A Treaty Against War
What would it take for nations to stop merely pausing between wars — and can lasting peace be written into law rather than left to the good will of princes?
Cast as a mock peace treaty, the essay sets out the conditions under which states might end war rather than postpone it. Six preliminary articles clear the ground — no standing armies in time, no meddling in others' constitutions, no debts contracted for war; three definitive articles build the thing: every constitution republican, so those who pay for wars have a say in declaring them; a federation of free states outlawing war between them; and a cosmopolitan right of hospitality owed every stranger as a claim, not charity. Kant insists it is a task, not a prophecy — and its architecture reached the twentieth century intact.
- publicity
- freedom
- morality
- human nature
- nature
- international law
- peace
Enter a dialogue
- You would abolish standing armies and bind states in a federation — isn't perpetual peace exactly the graveyard your title jokes about?
- What separates your federation of free states from a single world government that swallows them all?
- Any plan that would fail if announced aloud is unjust, you argue. Why should having to hide a purpose prove that it wrongs others?
- An army kept always ready can make peace costlier than a short war. How does being prepared end up causing wars?
- You argue that the sugar islands, seat of the cruellest slavery, earn no real profit. Is showing that cruelty does not pay a weak way to condemn it?