This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Finnusertop (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 18 May 2021 (→top). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:00, 18 May 2021 by Finnusertop (talk | contribs) (→top)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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 an international relations theory which claims that liberal democracies 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.
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.
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". 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?
Liberal theories in terms of international relations 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 Immanuel Kant in his essay called "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" (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". Modern realist theory was created as a reaction to the liberal theory which scholars of realism called idealism. 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".
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.
- 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 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 conservatism, but rather the form of government that existed in Rome. In Ancient Rome, they began to move away from Athenian democracy (direct democracy) and started a representative democracy. 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". 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 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 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 state welcoming 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 Third Amendment 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
- Jackson, Robert and Georg Sorensen (2006), Introduction to International Relations: theories and approaches, Oxford, OUP, 3ed, p111
- Howard, Michael; Howard, Michael (1922). The invention of peace and the reinvention of war (Rev. and extended ed.). London: Profile. ISBN 9781861974099. OCLC 59463663.
- ^ 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) - Keohane, Robert (2007). Big Questions in the Study of World Politics. p. 3.
- Cristol, Jonathan (2011). "Liberalism". Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. doi:10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0060. ISBN 9780199743292.