1 From a state of war to perpetual peace

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Jan, 2007 by Edward Demenchonok

ABSTRACT. This essay examines current debates in political philosophy regarding the problems of war and peace and of human rights protection. Two contrasting approaches are analyzed: one represented by "democratic peace" theories, and the other by the movement for a cosmopolitan order. At the heart of both approaches are conflicting interpretations of Kant's political philosophy, especially his project of "perpetual peace." An analysis of M. Doyle's recent conception of "liberal democratic peace" shoves the flaws in his justification of the tendency of liberal states to be war-prone toward nonliberal states. Alternatively, the development of Kant's ideas in the theories of "discourse ethics" (K. O. Apel and J. Habermas) and "cosmopolitan democracy" confirms the relevance of Kant's cosmopolitan ideal to current discussions about peace and human rights. The analysis also affirms that the true solution to the problems of securing peace and protecting human rights can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on international law with the United Nations as its legitimate political representation.

I

Introduction

THE PROBLEM OF WAR AND PEACE is of primary importance in our time, especially after the devastating wars of the 20th century. In a nuclear age, war threatens the future of humankind. There is also a growing concern about the violation of human rights in the world, primarily in underdeveloped countries with authoritarian regimes. These two problems of paramount importance--securing peace and the global enforcement of human rights--are at the center of current academic debates regarding the status of international law and the role of the United Nations as its political representative.

In the broad spectrum of these debates among philosophers and political theorists, one can identify two main currents: one represented by "democratic peace" and "just war" theories, and the other by the movement toward cosmopolitanism. Both share the normative goals of peace and democratization, but they differ in their views on peace and democracy as well as on the best means for achieving these goals. To support their respective positions, the advocates of these views often appeal to Immanuel Kant's political philosophy, especially his philosophical essay "Toward Perpetual Peace."

In what follows, I shall explore these two currents of thought and their complex relation to Kant's philosophy. First, I will analyze the theories of "democratic peace," in particular Michael Doyle's influential conception of "liberal peace." I will then examine the development of Kant's cosmopolitan ideas in the theories of "discourse ethics" (Karl-Otto Apel, Jurgen Habermas) and "cosmopolitan democracy" (David Held and Patrick Hayden, among others). My analysis will confirm the ongoing relevance of Kant's political philosophy to current discussions about the future of peace and human rights. It will also affirm that the only lasting solution to the problems of securing peace and protecting human rights globally can be achieved, not by force or unilateral actions, but only by peaceful means, based on the rule of international law and the United Nations as its legitimate political representative.

II

"Democratic Peace": A Paradoxical Alternative to Perpetual Peace

THE THEORY OF "democratic peace" represents the specific view that peace and human rights depend on the global "spread of democracy" by Western states. This concept first emerged in the context of liberal international theories in the early 1980s and was perhaps best articulated in the theory of "liberal peace" by Michael Doyle. During the last decade, however, the ideas of "democratic peace" and "just war" (Jean Elshtain, Michael Ignatieff, among others) were adopted and transformed by neoconservative theorists and incorporated into their foreign policy doctrines. Thus the idea of "spreading democracy" throughout the world not only became common rhetoric in the speeches of U.S. political leaders but was also used as a guideline in implementing American foreign policy.

At first glance, the concept of "democratic peace" appears attractive in that it combines two great political ideals: democracy and peace. On closer inspection, however, its core idea of promoting "global peace through the spread of democracy" by the force of a superpower raises some serious questions and doubts. Many critics point to a glaring discrepancy between its declared goals (democracy and peace) and its means of implementing these goals (economic coercion and military force), and they argue that its political implementation is not conducive to solving the global problems of war and human rights. Some have even suggested that "democratic peace" functions only as an ideological justification for a policy of global domination by the world's only superpower.

The advocates of "democratic peace" typically try to support their position by appealing to the empirical generalization that democracies, as opposed to dictatorships, are usually peaceful in their dealings with one another. (1) They also appeal to the authority of Immanuel Kant to support their claims. Their interpretation of Kant results in an attempt to reduce his "perpetual peace" philosophy to the "democratic peace" ideology of forcibly spreading democracy on a global scale.