purposes of the state His view, this ingenious system makes military funds incentivize future wars e. No forcible interference in constitution and government of another state

 Fix things in your own state Paradigm - rules is that you don't interfere in domestic affairs of other states for

your own purposes 'what counts as forcible interference?' f. No state at war with another shall permit such acts of hostility as would make mutual confidence impossible during a future time of peace. --- 'just war' traditions Justice within war

Preliminary articles used as a prerequisite for definitive articles 2. Definitive Articles a. Republican civil constitution Means representative democracy Deriving from a contract view If we have regimes that are responsive to their own people, it will be more difficult to go to war because people don't want to claim responsibility for the war; supplying costs; being drafted; paying for the reparations; the burden of the debt directly in their own hands Trying to tell us what a durable peace is -- not trying to justify 'democratic peace' theory; imagining a different kind of world by the principles he's laid down o Not a linear pattern -- democratic --> peace --> etc. [not about that]; but a mutually reinforcing process o Goal is to inevitably live in a world of morally autonomous people a. Right of nations shall be based on federation of free states Doesn't suggest abolishing states but constraining/restraining them in a federation We need to move the state from a 'lawless savagery' to a federation Ex) the European Union b. Cosmopolitan right shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality (No imperial conquest): The peoples of the earth have thus entered in varying degrees into a universal community, and it has developed to the point where a violation of rights in one part of the world is felt everywhere. (Reiss ed., 107-108)