Kant S International Relations

Why does Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) consistently invoke God and Providence in his most prominent texts relating to international politics? In this wide-ranging study, Seán Molloy proposes that texts such as Idea for a Universal History with Cosmopolitan Intent and Toward Perpetual Peace cannot be fully understood without reference to Kant’s wider philosophical projects, and in particular the role that belief in God plays within critical philosophy and Kant’s inquiries into anthropology, politics, and theology. Molloy’s broader view reveals the political-theological dimensions of Kant’s thought as directly related to his attempts to find a new basis for metaphysics in the sacrifice of knowledge to make room for faith.This book is certain to generate controversy. Kant is hailed as “the greatest of all theorists” in the field of International Relations (IR); in particular, he has been acknowledged as the forefather of Cosmopolitanism and Democratic Peace Theory. Yet, Molloy charges that this understanding of Kant is based on misinterpretation, neglect of particular texts, and failure to recognize Kant’s ambivalences and ambiguities. Molloy’s return to Kant’s texts forces devotees of Cosmopolitanism and other ‘Kantian’ schools of thought in IR to critically assess their relationship with their supposed forebear: ultimately, they will be compelled to seek different philosophical origins or to find some way to accommodate the complexity and the decisively nonsecular aspects of Kant’s ideas.

This book challenges popular international relations theories that claim to be based on the political writings of Immanuel Kant, and sheds new light on the philosopher's perspective on peace. Through an analysis of Kant's philosophical work and political traditions of his time, as well as of neglected concepts and theory, this book reappraises modern perspectives on his work. Kant advocated a cosmopolitan community building perspective of peace and international relations that considered issues that are now significant topics of debate such as state sovereignty and unequal access to resources. This book reveals how Kant's political views translate into a vision of international relations that cannot be associated with the democratic and neoliberal theories of peace which until now have claimed Kant's legacy. While the democratic peace theory continues to inspire policy-making, Kant's predictions on war and peace ultimately prove to be most appropriate for the current issues of globalization and diversity. Offering new insights into the meaning of peace and war in international relations, Kant and International Relations Theory is an invaluable resource for students and scholars of international relations and political theory, as well as for those interested in Kant's scholarship.

This book argues that Kant’s theory of international relations should be interpreted as an attempt to apply the principles of reason to history in general, and in particular to political conditions of the late eighteenth century. It demonstrates how Kant attempts to mediate between a priori theory and practice, and how this works in the field of international law and international relations. Kant appreciates how the precepts of theory have to be tested against the facts, before the theory is enriched to deal with the complexities of their application. In the central chapters of this book, the starting points are apparent contradictions in Kant’s writings; assuming that Kant is a systematic and profound thinker, Cavallar seeks to use these contradictions to discover Kant’s ‘deep structure’, a dynamic and evolutionary theory that tries to anticipate a world where the idea of international justice might be more fully realized.

Explores the limits of Kantian approaches to the study of international affairs.

This book shows how the flawed orientation forming Immanuel Kant’s philosophical project is the same from which the discipline of International Relations (IR) becomes possible and appears necessary. Tracing how core problems in Kant’s thought are inescapably reproduced in IR, this book demonstrates that constructive critique of IR is impossible through mere challenge to its Kantian traditions. It argues that confrontation with the Kantian character of IR demands fundamental withdrawal from their shared aims. Investigating the global limits inherent to epistemological and ontological commitments of Kant’s writings and IR, this interdisciplinary study interrogates the racism, sexism, coloniality, white male privilege, and anthropocentricism of both as sites from which such withdrawal may be initiated. Following queer and feminist examinations of how Kant and IR discipline a joint orientation through sex, gender, and sexuality, it indicates how withdrawal is possible. And, considering how Anishinaabe legal tradition opens freedom beyond the restricting horizons of Kant and IR, this book contemplates withdrawal from both as leading to a global unlimited. An essential text for advanced undergraduate and graduate studies, this book will also be of strong interest to those studying the thinking and writings of Kant, neo- and post-Kantian scholarship, and IR theory.

Kant’s moral and political philosophy has been important in developing ethical thinking in international relations. This study argues that his theory of the state is crucially important for understanding the moral agency of the state as it is discussed in contemporary debates. For Kant, it is argued that the state has not only duties but also, controversially, inalienable rights that ground its relationship to its citizens and to other states. Most importantly, the state – regardless of its governmental form or factual behaviour – has a right to exist as a state. The Kantian account provided, therefore, explores not only the moral agency but also the moral standing of the state, examining the status of different kinds of states in world politics and expectations towards their ethical behaviour. Every state has a moral standing that must be respected in a morally imperfect world gradually transforming towards the ideal condition of perpetual peace.

Seminar paper from the year 2001 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: A, American University of Central Asia, course: Political Thought, language: English, abstract: Jean-Jacque Rousseau and Immanuel Kant are considered to be relatively modern political thinkers in comparison with the history of IR, so they, as profound philosophers, are not left out of the process of constructing this field as the natural science. They have contributed by leaving their precious works and even more by influencing the minds of people in a great way in terms of Enlightenment. Nonetheless, the main concern of this work is not determining what those thinkers contributed to the theories of IR but, conversely, what ideas of those philosophers tend to be idealistic, realistic, and neoliberal in modern terms. By making an analysis it would be clear that neither Rousseau nor Kant is purely idealist or realist, but both of them tend to be neoliberals.