Withdrawal From Immanuel Kant And International Relations

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.

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

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 close examination of Kant's writings shows him to be both a conservative partisan of the international status quo of sovereign states and yet also the inspiration for radical, global reform for democracy and universal rights. The focus on Kant's concept of justice provides insight into the contemporary evolution of liberal internationalism, connecting Kant's legacy to the post-Cold War policy agenda and the moral dilemmas that currently confront political leaders and the societies they represent. Franceschet forces a reconsideration of Kant and a broadening of concern from democratic peace to cosmopolitan justice.

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.

In this masterful work, both an illumination of Kant’s thought and an important contribution to contemporary legal and political theory, Arthur Ripstein gives a comprehensive yet accessible account of Kant’s political philosophy. Ripstein shows that Kant’s thought is organized around two central claims: first, that legal institutions are not simply responses to human limitations or circumstances; indeed the requirements of justice can be articulated without recourse to views about human inclinations and vulnerabilities. Second, Kant argues for a distinctive moral principle, which restricts the legitimate use of force to the creation of a system of equal freedom. Ripstein’s description of the unity and philosophical plausibility of this dimension of Kant’s thought will be a revelation to political and legal scholars. In addition to providing a clear and coherent statement of the most misunderstood of Kant’s ideas, Ripstein also shows that Kant’s views remain conceptually powerful and morally appealing today. Ripstein defends the idea of equal freedom by examining several substantive areas of law—private rights, constitutional law, police powers, and punishment—and by demonstrating the compelling advantages of the Kantian framework over competing approaches.

Essay from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1.7, Royal Holloway, University of London, language: English, abstract: Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan being the wars discussed most controversial in the last decade are also an important subject matter for the political theory (Kugler et al., 2004; Mearsheimer/Walt, 2003). Especially their use as falsifying cases against the liberal notion of democratic peace theory is prominent – though questionable (Panke/Risse, 2007). Kant and his successors in the tradition of the liberal democratic peace theory can to a certain extent be defended even considering the recent wars – at east on the surface; these were fought between despotic states and democracies and therefore do not stand in opposition to the liberal peace theory in its ‘narrow form’. Nevertheless, closer analysis reveals that the recent conflicts can be used as examples of severe violations of part of Kant’s predictions and arguments. These arguments will be exposed within the first part of the essay formulated by Immanuel Kant already in 1795 (Kant, 2007). Afterwards the theoretical discussion will be expanded towards contemporary followers, such as Doyle (1983). They form what is often stated as the liberal democratic peace theory. Subsequently, the cases of Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan as possible points of falsifications against the trustworthiness of the theoretical arguments presented beforehand will be analysed.

This book is about how distinctions are drawn between civilians and combatants in modern warfare and how the legal principle of distinction depends on the technical means through which combatants make themselves visibly distinguishable from civilians. The author demonstrates that technologies of visualisation have always been part of the operation of the principle of distinction, arguing that the military uniform sustained the legal categories of civilian and combatant and actively set the boundaries of permissible and prohibited targeting, and so legal and illegal killing. Drawing upon insights from the theory of legal materiality, visual studies, critical fashion studies, and a dozen of military manuals he shows that far from being passive objects of regulation, these technologies help to draw the boundaries of the legitimate target. With its attention to the co-productive relationship between law, technologies of visualisation and legitimation of violence, this book will be relevant to a large community of researchers in international law, international relations, critical military studies, contemporary counterinsurgency operations and the sociology of law