Concept of Perpetual Peace - Essay Example

Philosophy Men struggled to attain peace since the beginning of time. Many philosophers and pundits alike have studied the reasons why men opt to goto war instead of a peaceful voyage despite the knowledge of the pain, misery and suffering it entails, both to the victorious and the vanquished. The more significant theories but diametrically opposed views were chronicled by Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan” (1651) and Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on the Origins of Inequalities” (1761). According to Hobbes’, the law of nature prevails as man is covetous and motivated by desire, appetite and avarice who justifies the employment of violence to protect his treasures or holdings. Violence is thus a means to an end. Left on their own stratagems, men would fight to death even for the slightest reasons. Therefore, man’s propensity to pander his cravings and indulgences makes him evil but these vices likewise impel men to consider peace as medium of self-preservation. A covenant of peace among the protagonists is fragile as any perceived breach rescinds the covenant and hostilities resumes. Hobbes then espoused the creation of State which extracts obedience from the citizenry as it exercises absolute power to maintain the peace but bona fide power resides in the citizenry who can confer power or withdraw recognition at will in case of abuse. On the other hand, Rousseau (1761) submits that men are inherently good but as men began to journey from solitude and sought out humanity, the relatively peaceful, morally balanced and virtuous man was corrupted by arts and sciences. Conversely, when men gained knowledge and social interactions progressed, they begun to conform to certain standards which would dictate their actions. The acquiescence of men therefore to the common consciousness gave rise to a social contract which guarantees freedom under the regime of law. Another view towards the attainment of perpetual peace was advocated by Immanuel Kant (1795), in his treatise, the Second Definitive Article of Perpetual Peace, it was proffered that “the law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states” thus the objective of this paper is to probe into the two centuries old exposition, its influence in the creation of the United Nations (UN) and whether the Utopian concept envisage by Kant was fulfilled by the UN in its role towards the prevention of war. The utopian concept was born in the year 1515 when Thomas More drafted his book entitled Utopia published in the year 1562. According to him, utopian concept exists in a society where the socio-politico-legal system is perfected. The etymology of the word would give rise to two translations, “good place” and “no place”. And, two queries are likewise spawned—would a place such as Utopia exist in this world? Or is there “no place” where a socio-politico-legal system is perfected? Efforts to attain a peaceable community of nations continue and are manifested in its struggle to find a peaceful solution to all conflicts. Operating under the Kantian concepts and the idea of utopia, countries from all over the world sought to create organizations that would act institutionalize peace as the milieu of political disputes and negotiations between countries to attain peace and order. Leaders of the Great Powers were driven in the effort to put a stop to the First World War that dawned during the summer of 1914 and ended in the year 1918. As the threat of war continued to loom, nations endeavored to find a peaceable and diplomatic way of settling disputes instead of sending armies to fight. Thus, the League of Nations (LON) was created after the signing of the Paris Peace Conference. It was covenanted that the signatory countries shall abide by the organization’s main goals such as acceptance of its obligations not to resort to war; by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations; by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments; and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another. It is through these guidelines that nations were to act, decide and judge upon the issues in the face of global troubles and anomalies. These guidelines were echoes of Kant’s discourse on Perpetual Peace. His idea of perpetual peace is akin to the utopian concept of Thomas More as both are in search of an ideal society that revolves around the greater benefit of society without the fear of war and chaos. This is achieved through peaceful negotiations and should the negotiations fail to generate the desired peaceful resolution, the imposition of more arbitrary measures are resorted to with the ultimate goal of the greater good and promotion of the general welfare. The primary purpose of the organization was to maintain peace through negotiations driving away from war was the primary purpose of the organization, but this is where they have failed miserably. League of Nations (LON) grew weak as Europe further succumbed to war in the late 1930s because of their failure to instill and promulgate peace. In 19 April 1946 the last meeting of the League of Nations was held replaced by the United Nations through the Tehran Conference in 1943. The League of Nations was doomed to fail from the very start, it did not have any means to defend its ideals and enforce its will to errant nations. Thus, when a nation with the military might to challenge even the great powers at that time becomes petulant the League of Nations is powerless to compel it to stop. Founded on the strength of the world powers at that time the LON was successful in dealing with disputes between small countries. However, when the nations involved in disputes are the very nations behind the LON it cannot enforce its will. During that time, the collective consciousness to avert war was obfuscated by the need of nations to take care of its own. Reeling from the effect of global recession nations need to take stock and evaluate its options In disputes between nations that are trading partner to a third nation the third nation is not only ambivalent in mediating it opt maintain a neutral stand lest it be included in the list of nation to be embargoed by the allies of one of the protagonist. LON’s failure to stop some axis nation in its aggressive posturing the second-world-war broke out. It should be noted that LON’s failure was not because of its weak ideals but because of the ambition of the few. The United Nations learning from the failure of the LON was created within the confines of its ideals. Deeply rooted desire for peace and haunted by the lives lost because of LONs failure to stop world war two altered some of its operating imperatives. It now created the United Nation Security Council and worked on the continual process of improving its dispute settlement processes. The United Nations Organization (UNO/UN) was established in 1945 as a substitute for The League of Nations. Guided by the same principles and objectives as the League of Nations the United Nations’ aim was to improve and delegate world peace and in the process enforcing international law, security, socio-economic development and most importantly the protection of human rights. The United Nations has six organs, namely, General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Trusteeship Council. These organs were created in order to effectively carry out the goals that each Nations’ representatives have signed and ratified in the United Nations Charter. The United Nations Organization’s Security Council organ was created to ensure and make available to the nations the peace and order that the organization promised. According to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council shall be the body to investigate and determine any breaches and threats of the peace and acts of aggression that may arise to threaten global peace. Furthermore, they also have the power to make recommendations and decide what measures are to be taken that are in accordance with Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. The general rule under the United Nations Charter as embodied in Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of aggression Article 41 states that the organization condemns the employment of force primarily to secure, restore and maintain international peace and security. However, when all efforts of negotiating through peaceful means are exhausted, war as an option of last resort as stated Article 42 may be endorsed. Prior to the constitution of the UNO, there were already laws on war which were constituted to regulate or outlaw certain acts considered as crimes against humanity—the Declaration of Paris of 1856 concerning warfare at sea; The Hague Convention of 1899 relating condemns the use of technological advancements in war fare such as the use of expanding bullets and asphyxiating gases and during this convention the precursor of the International Court of Justice was established, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the institution that settled disputes and made recommendations; The Hague Convention of 1907 referring to the opening of hostilities; the laws and customs of land warfare , among others. The convention convened at the request of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt of the United States of America, this was convention was organized to further enhance the Hague convention of 1899 with strengthening maritime forces and warfare; The Geneva Convention of 1925 relating to the use of asphyxiating, poisonous and other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare, the chemicals’ manufacture, transmittal and storage were not included in the 1925 Convention but was tackled in the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and Chemical Weapons Convention in of 1992; The Geneva Convention of 1929 for the treatment of the sick and wounded and prisoners of war; The Declaration of London of 1936 relating to the use of submarines against merchant vessels; and The Geneva Convention of 1949 concerning amelioration of the sick and wounded on land, among others. Should war be recommended as an option pursuant to the UN Charter, two main elements must be concurred with to justify a country to embark into to war and these are—self-preservation which is an inherent right of a State and the enforcement of an action that may be decreed by the UN Security Council. War then may be considered acceptable as means to protect the interest of a state to repel aggressive acts or attacks of other states that aim to invade its territories and increase their wealth. These are precisely the two reasons which Kant failed to give consideration to. In the dissertation of Jurgen Habermas (2004) in his article “A Political Constitution for the Pluralist World Society, he posited that the inapplicability and impracticability of the Kantian Project. In the Kantian traditional viewpoint, perpetual peace would arise if there is a confederation or aggregation of nations. It is an interaction exclusively addressed to states or nations. However, this theory will necessarily fail it did not consider the inherent cultural and socio-economic factors that define their motivations. Under the Kantian concept, it treats each nation as a person of good will, without needs and ulterior motives that drives their motivation. Action of a country is made through self-imposed limitations thus its decisions or actions are based on moral or ethical standards, including their motivations on how they interact with other nations or states. Kant’s aim is for a country to regulate itself in accordance with its own parameters of what is good and advantageous to but readily abandons it when it threatens its own interest. It is therefore with the mindset that it is acting in cognizance of what they deem as good and beneficial to all presently. The evolving constitutionalism of international law, according to Habermas, is more acceptable as it is more tangible and distinctive as all nations who are Members act within the same parameters or standards. It operates under the same standards with the attainment of justice among all nations. Habermas’ further stated that society has evolved through time and has developed a sense of responsibility in making the world a peaceful place and may further be developed into a more inter-active manner through multilevel democracies such as transnational civic activity and supranational democratic institutions which are directed towards the socio-economic growth of each country and the individuals living in the state. The evolution of international from the pragmatic and restricting view of Kant is evidence by the creation of the UN of such organs that specially provides avenue for redress of grievances or violations against states or even those concerning individual rights. This is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The International Court of Justice stands the chief judicial branch of the United Nations Organizations which according to the 8th Article of the Charter shall embody the main forms of civilizations and other principal legal systems of the world. Legal systems are the common law, civil and socialist law. The International Court of Justice is different from the International Criminal Court which attends to criminal acts such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and terrorism. Other marked development in international law is the redefinition which previously refers to the relations of civilized states with one another and evolved to include social, economic and humanitarian considerations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular, recognizes the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family and other treaties which confers upon individuals to seek restitution against states or nations for violations of their rights or interest. So also, the prosecution for war crimes and mass extermination of national, ethnic, religious or racial groups as crimes under international law and the perpetrators are brought to the bar of justice as well. The most important development would be the incorporation of international law and treaties as part of the domestic laws of the member states hence its applicability is no longer confined to states but to individual inhabitants as well. The principle of incorporation give rise to the rights of individuals to seek redress for violations committed against their persons by the states, either as inhabitants thereof or as visitor. Another view promoted by Habermas to discredit the Kantian theory is the supranational democratic institutions which embodies an agreement between sovereign states based on international treaties. Under the supranational democratic institutions, a union is formed between sovereign states to form a confederation or association and the resulting institution is a federation that is a state. The individual states retained the nationality of its inhabitants and the sovereign of its state but they likewise gained the nationality of the Union. This is best represented by the formation of the European Union. An intergovernmental decision making body was constituted but it has not lost its individuality or statehood. Based on the foregoing strong disquisition, the Kantian theory is no longer feasible or practicable in the contemporary times as interaction between nations and its inhabitants are necessary for peace and development. Even at the advent of the UNO, the Kantian theory has been obliterated as it advocated a self-limiting political policy to avert war under a confederation of nations while under the UN Charter, though maintenance of peace and avoidance of war were declared as one of the general principles, it has expanded its reach or advocacies towards the socio-economic, trade, environmental, human rights and other human interest towards the attainment of a more lasting peace. So also, the declaration of war against nations is done through negotiations, deliberations and voting affirmatively of the Members of the Security Council unlike the system advocated by Kant that it is left to the discretion of the nation when it deems that its rights were infringed. Notwithstanding the deliberative and participative actions of the Members of the UN towards the attainment of peace, it failed to prevent war as countries with vested interest, either for economic gain or expansion of territories, refuses or ignores UN resolution or injunction against the employment of combatant or hostile take-over. The problem lies in the multitude of concerns of each Member and though the Members have the same objective to a peaceful and harmonious community of nations, the local or domestic concerns of a Member may differ from the other. And, more importantly, the UN is not possessed with any policy power to sanction or penalized an erring nation as it relies on the collective actions of its Members on whether to proceed to war after exhausting all peaceful means to deflect the declaration of war. The UNs recommendation or action is merely persuasive and not mandatory. The UN is powerless to prevent the aggression and the nation at the receiving end of the aggression has a right to perpetuate its existence and repel aggression through self-defense. Any forcible measure undertaken by it is justifiable under the UN Charter. Aggression under the UN Charter is considered as invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state or military occupation, blockade of ports or coasts of a state, or other similar attacks and to protect the interest of the invaded state, it may invoke the intervention of other states for the maintenance of peace. Thus, even as the UN Charter advocates primarily the peaceful co-existence between nations, it can sanction armed attack as a measure of self-defense provided however that the intervention of other states shall not impair the right of the Security Council to act accordingly to maintain or restore international peace and security. The departure of the UN from Kantian concept was predicated by its failure to stop world war two when it was still called the League of Nation. It is noteworthy to consider the following in analyzing the operation of the UN when there are disputes amongst its member. Representatives to the UN are answerable to their respective governments. The governments are answerable to their people. Thus, all decision and actions that will be represented by a nation’s UN delegate is political in nature. Kant’s concept of perpetual peace is predicated on the representative’s ability or choice to act according to what his conscience tells him. This is not feasible under the current regime. Political directions and positions are always driven by the collective consciousness of a society towards an issue. Kantian theory of a Utopian society under the same condition he posits may not be feasible at this current age and time. The complex issues over riding what seems to be simple decision are obscured by self interest and motivation driven by need. The United Nation is just a microcosm of a nation’s legislative body. The same self interest and the same noble intention hidden under the veil of grandstanding and politicking dominate the scene. A legislative body of a nation can enact laws while the UN can only suggest laws and influence its implementations. References: Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Electronic Book. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302 /texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html#CHAPTERI [18 December 2010] Kant, I. (1795). Perpetual peace, a philosophical essay. Translated by: Smith, M. C. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd. Electronic Book. The Online Library of Liberty. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/357/0075_Bk.pdf [18 December 2010] Rousseau, J.J. (1761). The social contract and discources. The Online Library of Liberty. [22 January 2010] Electronic Book. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/638/Rousseau_0132_EBk_v5.pdf [18 December 2010] More, Thomas. (1562). Utopia. http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs/free_ebooks/ Utopia_T.pdf [20 December 2010] LON (League of Nations). The Covenant of the League of Nations. 1919. UNO (United Nations Organization). United Nations Charter. San Francisco: United Nations, 1945. UNO (United Nations Organization). International Court of Justice. 2002. UNO (United Nation Organization). United Nations Security Council. 1946. UNO (United Nations Organization). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1945. UNO (United Nations Organization). Geneve Convention of 1949. Geneva, 1949. UNO (United Nations Organization). Declaration of London of 1936. London, 1936. UNO (United Nations Organization). Geneva Convention of 1925. Geneva, 1925. UNO (United Nations Organization). Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 1929. Geneva, 1929. UNO (United Nations Organization). Hague Convention of 1899. Hague, 1899. UNO (United Nations Organization). Hague Convention of 1907. Hague, 1907 Read More