| Revision as of 07:44, 16 December 2020 editMonkbot (talk | contribs)Bots3,695,952 editsm Task 18 (cosmetic): eval 4 templates: del empty params (3×);Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 06:35, 26 September 2022 edit undoKlbrain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers86,545 edits Merged content to Democratic peace theory#Republican liberalism, redirecting; unopposed 2021 proposal (easy-merge)Tag: New redirect | ||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{essay|date=August 2020}} | |||
| {{original research|date=August 2020}} | |||
| '''Republican liberalism''' is an ] which claims that ] rarely (if ever) go to war or fight each other, and in that sense are more peaceful. However, the theory does not propose that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies, as many democracies are engaged in wars with non-democracies. | |||
| {{R from merge}} | |||
| The theory holds that the reason for this intra-democratic peace is rooted in the regime type of these countries (democracy) and the existence of similar domestic political cultures, common moral values, economic cooperation and interdependence.<ref>Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006), ''Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches'', Oxford, OUP, 3ed, p111</ref> | |||
| {{R to section}} | |||
| == Kantian liberalism == | |||
| The issue of war and peace has been a very important political issue since the birth of armed conflicts as a "universal norm in human history".<ref>{{Cite book|title=The invention of peace and the reinvention of war |date=1922|last1=Howard|first1=Michael| publisher=Profile |last2=Howard|first2=Michael |isbn=9781861974099|edition= Rev. and extended |location=London|oclc=59463663}}</ref> In particular, the 20th century turning into the nuclear age, leading to increased threats. The question then becomes, what can we do to ensure that the world is at peace, rather than at war and is it possible in this current climate? | |||
| ] in terms of ] attempt to explain how both peace and co-operation are possible. Perpetual peace is a reference in world affairs where peace is established permanently. The idea of perpetual peace was made famous by the German philosopher ] in his essay called "]" (1795). On the other hand, realism tells us that international communities are in chaos. Realism focus on dominance and "explains international relations in terms of power".<ref name=":0" /> Modern realist theory was created as a reaction to the liberal theory which scholars of realism called idealism. ] is the middle ground between realist and liberal theory. Idealism emphasizes international law, morality and international organizations rather than the concept of power alone. Another issue when it comes to the study of war and crises is "scholars seeking to understand them focus much more on these events than in the situations of peace".<ref>{{Cite book|title=Big Questions in the Study of World Politics|last=Keohane|first=Robert|date=2007|pages=3}}</ref> | |||
| Kant and the liberal school of thought state that international co-operation is a more rational option for states than resorting to war. However, the neo-liberal approach concedes to the realist school of thought since the realist believes that states achieve co-operation fairly often because it is in the best interest of the state. | |||
| == The definitive articles of perpetual peace == | |||
| Kant offers three definitive articles to make permanent peace function, each of which has become a dominant strain of post–World War II liberal international relations theory.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cristol|first=Jonathan|title=Liberalism|url=http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/id/obo-9780199743292-0060|journal=Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets|doi=10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0060|year=2011|isbn=9780199743292}}</ref> | |||
| :'''I "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican"'''<br> | |||
| :'''II "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States"'''<br> | |||
| :'''III "The Law of World Citizenship shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"''' | |||
| === I: "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican" === | |||
| Kant explains that "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican." When he says that every state should be republican, we need to move away from the notion of political parties. Kant is not talking about ], but rather the form of government that existed in Rome. In Ancient Rome, they began to move away from ] (direct democracy) and started a ]. Kant's main argument for this form of government is that if all nations were to be republics and all citizens had the right to vote on issues such as going to war, war would come to end fairly quickly. Another reason for republics is, with a "legislatures to check the power of monarchs (or presidents) to make war".<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=International relations|last1=Pevehouse|first1=Jon C.|last2=Goldstein|first2=Joshua S.|isbn=9780134406350|edition= Brief seventh |location=Boston|oclc=929155291|date = 2016}}</ref> This is an example of the principle of checks and balances to make sure that no one person holds absolute power in the decision making process that impacts everyone. Kant also says, operating at a lower level of analysis and consistent with reciprocity but also relying on identity principles. This means that peace is always dependent on the internal character of governments, republics, with a legislative body that will be able to hold the executive (monarch or president) in check, this will be more peaceful than autocracies. | |||
| === II: "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States" === | |||
| Kant argues that nations are like individuals. The rule of law should be established internationally, but in order for that to occur nations must be willing to participate in it. If nations fail to establish laws and courts of judgement, then force, or war, would be the only way to settle disputes. States ought to instead develop international organizations and rules that facilitate co-operation. In any case, some kind of ] is necessary in order to maintain peace between nations. Contemporary examples include the ] and the ], which try to maintain peace respectfully and via the governing of international affairs. | |||
| === III: "The Law of World Citizenship shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality" === | |||
| By "hospitality", Kant means "the right of the stranger to be treated with hospitality when he enters on someone else's territory". If the "stranger" is peaceful, he can in fact be turned away without aggression or even welcomed with open arms. An example of this is when a country is receiving a world leader, the host country usually holds a ] ceremony which is usually reserved for special relationships and reaffirms that bond. Kant reinforces this by writing, "One may refuse to receive him when this can be done without causing his destruction ... It is not the right to be a permanent visitor that one may demand." Many countries also protect themselves from countries occupying them. For instance, the ] to the United States Constitution states, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Even though this is addressing the quartering of American soldiers, the idea is the same. A country does in fact have the right to protect itself against aggression from anyone. This can also be achieved through trade which increases wealth, co-operation and a state's well-being. Under this theory, trade is another way to promote peace because it would, in theory, create fewer conflicts since governments would not want to disrupt anything that would add to the wealth of their states. | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <references/> | |||
| {{International relations theories}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Latest revision as of 06:35, 26 September 2022
Redirect to:
- From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.
- To a section: This is a redirect from a topic that does not have its own page to a section of a page on the subject. For redirects to embedded anchors on a page, use {{R to anchor}} instead.