Kant+study+questions

(Add, answer, and discuss study questions for this author and reading) There are two ways of classifying a state. The first is the form of sovereignty. Democracy is the form of sovereign power exercised by the people. The second is the form of government which is the way the public's will is administered. Republicanism is the separation of executive power from legislative.
 * What does Kant mean by a "republican constitution," and how does it differ from a "democratic" constitution?

A Republican state is a civil constitution with separate legislative and executive powers. The legislative is a representative body with its members elected by the people **This is not something that Kant says, but it seems to be ultimately implied; perhpas other mechanisms of representation are contemplated 1222408882**. The executive power establishes the laws and the people are only subject to laws that they have given themselves. Kant believes that if a republic had to decide whether or not to enter a war, its citizens would favour the "desired consequence" **what does the "desired consequence" mean? 1222408882**. Kant believes that a republic would favour //peace// as the desired consequence **A republic by itself can't favor perpetual peace; it can favor peace, though, morre often than not 1222408882**. This is because in a state with a republican constitution, the state's citizens have control over decisions //(or at least legal freedom, with which to have their say)// **Not entirely; their representatives have control1222408882** and their opinions would count towards the decision to go to war (or not). Kant assumes that it is likely that the citizens would decide not to go to war because: they would have to fight; they would use their country's resources; and, have to help rebuild afterward. A citizen, therefore, would think far more carefully about the merits of entering into a war as they would be personally involved. (Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. First Definitive Article for Perpetual Peace.", Kant) **The last part is good, the first part is a bit confusing 1222408882** A federation of states is a group of states in alliance with each other. States in such an alliance are unlikely to go to war against each other. This is different to a world state because states are still individual, sovereign states. States do not want to be subject to a common system of law in a world state. They do not want to be under any authority other than their own. Kant does say that a world state would be good but realistically it is not going to happen; the best we can hope for is a growing federation of states. Kant believes that the best method to achieve an end to war is to take measures to pursue peace. Kant designs an article of peace to progress a nation towards the end state of peaceful coexistence **Not sure these first two sentences are relevant 1222408882**. A federation of states is similar to the European Union. The federation of states is a mechanism to pursue, through moral means, the end state of peace. The federation of state functions to a super state is so that the two can serve the same purpose, but one of them is much easier to attain **there is also the threat to freedom that the world state would pose 1222408882**. A federation will be easier to legitimately form, yet will produce a similar outcome of peace. The EU is approaching what Kant desires but has not yet reached its full potential. The EU is still not fully under one banner or one government **Kant would not want it to be - a world state is a threat to freedom 1222408882**. This diversity will hinder the continuation of peace but it is along the lines of Kant's thinking.
 * Why does Kant insist that states must have a republican constitution if perpetual peace is to be possible?
 * How will this happen?
 * What does Kant mean by a "federation" of states? Why is a "federation" of states, and not a world state, required for world peace?
 * Is the European Union similar to what Kant has in mind by a federation of states?
 * The things below are not well integrated with the previous paragraph 1222408882**

Kant writes that states can be compared to men. Like men states have to leave the state of nature (constant war between states) and seek peace and security by establishing a “constitution, for under such a constitution each can be secure in his right”. He thinks that this kind of constitution should be a “league of nation” (=a federation of states) and not a big state (“Völker**bund**” not “Völker**staat**”). He explains that an agreement among states to reach perpetual peace could not work under a “Völkerstaat”, a big world state. For more practical reasons than moral reasons Kant thinks that it is preferable to have a league (“Bund”). A world state ("Völkerstaat"/"Weltrepublik") would set laws for all different states, but states don’t like to obey laws from a superior actor “each state places its majesty … in being subject to **no** external juridical restraint”.

He adds that “this league of states does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in a state of nature must submit.” He writes that the best way that leads state to perpetual peace is federation. The EU is an interesting example of a federation of states. It is mostly a federation of Kantian character, although in some policy areas (e.g. monetary policy) it is a supranational agency who rules independently from the member states.

States who want to be a member agree to the binding rules of the federation (“Copenhagen Criteria”: democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law, market economy…) but still have their influence on the legislative and executive process. EU laws are not binding as long as the respective member state has not implemented it in its national law body. A state that violates the "Copenhagen Criteria" or shows other threats to peace and stability of the other members can be excluded from the EU, by unanimity vote from the other members (which never happened).

Overall the EU looks more like a federation than a supranational state.

The key motivation of creating the EU was the wish to ensure peace in Europe, after centuries of wars culminating in the devastating WWII. Politicians of Germany and France the former “hereditary enemies” were the first to design a kind of federation among European states to foster peace, security, economic and political stability in Europe.


 * What would have to occur on todays geopolitical scene before a Kantian federation becomes possible?

//But it would be quite different if a state, by internal rebellion, should fall into two parts, each of which pretended to be a separate state making claim to the whole. To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state (for it is then in a state of anarchy). But so long as the internal dissension has not come to this critical point, such interference by foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease; hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autonomy of all states insecure.//
 * //__"No State Shall by Force Interfere with the Constitution or Government of Another State";__//**

It seems here that Kant is legitimising taking sides in internal struggle? **Yes, but only on the side of freedom1222408882**

What interests me particularly is at what level things can be considered legitimate 'states' and federations. In the course of history smaller groups have amalgamated into larger, larger groups have conquered smaller, and so on to create the states and peoples we know today. Some could still be considered in the process of doing so. Using Germany as an example, in the 1700s it had around 1700 little autonomous princedoms, dukedom, kingdoms, and so on. By the Prussian conquest these all came together to be something more recognisable as 'Germany'. While states still exist now, and theoretically have the ability to act separately in some functions, it's not like there is (regular) talk of secession. The next example might be India where much of the region now see themselves as 'Indians' rather than having allegiances to the various small states the British dismantled. However it still divides along ethnic and religious lines. Germany with the dubious concept of a 'common ethnicity' perhaps came together easier. Federations of states, or even though federated by conquest eventually seem to merged into superstates loosing their differences.

However in Japan which is supposedly one of the most Homogenous peoples still has distinct ethic groups such as the Bukaru or Ainu who are discriminated against. It also seems as though Kant could consider many nations today as illegitimate 'federations'. Any country with sucessionists (Georgia-Ossetia, Russia-Chechnya China-Tibet-Uyghurstan etc) or even New Zealand-Maori or Australia-Aboriginees is a state created by conquest. It seems as though before anything Kant has in mind could take place the world might need to dissintegrate along Ethnic or nationalist lines, or at least reach settlements. On the other hand, they could merge together over time. It seems a little difficult to have eternal peace between federations of states if within the states themselves have large disgruntled groups that don't consider themselves a part of it.
 * I don't think Kant would recommend any sort of separation; the imperative of peace would trump any such thing. All that he is saying is that given existing configurations of states, where peoples are normally separated by language and culture, it is best to respect their autonomy as peoples (a good principle even within states) 1222408882**

Espionage, says Kant, encourages infamy even when there is peace and therefore it undermines peace itself.
 * Why does Kant insist that espionage is incompatible with perpetual peace? Is Kant right about this?

Kant believes that the manipulation or coercion of a controlled human source should be condemned. Kant's deontological approach means that many methods of collection used for espionage would be considered ethically unacceptable and could not be condoned by any 'end justifies the means' argument. Kant’s obvious peeve for espionage is evident when he refers to it as ‘intrinsically despicable’ since it ‘exploits only the dishonesty of others’. This peace by dishonesty **It's war by dishonesty that is being discussed by Kant 1222408882** undermines what peace really is. **But why does espionage make future war more likely? Is he right about this? 1222408882**

In his project of perpetual peace, there are six preliminary conditions:
 * The refusal of secret clauses in peace treaties
 * The refusal to consider a State, small or big as a heritage: no exchange, no purchases
 * The progressive abolition of the permanent armies
 * The not intervention in the internal affairs of a State
 * The ban for any State to contract debts to prepare conflicts to come
 * The banning of acts of hostilities **not acts of hostilities in general, only certain kind user:xmarquez** in a State of war: no murder, poisoning or espionage

Kant makes a point in the last one because this kind of behavior in State of War only encourages to more war and revenge.**Yes, that's what he thinks, but is that true? 1222408882** Also espionage is related to intervene in domestic affairs of a country so that is another point against perpetual peace.Thus espionage is something secret, something that neither your allies know you are doing that, for this third reason Kant disqualifies espionage.**Not sure I understand this last reason 1222408882** There are many practices that lay the seeds of future wars, most frequently these practices are used to destabilize nation building by extending the control over a region that would otherwise be autonomous. These insidious policies have been used in many states that have large areas that seek/desire autonomy.
 * Are there any other practices out there (not necessarily mentioned by Kant) that might be incompatible with perpetual peace and hence should be prohibited immediately?

A modern day example (one among many) of practices that are/(were) incompatible with peace was the treatment of the Kurdish region under Saddam:

There were two levels of abuse that destabilized the Kurdish region in the Iraqi state.
 * The first practice occurred in March 1988 when Saddam released biological weapons on the city of Halabja and reportedly twenty other such northern targets. The estimates casualties range from several hundred to at least seven thousand; this figure does not tell the whole story. The gas that was used, still unknown, is widely accepted to have been used for two purposes: the first was to instill terror in the population; the second purpose was to leave those still left alive impotent, unable to continue on their culture.
 * The second practice was a policy of Arabization or ‘nationality correction’ of the Kirkuk region and other northern cities. This practice entailed a mass resettlement of Shi’ite and Sunni Arabs into Kurdish territory making a secessionist movement very difficult.

These kinds of practices are continually seen across the world, form former Kosovo to the Sudan. Policies like these are the types of policies that need to be stopped if perpetual peace is to occur.

Anything that does not engender a good faith relationship could be deemed as averse to future peace.

Economic sanctions that aim to incense a population or deny innocent civilians of necessary goods (USA vs Cuba) or the broadcasting of propaganda aimed at the population of one or both states. Overt Military manoeuvres, strategic alliances could jeopardize the concept of perpetual peace. The Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust/ Japanese textbooks version of Manchurian Occupation.

Kant argues that a state should publicly announce motivations and proposed actions. States are always aware of the intentions of other states. **Yes, but he gives some reasons. Why is this the case? 1222408882**
 * Why does Kant suggest that the principles or maxims regulating interstate conduct must be able to be made "public"?

> “All maxims which require publicity if they are not to fail in their purpose can be reconciled both with right and with politics.”

This applies to relations among states with the goal of maintaining peace. Kant believes that perpetual peace is more-or-less inevitable because it is "nature" //(or destiny)// **What does this mean? 1222408882**. He believes that while humans resist "...her [nature's] aim... to produce harmony among men...", perpetual peace is part of a "higher cause" which will eventually be fulfilled no matter how aggressively humans try to fight against it. Kant goes on to state that this idea of harmony must be accepted by humans to be achieved. He writes: "We can and must supply it from our own minds in order to conceive of it possibility...". Therefore, even if humans are not naturally good nature will lead us towards perpetual peace as it is "destiny". (Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. First Supplement, "Of the Guarantee for Perpetual Peace.", Kant.) Kant proposed three reasons why we can be fairly assured that peace is guaranteed. All three work on the premise that because of self-interest, people and states, would eventually produce the right environment for peace. The first situation he described was of the internal political regime of a state. Kant reasoned each individual worked to advance themselves and other people were aware of this. In Kant's words "...selfish inclinations are naturally opposed to each other...". Therefore the only way for people to coexist would be to establish a "...condition of peace within which laws can be enforced." So in this fashion a political constitution beneficial to everyone would evolve. The second situation concerns international states and follows a similar vein. States exist in a system of anarchy because of two things; religious and language differences. It is these cultural differences that lead nations to separate themselves from each other. An understanding of these differences leads to peace. Because each country will seek to preserve its cultural identity there will be competition, but as long as humans recognize each nation's right to their customs and traditions peace will come. The third reason follows on from the second. As nations trade with one another to advance themselves it will become increasingly disadvantageous for them to engage in warfare for commerce and war are not compatible.
 * What does this "requirement of publicity" mean exactly?
 * Why does Kant say that revolution is incompatible with the maxim of publicity? Is he right about a) this incompatibility and b) the implication that there cannot be a right of revolution?
 * Is the maxim of publicity a useful test of the morality of political action?
 * Why does Kant think that perpetual peace is possible even if men are not naturally good?
 * Why should we have confidence that there is moral progress?
 * Explain Kant's notion of a federation of republican states and the three types of law that would be embodied in this federation. (Taken from pols/phil 2005 exam)