A Kantian Perspective On The International System

Starting from the assumption that an increasingly Kantian world means an increasingly cooperative, rational, moral and peaceful world, it can be claimed that we instead live in an irrational, subjective, warlike and self-interested world, where personal perceptions lead either to a more pessimistic/Realist or optimistic/Constructivist view of the international system. This essay will discuss the thesis firstly by defining how a Kantian world might look like and secondly by analysing the three main articles and their major concepts (respectively republics, non-aggression and universal hospitality) and comparing them with today’s world. First, the Kantian perspective on the international system, expressed in his work Perpetual Peace (Kant†¦show more content†¦It therefore appears that an increasingly Kantian world should be characterized by a continue effort among states to cooperate with each other in the respect of their sovereignty and independence. Moreover, by using their rationality and therefore morality, peoples can transcend violence and war and create a global cosmopolitan society. In conclusion, according to Wendt, a Kantian world is characterised by mutual aid among states, equality and collective identity, as it can be seen in the example of the European Union, within which states share common values, ideas and purposes (Wendt 1992). As for the first article, after having maintained that a world made of republics could achieve Perpetual Peace, Kant claims that ‘states recognise each other as equals, learn to live together, and develop common norms, rules and values.’ (Lacassagne 2012, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0001.207?view=text;rgn=main). Therefore, the Kantian international system appears to be a set of states that, by acting morally and rationally, cooperate with each other for the supreme interest of humankind and that will eventually coexist and share the world. Nevertheless, one of the main assumptions inherent in the first article (so the idea that all the states which are the expression of the general will are less likely to go to war) does not seem convincing. Indeed, looking at the graph of