| Revision as of 23:30, 30 August 2021 editDavide King (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users103,937 editsm ceTag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:30, 17 January 2022 edit undoDanielaVenero (talk | contribs)1 edit Altered the tone of the article to a neutral, encyclopedia style. Fixed sentences that did not make sense. Added new information and removed irrelevant information.Tag: Visual editNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| {{original research|date=August 2020}} | {{original research|date=August 2020}} | ||
| {{International relations theory sidebar|expanded=Liberalism}} | {{International relations theory sidebar|expanded=Liberalism}} | ||
| '''Republican liberalism''' is a variation of ] which claims that ] and republican democracies will rarely go to war with each other. It argues that these governments are more peaceful than non-democracies and will avoid conflict when possible. According to Micheal Doyle, there are three main reasons for this: Democracies tend to have similar domestic political cultures, they share common morals, and their economic systems are interdependent.<ref>Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006), ''Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches'', Oxford, OUP, 3ed, p111</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Doyle|first=Michael W.|date=1986|title=Liberalism and World Politics|url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960861?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents|journal=John Hopkins University|volume=80|pages=1151-1169|via=JSTOR}}</ref> Liberal democracies (republics) that trade with each other, are economically dependant on one another and therefore, will always attempt to maintain diplomatic relations as to not disrupt their economies. | |||
| '''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. | |||
| ], as an overarching theory, holds that diplomacy and cooperation is the most effective way to avoid war and maintain peace<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-02-18|title=Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory|url=https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/18/introducing-liberalism-in-international-relations-theory/|access-date=2022-01-17|website=E-International Relations|language=en-US}}</ref>. This is contrasting to the theory of ], which states that conflict will always be recurrent in the international system, whether due to human nature or the anarchic international system.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2011-07-02|title=Realism and Liberalism in International Relations|url=https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/|access-date=2022-01-17|website=E-International Relations|language=en-US}}</ref> | |||
| 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> | |||
| == |
== Origin == | ||
| The concept of Republican liberalism is thought to have initially originated from ]'s book "]" (1795). The term "Perpetual Peace" refers to the permanent establishment of peace, and was made notorious by the book. Democratic peace, commercial peace and institutional peace were all advanced in the book as well. It takes a rather utopian view, that humanities' desire for peace will out compete humanities' desire for war.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace"|url=https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm|access-date=2022-01-17|website=www.mtholyoke.edu}}</ref> | |||
| 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? | |||
| == Kantian Liberalisam == | |||
| ] 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 view international co-operation as a more rational option for states than resorting to war. However, the neo-liberal approach concedes to the realist school of thought, that when states cooperate it is simply because it is in their best interest. Kant insisted that a world with only peace was possible, and he offered three definitive articles that would create the pathway for it. Each went on to 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> | ||
| 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. | |||
| == Definitive articles of perpetual peace == | |||
| ⚫ | Kant |
||
| :'''I "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican"'''<br> | :'''I "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican"'''<br> | ||
| Line 22: | Line 18: | ||
| === I: "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican" === | === I: "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican" === | ||
| Kant |
Kant believed that every state should have ] style form of government. As in, a state where "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives."<ref>{{Cite web|title=REPUBLIC English Definition and Meaning {{!}} Lexico.com|url=https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/republic|access-date=2022-01-17|website=Lexico Dictionaries {{!}} English|language=en}}</ref> Kant saw this in Ancient Rome, where they began to move away from ] (direct democracy) and towards a ]. Kant believed giving the citizens the right to vote and decide for themselves would lead to shorter wars and less wars. He also thought it was important to "check the power of monarchs",<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> to establish a system of checks and balances where no one person holds absolute power. Peace is always dependent on the internal character of governments. Republics, with a legislative body that will be able to hold the executive leader in check and maintain the peace. | ||
| === II: "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States" === | === II: "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States" === | ||
| Kant argues |
Kant argues nations, like individuals can be tempted to harm each other at any given moment. So, rule of law should be established internationally. Without international laws and courts of judgement, then force would be the only way to settle disputes. States ought to instead develop international organisations and rules that facilitate cooperation. 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 and encourage cooperation among nations. | ||
| === III: "The Law of World Citizenship shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality" === | === III: "The Law of World Citizenship shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality" === | ||
| Kant is referring to "the right of the stranger to not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace"|url=https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/kant/kant1.htm|access-date=2022-01-17|website=www.mtholyoke.edu}}</ref>. So long "stranger" is peaceful, he should not be treated with hostility. However, this is not the right to be a "permanent visitor", simply as a temporary stay. This is applicable in the contemporary world when a country is receiving a world leader. The host country usually holds a ] ceremony which strengthens diplomatic relations. | |||
| 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== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 02:30, 17 January 2022
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Democratic peace theory. (Discuss) Proposed since August 2021. |
 | This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (August 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (August 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Republican liberalism is a variation of Democratic Peace Theory which claims that liberal and republican democracies will rarely go to war with each other. It argues that these governments are more peaceful than non-democracies and will avoid conflict when possible. According to Micheal Doyle, there are three main reasons for this: Democracies tend to have similar domestic political cultures, they share common morals, and their economic systems are interdependent. Liberal democracies (republics) that trade with each other, are economically dependant on one another and therefore, will always attempt to maintain diplomatic relations as to not disrupt their economies.
Liberalism, as an overarching theory, holds that diplomacy and cooperation is the most effective way to avoid war and maintain peace. This is contrasting to the theory of realism, which states that conflict will always be recurrent in the international system, whether due to human nature or the anarchic international system.
Origin
The concept of Republican liberalism is thought to have initially originated from Immanuel Kant's book "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (1795). The term "Perpetual Peace" refers to the permanent establishment of peace, and was made notorious by the book. Democratic peace, commercial peace and institutional peace were all advanced in the book as well. It takes a rather utopian view, that humanities' desire for peace will out compete humanities' desire for war.
Kantian Liberalisam
Kant and the liberal school of thought view international co-operation as a more rational option for states than resorting to war. However, the neo-liberal approach concedes to the realist school of thought, that when states cooperate it is simply because it is in their best interest. Kant insisted that a world with only peace was possible, and he offered three definitive articles that would create the pathway for it. Each went on to become a dominant strain of post–World War II liberal international relations theory.
- I "The Civil Constitution of Every State should be Republican"
- II "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States"
- 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 believed that every state should have Republican style form of government. As in, a state where "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives." Kant saw this in Ancient Rome, where they began to move away from Athenian democracy (direct democracy) and towards a representative democracy. Kant believed giving the citizens the right to vote and decide for themselves would lead to shorter wars and less wars. He also thought it was important to "check the power of monarchs", to establish a system of checks and balances where no one person holds absolute power. Peace is always dependent on the internal character of governments. Republics, with a legislative body that will be able to hold the executive leader in check and maintain the peace.
II: "The Law of Nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free States"
Kant argues nations, like individuals can be tempted to harm each other at any given moment. So, rule of law should be established internationally. Without international laws and courts of judgement, then force would be the only way to settle disputes. States ought to instead develop international organisations and rules that facilitate cooperation. In any case, some kind of federation is necessary in order to maintain peace between nations. Contemporary examples include the United Nations and the European Union, which try to maintain peace and encourage cooperation among nations.
III: "The Law of World Citizenship shall be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality"
Kant is referring to "the right of the stranger to not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land of another.". So long "stranger" is peaceful, he should not be treated with hostility. However, this is not the right to be a "permanent visitor", simply as a temporary stay. This is applicable in the contemporary world when a country is receiving a world leader. The host country usually holds a state welcoming ceremony which strengthens diplomatic relations.
See also
References
- Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006), Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches, Oxford, OUP, 3ed, p111
- Doyle, Michael W. (1986). "Liberalism and World Politics". John Hopkins University. 80: 1151–1169 – via JSTOR.
- "Introducing Liberalism in International Relations Theory". E-International Relations. 2018-02-18. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
- "Realism and Liberalism in International Relations". E-International Relations. 2011-07-02. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
- "Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace"". www.mtholyoke.edu. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
- Cristol, Jonathan (2011). "Liberalism". Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0060. ISBN 9780199743292.
- "REPUBLIC English Definition and Meaning | Lexico.com". Lexico Dictionaries | English. Retrieved 2022-01-17.
- Pevehouse, Jon C.; Goldstein, Joshua S. (2016). International relations (Brief seventh ed.). Boston. ISBN 9780134406350. OCLC 929155291.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - "Immanuel Kant, "Perpetual Peace"". www.mtholyoke.edu. Retrieved 2022-01-17.