IMMANUEL KANT’S PERPETUAL PEACE MODEL: ITS RELEVANCE IN HUMAN RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DOCTRINE AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The paper will discuss the impact of Immanuel Kant’s Peace model in the 21 st century and how this hypothetical model has affected the Human Rights Jurisprudence in the 21st Century. Kant’s model has baffled theorists all over the globe. But it seems that the Doctrine of Responsibility to protect has found the solution to put Kant’s ideas in motion. This doctrine is applicable for the political inclusion of Fail / Weak States who are constant violators of Human Rights. The paper argues that Responsibility to Protect when read with the medieval Christian doctrine of Vindicae Contra Tyrannos and Subsidiarity, provides a practical application of Kant’s model .This will improve the Human Rights situation in the Fail/ Weak States

IMMANUEL KANT’S PERPETUAL PEACE MODEL: ITS RELEVANCE IN HUMAN RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DOCTRINE AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

AUTHOR: BHANU PRATAP

LECTURER

AMITY UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW CAMPUS

INTRODUCTION

The paper will discuss the impact of Immanuel Kant’s Peace model in the 21st

century and how this hypothetical model has affected the Human Rights Jurisprudence in the

21st Century Kant’s model has baffled theorists all over the globe But it seems that the Doctrine of Responsibility to protect has found the solution to put Kant’s ideas in motion This doctrine is applicable for the political inclusion of Fail / Weak States who are constant violators of Human Rights The paper argues that Responsibility to Protect when read with the medieval Christian doctrine of Vindicae Contra Tyrannos and Subsidiarity, provides a practical application of Kant’s model This will improve the Human Rights situation in the Fail/ Weak States

SECTION I

KANT’S PEACE MODEL

Kant’s Perpetual peace model was primarily based on the idea of Trans nationalism and interdependence among States James Rosneau defines trans nationalism as follows:

"the processes whereby international relati ons conducted by government have been supplemented by relations among private individuals group and society that can and do have important consequences for the course of events."1 In focusing on transnational relation, sociological liberal are reasserting and old tradition in international relation

1 Robert Jackson , Georg Sorenson , ‘ Introduction to International Relations ’ Theories And Approaches (New

Delhi : Oxford University Press ( 2008 ) Page 201

that relation between people are more cooperative than government who compete to survive

Karl Deutsch was a leading figure in the study of transnational relations He argued that a high degree of transnational ties between societies leads to peaceful relations that means more than absence of war It brings integration or in other world a sense of community where people resolve their disputes without resort to large scale physical force.2 The tools of responsibility to protect further support this argument

This idea was taken to a whole new level by the work of John Burton He wrote

a book entitled "World Society" in which he envisioned a 'Cobweb model' of transnational realist Burton points out that the Cobweb model shows a world driven by mutual exchange of benefits and the relationship between States is cooperative and symbiotic in nature This is in complete contrast to the Realist view which shows States as a set of billiards ball i.e set of indepen dent and self contained units This shows that conflicts will be muted at best and overlapping membership minimize the risk of conflicts between two nations Rosneau thus supports a pluralistic world supported by transnational and individual The basic idea being that since individuals are a part of numerous cosmopolitan groups then their overlapping interest will not divide them in antagonistic groups.3

This idea of Rosneau is a modern application of Immanuel Kant's utopia 'Perpetual Peace' Kant's idea is built on the basic premise that liberal democracies are more peaceful and law abiding than the other political systems It does not mean that democracies will never go to war with each other, but the friction will be minimized to

a large extent Kant's model required a peaceful international relation He presented international relation as a State of nature not governed by any higher legal authority The only way out is the peace agreement Kant was of the view that republics will be reliable treaty partners because they are ruled by responsible as well as responsive leaders Thus, a federation of such republic would be able to establish a stable peace among them Fernando Teson is of the view that liberal State give preference to liberal

2 Ibid, page 102

3 Ibid

government in recognition decision and that liberal government should intervene in liberal State in situation of civil conflict or massive human rights abuse to setup liberal government.4

discussing the ideas of Kant regarding humanitarian intervention it is important to understand his concept of liberal democratic peace or perpetual peace, as it is the foundation of liberal thought Policy makers, especially in the west have cited this as an example to justify intervention in other countries This is a fact, if one considers the policy of United States of America One of the major tenets of U.S foreign policy is the encouragement and support of democraticization in the world At the core o f this argument is a national security objective of a less war prone world It is believed that democratic states are unlikely to fight wars against each other In other words, the participants have a low competitive intent

There are three requirements of Kant's seminal essay on perpetual peace

i) The constitution of States should be republican

ii) The basis of International law should be a federation of Free states

iii) Each individual is entitled to be treated with hospitality when meeting the inhabitants of other states

The democratic peace also includes a handful of other claims such as:

i) Democracies tend to prevail in wars they fight with non democracies.5

ii) In wars they initiate, democracies suffer fever casualties and fight shorter was

then non democratic states.6

4

Fernando R Teson, Collective Humanitarian Intervention, 17 Michigan Journal of International Law, pages 323, 332-333 (1996), Fernando Teson, The Kantian Theory of International Law, 1992, Columbia Law Review 53, pages 91-93

5

Dan Reiter and Allan C Stam III, "Democracy, War, Initiation and Victory" American Political Science review 92:2 (June 1998) pages 377-389

6 D Scott Bennett and Allan C Stam, "The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985", American Political Science review 90:2 (June 1996) Pages 239-257

iii) Democratic states locked in disputes with each other choose more peaceful

means of resolution.7

iv) Democratic powers do not initiate preventive war.8

One of the writers who most effectively caught on to this trend was Michael Doyle who in two articles in "Philosophy and Public Affair in 1983 highlighted Kant's legacy to liberalism and internationalism which were crystallized into one article in American Political Science Review 80 (1986), 'Liberalism and World Politics ' Doyle objects is to put forward Kant's Political theory as a model of good practice for liberal democratic states to follow:

The entire argument can be summed up in three points:

i) Democratic institutions place constraints on the ability of leaders to fight other

democracies or simply make them reluctant to choose war

ii) The pacifists’ norms shared by democratic states cause them to view each other

as pacific and unthreatening

iii) Democracy tends to foster economic interdependence which reduces likelihood

of war

A more recent institutional argument focuses on the desire of democratic elites to be re elected.9 Therefore, democratic leaders are primarily concerned about retaining office and they are concerned about policy failure War is likely to be long and bloody and there is a greater risk of policy failure Hence democratic states are prone to negotiate with each other rather then fight

Kyle Grayson has elaborated and explained the democratic peace formula to show why liberal democracies engage in humanitarian intervention when

7 William J Dixon, "Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict" American Political Science Review 88:1 (March 1994) Page 14-32

8

Randall Schweller, "Domestic structure and Preventive war : Are Democracies more Pacific" World Politics, 44:2 (January 1992) Pages 235-269

9 Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D Morrow, Randolph M Siverson and Alastair Smith, "An Institutional explanation of the Democratic peace", America Political Review, 93:4 (December, 1999) Pages 791-807

dictatorial regimes massacre their civilian population The author enumerates four points

1 Democracies are inherently peaceful unless unjustly attacked by authoritarian

regimes

2 Use of force by democracies is justified because they are directed against the real

threat launched by rogue actors’ intent on undermining the democratic way of life

3 Democracies by definition cannot go to war with one another (Assertion of 1)

4 The best way to ensure global stabilit y is to promote the spread of democracy

The author has raised a pertinent point, when he uses the above mentioned four points to justify humanitarian intervention by the western liberal societies In his own wards:

" They muster support and help to provide a basis of legitimacy for action (including the large scale use of violence) that may have otherwise generated internal apathy if not opposition In particular, the spread of democracy has been touted by Western Government as the panacea to all global ills and has therefore been used as a rationale for the use of force in several instances including NATO's bombing of Serbia, the Coalition war against the Taliban, and the invasion of Iraq "10

Michael Doyle's thesis has a moral as well as empirical side to it The moral side shows that policy makers should be informed by Kant's liberal internationalism and empirical side shows that when policy makers were informed of Kant's idea, they took successful decision

Kant and Humanitarian Intervention: It is a Herculean task to trace the

argument present in Kant's work that would support the cause of Humanitarian Intervention There is nothing that can be directly attributed to the cause of

10 Kyle Grayson, "Democratic Peace theory as Practice : (Re) Reading the significance of liberal Representation of War and Peace, YCISS working paper number 22, March 2003 Page 3

humanitarian intervention At the same time Kant's over all ideas of gradually supplanting the state of nature with semi juridical state of cosmopolitanism legal relationship has a number of significant implications for humanitarian intervention

One of the foremost and influential works on Kant's thought regarding humanitarian intervention is connected to George Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin They have elaborated the idea in their monumental work "Defending Humanity: When war is justified It is a unique work to think through the proper relationship between th e criminal law and international law of defensive force According to this theory the right

to use force is derived from a legal order that secures equal autonomy by enforcing fair rules 11 Thus, any actor is authorized to resist injury to anyone's legal r ights because these rights embody the legal order that protects the autonomy of all.12 Fletcher and Ohlin justify on the basis of six conditions Legitimate self defense must be:

1) Reasonably necessary and

2) Intended to repel an attack

3) Overt

4) Imminent

5) Unlawful

6) Attack13

Fletcher and Ohlin distinguish legitimate resistance from both preemptive and punitive force, as neither of these is necessary to repel an imminent attack.14 They add that punitive force is illegitimate because states are moral eq uals without authority over one another.15 They go on to apply this theory to a number of issues in the international law of war

In applying Kantian criminal justice theory to the international arena, Fletcher and Ohlin liken the international legal syste m, particularly as embodied by the United

11 George Flatcher, Jens David Ohlin, Defending Humanity : When war is justified, New York, Oxford University Press, 2008 Pages 28-29

12

Ibid, Pages 76, 79, 83-85

13 Ibid, Pages 86-106

14 Ibid, Page 90

15 Ibid, Page 57

Nations To a Kantian liberal state, and treat states and nations as individual citizens.16 Based on this criterion, they support the presumptive right of every state to intervene against aggression, until the Security Council takes action.17 The support humanitarian intervention in defense of national groups but not in defense of human rights of individuals.18

Fletcher and Ohlin have defended a Kantian theory of defensive force in international law Such a theory has considerable appeal because it provides a coherent national for the U.N Charter's scheme for regulating the interventional use of force

Kant's ideas on humanitarian intervention can be understood when we compare his ideas with Thomas Hobbes Just like Hobbes, Kant also believes that before a public legal condition can be established, people cannot be secure against violence from one another Individuals in the state of nature have a fundamental moral obligation to quit that situation and could themselves under the rule of enforced law If Hobbes social contract is limited to formation of state then Kant carries the idea further According to Kant, humanity need not remain trapped in the state of nature, just as people emerge from this condition domestically; similarly it is possible to emerge internationally although the road map is of necessity, different for each transition For Hobbes, state is the finality, whereas, Kant's international theory assumes that the same general principles justifying the sovereign state are operative for international politics

Whereas Hobbes views the social contract as primarily an instrumental decision

of fearful individuals, Kant uplifts the moral status of the state; it rests on the perfect duties to us and others to respect humanity.19 The state of nature among states is a threat to the system of right within states Kant has argued that unlike the domestic state of nature, states cannot be coerced into joining a world republic This movement

of states to adopt a "perpetual peace" should be a gradual process According to Kant

16

Ibid, Pages 59-60, 86

17 Ibid, Pages 76, 84-85

18 Ibid, pages 129, 133-134

19

Antonio Franceschet, Humanity's Intervention and Humanitarian Intervention : A Kantian Analysis, A paper presented at world International studies committee 2nd Global International studies conference, "What keeps us apart? What keeps us together? International order, Justice, values, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 23-26 July

2008, Page 3

when people freely choose perpetual peace or a world state model through international and cosmopolitan law then this is the best way to develop a global order Such peace should not coerce but spontaneous.20

Thus , it can be safely concluded that Kant’s idea of a Peace Model is a loose congregation of Democratic republics who have opted to come out of the State of nature

at an international level The ideas of Kant’s Perpetual peace model can be traced to his idea of Right which in turn are his principles of Justice Ultimately it can be said that these are a part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative The idea can now be used as a theoretical model in the post modern concept of State Building also It is my argument that Responsibility to Protect Doctrine when combined with the Medieval Concept of Vindicae Contra Tyrannos has provided a new lease of life to the perpetual peace model and Responsibility to Protect has given a practical application to Kant’s vision

Section II

The Doctrine of of Responsibility to Protect

In the 20th Century the concept of Humanitarian Intervention was usually frowned upon by the International Legal theoris ts as it was against the traditional concept of sovereignty It was believed that the only deterrent effect that a tyrannical government would understand was a military intervention in the internal territory of that government But this would violate the narrow and pedantic definition of Art 2 ( 4 )

of the U.N.Charter As a result, the very concept of humanitarian intervention has been metamorphosed into a new breed of peacekeeping strategy, Responsibility to Protect It can be called a new version of Humanitarian Intervention which has been stripped of the traditional/intimidating answer of military intervention Despite the well intended intention, military humanitarian interventions were always viewed as Trojan Horse tactics employed by Western Powers The framing of responsibility to protect doctrine

by the ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and state sovereignty) has turned the debate about "the right to intervene" on its head and re characterized it not as

an argument about the "right" of states to do anything but rather about their

20 Ibid, Page 4

responsibility to protect people at grave risk If any right, was involved, it was of the victims of mars atrocity crimes to be protected The searchlight has found its true focus,

on the need to protect communities from mars killing and ethnic cleaning, woman from systematic rape, children from starvation and the herculean task of state building

Responsibility to Protect is composed of three tools that analyze a conflict situation from three different angles i.e before a conflict, deriving a conflict and after a conflict is over There three tools are : -

i) Responsibility to prevent

ii) Responsibility to React

iii) Responsibility to Rebuild

As it has been discussed earlier Kantian concept of 'Democratic Peac e' is being realized at the cost of humanitarian intervention Although Kant himself was not

in favour of intervention per se but work of Rawls and Habermas have brought a change worth of inter galactic proportions Think tanks around the world realized th e strategic importance of the new form of interventionism and created the idea that through humanitarian intervention the ''Weak'' political infrastructure of a state can get a new lease of life James D Fearon and David D Latin are on the exponents in t his strategic tool They have used the concept to in this strategic tool They have used the concept to show the problem of conflict resolution nation building and humanitarian intervention The authors have termed it as "Neotrusteeship"

Therefore, this updated version of humanitarian interventionism or

"Humanitarian Interventionism 2.0" is different from the classical group troop engagement It does not aim to besieging an enemy but at foreclosing massive human rights violations It focuses on individual human life worthy of protection The Responsibility to Protect doctrine has incorporated the doctrine of Responsibility to Prevent and Responsibility to Re build This mean that the former relies on an age old saying that "prevention is better than cure" while the letter relies on the post 9/11 concept of "exit strategy" It has been realized that a hasty exit of the intervening focus

will only worsen situation for the targeted states These targets do not have the required political, legal culture that would prevent future problems of genocide or ethnic cleansing So the new version of humanitarian intervention focuses on economic support and technical assistance for these impoverished states Thus, those states which are considered "outlaw" in Rawlsian can be rehabilitated and re integrated in a democratic order In other words, new intervention aims at political inclusion of the outlaw region

The Responsibility to prevent tool of the new doctrine, anticipates a conflict and tries to remove it before it occurs It identifies the sources of conflict and tries to remove them Conflict resolution theory has provided the earliest and relevant analysis

of the roots and dynamics of ethnic and other conflict According to Wibke Hansen, Oliver Rombsthem and Tom Woodhous21 this analytical contribution is best exemplified

in the theoretical models of protracted social conflict [PSC] and international social conflict The authors have modified the work of Edward Azar and have proposed a model that explains the emergence of conflict.22 According the them observation social conflict originate wherever communal groups (sharing ethnic, religious, linguistic or other cultural characteristics) are denied their distinct place or identity

According to Hansen, Rambotham and Woodhouse Azar's model has four specific indicator of social conflict

A) Communal Content

B) Human needs

C) Governance

D) International linkage :

An example of International Social conflict [ISC]23 An Example of ISC are Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo Bosnia was a problem related to state formation, Reward

21

Wibke Hansen, Oliver Ramsbothom, Tom Woodhouse, Hawks and Doves : Peacekeeping and conflict Resolution Bergh of Research Enter for Constructive conflict Mansenent Edited Version Aug 2004

22 Ibid, Page 9

23 Ibid, Pages 9-10