Perpetual peace: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:56, 4 March 2006 editPmanderson (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits It would be nice if Ultrmarine would bother to look for sources himself.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:31, 15 September 2022 edit undoCarchasm (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users27,692 edits redirecting to the other article on the exact same topic that's better sourcedTag: New redirect
(192 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			#REDIRECT ]
	{{mergefrom\|world peace}}

	'''Perpetual peace''' refers to a state of affairs where peace is permanently established over a certain area (ideally, the whole world - see ]).

	Many would-be world conquerors have promised that their rule would enforce perpetual peace. No empire has ever extended its authority over the entire world, and thus nothing can be said about the ability of a universal empire to ensure world peace, but several large empires have maintained relative peace in their spheres of influence over extended periods of time. Typical examples are the ] (see '']'') and the ] (see '']''). However their rule wasn't without incident. (see '']'', '']''). Whether such imperial peace is actually good or desirable is another question entirely. In addition, no imperial peace has been permanent, because no empire has lasted forever.

	Several religions have prophesied that their divinity would produce perpetual peace at some point in the future.

	There are also a number of secular projects for a perpetual peace which employ means more subtle, but perhaps more attainable, than universal empire or even democratic world government.

	If one state can't reach the power to impose peace on the world, perhaps several can. ] attempted to actually create such a confederation. Others were proposed by ] and ].

	== The Kantian view and its descendants ==

	The other modern plans for a perpetual peace descend from ]'s 1795 essay, ''Project for a Perpetual Peace''. Many of these modern plans are forms of the ]. Kant's essay, however, differs radically from that. He speaks of republican (''republikanisch''), not democratic, states; which he defines to have ] governments, in which the ] is ] from the ]. He does not discuss ], which is vital to modern democracy and quite important to some modern theorists; his commentators dispute whether it is implied by his language. Most importantly, he does not regard ]an governments as sufficient by themselves to produce peace: Not only does he require a preliminary ] (including the abolition of ] and of the funding of warfare by state debt, and the repudiation of all claims to interfere with the constitution or government of another state) but republicanism is only one provision of three. In all, Kant requires:
	*republicanism
	*hospitality, the acknowledgement of the ] to freely move and resettle in another state.
	*and a ].
	Unlike some modern theorists, Kant claims not that republics will be at peace only with each other, but are more pacific than other forms of government in general.

	The general idea that popular and ]s would be more inclined to promote peace and commerce became one current in the stream of European thought and political practice. It was one element of the American policy of ] and the foreign policy of ]. It was also represented in the ] ] of ], ], and ]{{dubious}}, although other planks in Kant's platform had even more influence. In the next generation, Kant's program was represented by the ] and the ].

	Kant's essay is a three-legged stool (besides the preliminary disarmament). Various projects for perpetual peace have relied on one leg - either claiming that it is sufficient to produce peace, or that it will create the other two.

	In August 1914, Wells called the war then beginning The War that will end war, on the grounds that once Prussian militarism and autocracy was replaced by popular government{{dubious}}, European nations would not ever go to war with each other; militarism and armaments resulted from the German threat. This idea was much repeated and simplified over the next four years; at present the idea that democracy by itself should prevent or minimize war is represented by the various ].

	In ], ] relied only upon the second leg, arguing that modern commerce made war necessarily unprofitable, even for the technically victorious country, and therefore the possibility of successful war was '']''. ] had described the ] as ] for the upper classes; ] argued that ] made modern ]s inherently peaceful and opposed to conquest and ], which economically favored the old ] elites. This theory does not gather much support today, largely because wars based on the motivation of profit have continued throughout the 20th century.

	The third leg is the old idea that a confederation of peaceable princes could produce a perpetual peace. Kant had distinguished his league from a universal state; ] proposed, in ''Union Now''(1938), a union of the democratic states modelled after the Constitution of the United States. He argued that trade and the peaceable ways of democracy would keep this Union perpetual, and counted on the combined power of the Union to deter the ] from war.

	] proposed that disarmament, arbitration, and the renunciation of colonies would produce perpetual peace, thus relying merely on Kant's preliminary articles and on none of the three main points; contrary to the modern theorists, he relied on public opinion, even against the ]. Many have followed him since.

	==Reference==


	==See also==
	]

	{{philosophy portal}}
	{{philo-stub}}

	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

	]
	]

Latest revision as of 06:31, 15 September 2022

Redirect to:

Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch