Citation

Demenchonok E. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2007; 66(1): 25-47.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1536-7150.2007.00496.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This essay examines current debates in political philosophy regarding the problems of war and peace and of human rights protection. Two contrasting approaches are analyzed: one represented by “democratic peace” theories, and the other by the movement for a cosmopolitan order. At the heart of both approaches are conflicting interpretations of Kant's political philosophy, especially his project of “perpetual peace.” An analysis of M. Doyle's recent conception of “liberal democratic peace” shows the flaws in his justification of the tendency of liberal states to be war-prone toward nonliberal states. Alternatively, the development of Kant's ideas in the theories of “discourse ethics” (K. O. Apel and J. Habermas) and “cosmopolitan democracy” confirms the relevance of Kant's cosmopolitan ideal to current discussions about peace and human rights. The analysis also affirms that the true solution to the problems of securing peace and protecting human rights can only be achieved by peaceful means, based on international law with the United Nations as its legitimate political representation.