This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ultramarine (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 4 March 2006 (Removed unsourced claims and since the author refuses to give sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:58, 4 March 2006 by Ultramarine (talk | contribs) (Removed unsourced claims and since the author refuses to give sources)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | It has been suggested that world peace be merged into this article. (Discuss) |
Perpetual peace refers to a state of affairs where peace is permanently established over a certain area (ideally, the whole world - see world peace).
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 Roman Empire (see Pax Romana) and the British Empire (see Pax Britannica). However their rule wasn't without incident. (see Jewish Revolt, Muhammad Ahmad). 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.
The Kantian view and its descendants
The other modern plans for a perpetual peace descend from Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay, Project for a Perpetual Peace. Many of these modern plans are forms of the democratic peace theory. Kant's essay, however, differs radically from that. He speaks of republican (republikanisch), not democratic, states; which he defines to have representative governments, in which the legislature is separated from the executive. He does not discuss universal suffrage, 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 republican governments as sufficient by themselves to produce peace: Not only does he require a preliminary demilitarization (including the abolition of standing armies 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 right to freely move and resettle in another state.
- and a league of nations.
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 responsible governments 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 George Canning and the foreign policy of Palmerston. It was also represented in the liberal internationalism of Woodrow Wilson, George Creel, and H.G. Wells, although other planks in Kant's platform had even more influence. In the next generation, Kant's program was represented by the Four Freedoms and the United Nations.
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, 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 democratic peace theories.
In 1909, Norman Angell 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 The Great Illusion. James Mill had described the British Empire as outdoor relief for the upper classes; Joseph Schumpeter argued that capitalism made modern states inherently peaceful and opposed to conquest and imperialism, which economically favored the old aristocratic 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; Clarence Streit 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 Axis from war.
Jeremy Bentham 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 absolute Monarchy in Sweden. Many have followed him since.
Reference
See also
 | This philosophy-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |