Among many areas of philosophy where Kant is regarded as a great classic, lies theory of international organization. This sphere of international relations, or IR, theory is experiencing rapid groth during past decades, as international organizations rise to promi\u00adnence. In recent literature on the subject Kant is mentioned with increasing frequency. Our paper is a step towards developing a Kantian theory of international organization.<\/p>\n
Such theory has<\/i> to be developed, since Kant\u2019s philosophy does not contain a fully fleshed out theory of international organization. His ideas on this topic are general in outline and limited in scope. However, they have a rich and profound philosophical foundation, they are part of a coherent and complex system. Ideed, our present task is not that of building<\/i>, but that of sculpting<\/i> \u2014 recreating de\u00adtails in Kant\u2019s boldly designed political project, revealing its fea\u00adtures \u2014 as well as, perhaps, its limitations and contradictions.<\/p>\n
Kant\u2019s political project was<\/i> bold. At the time of its conception it almost seemed a philosophical joke \u2014 Kant\u2019s apt understanding of this is evident in his ironic tone. Yet as time went by, it attracted followers, acquired new meaning and saw a number of attempts to be implemented \u2014 with increasing degree of success.<\/p>\n
In order to recontruct Kant\u2019s theory of international organiza\u00adtion, one has to go beyond the plan of perpetual peace and place it in broader context of Kant\u2019s moral philosophy. Of major impor\u00adtance here are his ideas of international and cosmopolitan law, dis\u00adcussed in \u201cMetaphysics of Morals\u201d, and also his reflections on ends and perspectives of social and political relations, expressed in his other (so-called) \u201cminor political works\u201d \u2014 \u201cIdea for a Univer\u00adsal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose\u201d, \u201cOn the Proverb\u2026\u201d Most importantly, we must take into account Kant’s anthropology \u2014 as the question \u201cWhat is Man?\u201d is the key to political theory.<\/p>\n
The fact that Kant’s theory presupposes active role of interna\u00adtional organizations in global political processes is beyond doubt in recent literature. However, Kant’s idea of global federation of states aiming to establish peace is innovative, but not very precise. He is looking for words to frame his idea \u2014 Foederalitaet, Ver\u00adbindung, Genossenschaft (Hinsley, 1967; Hurrell, 1990). Still, his view that such body is necessary is clear and has had immence in\u00adfluence.<\/p>\n
But is there place for other international organizations, and if so, what defines their role? In their 2001 book \u201cTriangulating peace\u201d Bruce Russett and John Oneal claim that if we translate Kant\u2019s peace project into the terms of modern political theory, the necessary role of international organizations will be evident. Ac\u00adcording to Russett and Oneal, Kant\u2019s program rests on three pillars: representative democracy, economical interdependence and inter\u00adnational organizations (Russett, 2001, p. 29). The role of interna\u00adtional organizations is fostered by representative democracy: the contractual, or consensual, nature of political relations that is in\u00adherent in this regime is projected outside, creating the basis for in\u00adternational law, which in turn serves as an environment for a vari\u00adety of international organizations.<\/p>\n
Thus, the question \u201cdoes Kant\u2019s theory provide for a variety of international organizations\u201d gets a clear positive answer. The ques\u00adtion of limits of their power is more controversial. Does Kant\u2019s theory of international relations support modern liberal ideas of \u201cglobal governance\u201d, carried out not only by state, but also non-state political actors? Does it envisage a cosmopolitan future, where national states become redundant? Or are international or\u00adganizations mere tools for channelling state policies and buffering their conflicts?<\/p>\n
To answer these questions, we have to look into an ongoing debate concerning the relationship of statist and cosmopolitan ten\u00addencies in Kant\u2019s political philosophy. If states are fundamental players in the field of international politics, are autonomous sub\u00adjects of immence size, then, clearly, international organizations are relegated to the latter role \u2014 that of tools. If, however, cosmopoli\u00adtan tendencies outweight the statist ones, then international organi\u00adzations become entities on par with \u2014 if not superceeding \u2014 na\u00adtional states.<\/p>\n
In recent anglophone literature the statist interpretation seems to find much support. Such authors as Francis Harry\u00a0Hinsley and Andrew Hurrell claim that it is thoroughly supportet by Kant\u2019s po\u00adlitical texts, particularly by \u201cTowards Perpetual Peace\u201d. Kant\u2019s pronounced opposition to global government is perhaps the strong\u00adest argument for statism. Hinsley wrights that for Kant: \u201cit was no more logical to hope to solve the international problem by the su\u00adpersession of the state than it would have been to try to end the civil strife by the abolition of individuals\u201d (Hinsley, 1967, p.\u00a069) Statists are clear: states are like individuals, they are basic. On sta\u00adtist reading, Kant sees the place for only one important interna\u00adtional organization \u2014 the federation of states \u2014 established for the sole purpose of maintaining peace.<\/p>\n
The cosmopolitan side of Kant\u2019s interpretators is represented by Martin Wight and Hedley Bull. For them the interaction of na\u00adtional states is seen by Kant as an intermediary stage in the process of the formation of global society. This society will consist not of states, but of individuals and their free associations \u2014 i.\u00a0e. interna\u00adtional organizations.<\/p>\n
While statist interpretation rests on citations from Kant\u2019s po\u00adlitical works, the cosmopolitan one claims to rest on deep anthro\u00adpological assumptions of Kant\u2019s philosophy, developed beyond his political treatises. The centrality of autonomous person in Kant\u2019s system ultimately makes the role of state secondary and, perhaps, temporary. After all, our nationality is accidental, and so to most is citizenship, they belong to the world of nature, whereas association in international organizations has at least a strong element of choice, and so at least partly belongs to the world of freedom. So the gradual transition of political power from traditional actors to more sophisticated ones is, from Kantian-cosmopolitan point of view, a sign of rationalization of political process, a sign of over\u00adcoming our \u201cself-incurred immaturity\u201d.<\/p>\n
So is there a conflict between statism and cosmopolitanism in Kant\u2019s philosophy, and so a clash of two opposing views of the na\u00adture of international organization? Perhaps not. Perhaps we should discern two layers in Kant\u2019s theory of international relations \u2014 one realist, or empirical, the other idealist, or transcendental. We might also call them \u201ctactical\u201d and \u201cstrategic\u201d, with his political treatises focusing on immediate solutions (and such is \u201cToward Perpetual Peace\u201d, which, despite irony, is a plan containing immediate guide\u00adlines \u2014 the preliminary articles), and his works on anthropology and philosophy of history discussing the end results, or transcen\u00addental aims. Accordingly, we may discern \u201ctactical\u201d and \u201cstrate\u00adgic\u201d perspectives for international organizations: mere tools to im\u00adplement particular policies of the national states at first, they will gradually grow in significance, acquire independence, and perhaps supersede national states as we know them.<\/p>\n
Kant\u2019s project described only one of the possible versions of international regulation. In the end of XVIII century Russian thinker Vasiliy Malinovsky proposed his project of a common Un\u00adion of Europe (\u00ab\u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u043e\u044e\u0437 \u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u044b\u00bb) (Malinovskij, 1958, s.\u00a076). Malinovsky was not a philosopher, although he graduated from philosophical faculty in Moscow. Kant as well as Malinivsky pointed at one of the dominant tendencies of the world evolution.<\/p>\n
Eleven years after Kant\u2019s death the first permanent interna\u00adtional multilateral body was established by Russian, Austrian and Prussian monarchs. The initiator was Alexander the First, at the time the most powerful tsar of the world. Fedor Martens, a well-known nineteenth-century Russian lawer, called The Holy Alliance a revolution in the world history. It was not a federation, but this new type of union of states was open for all European Christian powers. It was not an instrument for democracy promotion, but a mechanism for status quo maintenance, which was seen in support of monarchism. The idea of The Holy Alliance was peace protec\u00adtion, but for this, Union authorized military intervention to Naples, Sardinia, Spain for suppressing revolutions.<\/p>\n
Only a century later, in the beginning of 1910s, a kind of inter\u00adnational theory, similar to speculative provisions held by Kant, was created. Today this speculative paradigm is known as idealism or liberal internationalism or utopianism. Liberals see international relations as a realm of potential progress and purposive change. Liberals somewhat slyly believe that peace and stability can be es\u00adtablished among sovereign states as well as within states, if the power of states will be reduced. Normann Angel, Woodrow Wil\u00adson, Alfred Zimmern were the founders of this paradigm. Kantian political ideas form an integrative part of international liberalism and of the big cluster of theories springing from it: federalism, con\u00adstructivism, functionalism.<\/p>\n
Let us briefly restate the main common points of this cluster of theories:<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0The absolute necessity to restrict international anarchy and reduce incentives for states to engage in behavior that privileges their short-term interests over the collective interests. The nature of this collective interest\u00a0remains a question to discuss.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0The proof of the necessity of international regulation with IOs’ permanent assistance. IOs help to stabilized the processes as well as foster common values and ideals. At the extreme of this view the International Organisations are considered to be the basis of international system, whether they are seen as flexible non-formal meeting points or as strong authoritarian bodies with politi\u00adcal and juridical power.<\/p>\n
3. The activities of individuals are main factors, a kind of en\u00adgine for International Organisation\u2019s creation and evaluation.<\/p>\n
4. Creation of a non-state mechanism to regulate and to govern the world, controlled by the relevant political elites. Kant himself only hinted at this way of thinking, he did not openly proclaim plans of abolishing states.<\/p>\n
When comparing Kant\u2019s political ideas to contemporary theo\u00adries of international organization and to actual development of such organizations, one is tempted to conclude the following:<\/p>\n
1. The formation and development of international organiza\u00adtions and other multilateral international structures is determined by universal social laws.<\/p>\n
2. Kant\u2019s treatise is a vivid inaction that philosophy does have a prognostic function. Even if \u201cPerpetual peace\u201d was partly in\u00adtended as a philosophical joke, it effectively predicted the future of multilateral structures. The theory of idealism has another name\u00a0\u2014 utopianism; however, many of the ideas that at some point in his\u00adtory were widely regarded as utopian, have become a reality.<\/p>\n
3. There exist two seemingly conflicting interpretations of Kant\u2019s theory of international relations. One considers it statist, the other\u00a0\u2014 cosmopolitan. However, these interpretations need not conflict. Kant\u2019s theory of international relations has two levels: one can be called \u201ctactical\u201d, it addresses immediate issues, and is sta\u00adtist; the other can be called \u201cstrategic\u201d, it contains a scheme of fu\u00adture development of international relations based on Kant\u2019s under\u00adstanding of universal laws of social reality, on his anthropology, and it is cosmopolitan. These two levels influence two different paradigms of understanding international organizations. The first paradigm supposes that the political power and capacity to act is the property of states. International organizations, therefore, are seen as a resultant of wills of states. The second paradigm postu\u00adlates the existence of non-state political power: supranational, or transnational, or global. Nowadays this paradigm experiences rapid development. It seems to be particularly successful in explaining contemporary political phenomena, and so is predominant.<\/p>\n
Kant, probably, was not a strong advocate of dialectics point of view to social and political processes, but the analysis of Kant\u2019s political philosophy serves as a good basis for dialectical under\u00adstanding that international organization forms as the result of these two processes.<\/p>\n
The bibliography<\/b><\/p>\n
Bull H., 1979:<\/i> Anarchical society. 2nd<\/sup> ed. N.\u00a0Y.<\/p>\n Diehl P.\u00a0F. (ed.), 2005: <\/i>The Politics of Global Governance. Inter\u00adnational Organizations in an Interdependent World. 3rd<\/sup> ed.; Boulder, Lon\u00addon.<\/p>\n Hinsley F.\u00a0H., 1967:<\/i> Power and the pursuit of peace. Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Between States. Cambridge.<\/p>\n Hurrell A., 1990:<\/i> Kant and the Kantian paradigm in interna\u00adtional relations, in:<\/i> Review of International Studies. Vol. 16. Issue 03. July. Kutejnikov \u0410.\u00a0\u0415., 2012:<\/i> Svja\u0161\u010dennyj sojuz \u2014 pervaja v istorii sta\u00adbil\u2019naja mnogostoronnjaja me\u017edunarodnaja struktura, in:<\/i> Voprosy istorii . Nr.\u00a04. S.\u00a0116\u2014123.<\/p>\n Malinovskij V.\u00a0F., 1958: <\/i>Rassu\u017edenija \u043e mire i vojne, in:<\/i> Malinovskij V.\u00a0F. Izbrannye ob\u0161\u010destvenno-politi\u010deskie so\u010dinenija. \u041c.<\/p>\n Martens F. (Sostavitel\u2019), 1878: <\/i>Sobranie traktatov i konven\u00adcij, zaklju\u010dennych Rossieju s inostrannymi der\u017eavami. \u0422.\u00a0IV. \u010cast\u2019\u00a0I: 1815\u20141849. SPb.<\/p>\n Russett B., Oneal J., 2001: <\/i>Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interde\u00adpendence, and International Organizations. N.\u00a0Y.<\/p>\n Sergunin <\/i>\u0410<\/i>.\u00a0<\/i>\u0410<\/i>., 2012:<\/i> Teorija me\u017edunarodnych otno\u0161enij Immanuila Kanta. Ni\u017enij Novgorod.<\/p>\n Wight\u00a0M., 1987:<\/i> An anatomy of international thought, in:<\/i> Review of international studies, 13, 3. P. 221\u2014227.<\/p>\n This article was firstly published in collected articles \u00abKant\u2019s project of perpetual peace in the context of contemporary politics\u201d (2013):<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Chaly, Vadim, Kuteynikov, Alexander. Kant\u2019s Political Ideas and Contemporary Theories of International Organization\/\/ Kant\u2019s Project of Perpetual Peace in the Context of Contemporary Politics : proceedings of international seminar\/ ed. by A. Zilber, A. Salikov. \u2014 Kaliningrad : IKBFU Press, 2013. S. 123 \u2013 129.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Among many areas of philosophy where Kant is regarded as a great classic, lies theory of international organization. This sphere of international relations, or IR, theory is experiencing rapid groth during past decades, as international organizations rise to promi\u00adnence. In recent literature on the subject Kant is mentioned with increasing frequency. Our paper is a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":545,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=544"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":546,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/544\/revisions\/546"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/545"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=544"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=544"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kant-online.ru\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=544"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nP. 183\u2014205.<\/p>\n