Matthew Hall

Q: Why has perpetual peace proved elusive?

A: Let us first limit war to the use of force by large-scale political units such as states or
empires.1 Kants idea of perpetual peace mentions civil war, for example, but does not claim to
fix or prevent it other than allowing outside republican states to freely intervene. Further, history
has shown that even republican states can devolve into brutal internal conflicts.
Creating a perpetual peace requires understanding of the causes of war, which are many and
diverse, but could be synthesized into at least these four points:
1. Another states power is so great and terrifying that it must be opposed.
2. Another states actions are morally bankrupt, and must be stopped.
3. Another state has broken the rules we have agreed upon as an international
community.
4. Another state has something we want, and we will use force to get it.
Each of these formulations of war loosely associates with a particular theory: realism, liberalism,
constructivism, and the fourth with theory of the human condition as selfish and violent. Kants
prescription for perpetual peace attempted to deal with all four issues: limit passive state power,
create morally good republics, refrain from external interference with affairs, enforce
international norms equally and fairly, and act hospitably and non-greedily to limit selfish
impulses
Kant could not anticipate that each issue would evolve and change. First, standing armies
developed a new companion, nuclear weapons, which make direct, total conflict with a
superpower a dubious proposition. Second, neutrality on the policies of foreign states requires
ignoring genocide and human rights violations. Even ostensible republics have chosen to
commit terrible crimes of violence and oppression outside of civil war. Third, states can choose
to ignore certain international laws or enforce them only when it pleases them. The most
powerful states get away with violations, even under theoretical republican bodies, and protect
even vile allies.
The overall issue with perpetual peace is that the future is free. To attempt to create perpetual
peace, rather than peace in our time, is to attempt to control the decisions of future people.
Technologies, people, and issues will change. The rules which help us now may seem
antiquated to those who come next. To create a perpetual peace requires the use of man as a
means to a future, unchanging end. Even if that were possible, it would violate the Kantian
moral imperative: men should not serve the cause of peace, but rather, peace should serve
mankind. Perhaps, then, perpetual peace has remained elusive because it is not so noble a
goal as it seems. More pragmatically, perpetual peace remains elusive because times and
circumstances change, which requires new approaches to maintain peace.
1 Thomas, Claire. "war." In The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. : Oxford University Press, 2009.
http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezpprod1.hul.harvard.edu/view/10.1093/acref/9780199207800.001.0001/acref-9780199207800-e-1450.