To eternal peace

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ancient script For Eternal Peace. A philosophical draft (first edition 1795 (cited as A ) 104 p., Second, expanded edition 1796 (cited as B ), 112 p.) Is one of the best-known works of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant . Modern meanings of the term peace are largely based on the theory presented here.

In the form of a peace treaty, Kant applies his moral philosophy (cf. Fundamentals of the Metaphysics of Morals , Categorical Imperative ) to politics in order to answer the question of whether and how lasting peace between states would be possible. For this purpose , maxims guided by reason must be adhered to, which are developed from the underlying concepts. For Kant, peace is not a natural state between people; it must therefore be established and secured. Kant declares the granting of peace to be a matter of politics, which has to subordinate other interests to the cosmopolitan idea of ​​a universal legal system; for so it says in the appendix: “The right of people must be kept sacred, however great sacrifice it may cost the ruling power.” Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 380

The ideas of international law, which demands that intergovernmental agreements be binding, and the orientation of peace as an international treaty have become known . In international relations , “For Eternal Peace” is assigned to liberal theories. The Charter of the United Nations was significantly influenced by this writing.

Structure of the plant

The structure of the work uses the form of a contract as a design element. This suggests that politicians could use the text as a draft for a corresponding agreement between states. The text is divided into two main sections, two additions and an appendix - as if it were the result of a negotiation. The preamble even contains a reference to a severability clause , which means that in the event of a dispute about a detailed regulation, the remaining regulations do not lose their validity and the disputed point must be regulated anew in the spirit of the entire contract. This could also be understood ironically, as Karl Jaspers thinks. This is also supported by Kant's humorous remark that the title of the book arose from the suggestion on "the shield of that Dutch inn on which a churchyard was painted" (preamble). In fact, with his severability clause, Kant also opposes a possible censorship of writing as a threat to the state.

The first section contains six preliminary articles ; these are formulated as prohibition laws, since they represent necessary conditions for an eternal peace. In the second section, three definitive articles on perpetual peace among states are formulated, which call for an orderly legal system for the contracting states. Here Kant very briefly prepares the legal doctrine in the Metaphysics of Morals , which was only published later (1797) . Eternal peace can therefore only prevail in a republican legal order. This is followed by two additions in which Kant formulates which conditions must be observed for eternal peace. Even if there are sometimes military relapses, says Kant, eternal peace is nevertheless the teleological goal of history. In order to enforce perpetual peace, it could sometimes make strategic sense that government action does not take place in public. The end of the work are the two sections of the appendix , in which Kant demands that politics respect morality and that a law that has arisen under the republic may under no circumstances be broken; According to Kant, politics and legal practice require public surveillance.

content

The six preliminary articles

The preliminary articles set out conditions that should be fulfilled in order for peace between states to be permanent and sustainable. They are formulated as prohibitive articles that restrict the action of states in the interests of peace. Kant explains that Preliminary Articles 1, 5 and 6 are strict and absolute prerequisites for a lasting peace, while Articles 2, 3 and 4 are regulatory, which means that their implementation and compliance must only take place with the conclusion of peace and a delay (e.g. through disarmament, dismissal dependent states in autonomy with mere personal union with their own legislation and case law, repayment of bonds) or even restricted by a grandfathering. Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 347

1. "There should be no peace treaty for someone who has been made into a future war with the secret reservation of the subject matter."

In the first of the six preliminary articles, Kant deals with the difference between real and fake peace. A peace treaty that does not eliminate the reasons for war is a mere armistice; Peace should be made without reservation. This requires that possibly still existing, but unknown or withheld claims of the conflicting parties should be considered settled with the peace agreement.

2. "It should not be possible for any state that exists for itself (small or large, that applies equally here) to be acquired by another state through inheritance, exchange, purchase or donation."

The second preliminary article distinguishes between the territory of a state, which is a property , and the state itself as an autonomous society, whose autonomy and its power to govern over the members of society are based on an imaginary social contract by which it is united into a moral person Has. The sale of such a state would, according to Kant, result in the "abolition of the existence of the state as a moral person", that is, a degradation of the people living in the state, which would contradict the idea of ​​the underlying social contract. The sale of troops , through which citizens are placed under the control of another state, is also incompatible with this. The state and its citizens are inalienable.

3. "Standing armies ( miles perpetuus ) should stop completely over time."

In the third preliminary article, Kant pleads for the abolition of standing armies . According to Kant, these lead to a mutual threat and thus to an arms race between the states until the costs of army maintenance exceed the costs of a war of aggression. According to Kant, a professional army represents a degradation of professional soldiers if they are viewed as a tool for killing. Only an army of citizens designed solely for defense is compatible with peaceful goals.

4. "No national debt should be incurred in relation to external state trade."

In the fourth preliminary article, Kant speaks out against war credits . The availability of the funds increases the willingness to start a war, in particular by the fact that the amount can be increased at will through a credit system with mutual indebtedness and thus a speculative business is made on the success of the war and thus the defeat of another state. Third states would have to understand such a loan between states as an attack alliance from the outset. War credits between states are therefore neither to be given nor to be taken.

5. "No state should violently interfere in the constitution and government of another state."

The fifth preliminary article formulates a principle of non- interference, according to which the constitution or government of a state must not be interfered with: the sovereignty of a state must be respected in any case. According to Kant, there can be no legal basis for an intervention as long as it does not violate the rights of another. However, according to Kant, mere internal unrest or perceived injustice within the state does not constitute a violation of the rights of another state. The breach of peace through the intervention outweighs the scandal of lawlessness within a state. Only in the case of such an advanced civil war, in which a state has clearly split and the parts guarantee internal state order, are third parties allowed to take sides.

6. “No state should allow itself to engage in hostilities with another in a war that must make mutual trust impossible in the future peace: as there are, employing assassins ( percussores ), poisoners ( venefici ), breaking surrender, inciting Treason ( perduellio ) in the warring state etc. "

The last preliminary article finally formulates an order of war. It forbids states to make use of means during war that would permanently destroy confidence in a possible peace agreement. The use of the “dishonorable means” listed above destroy mutual moral respect, so that a war can turn from fighting to assert interests into a war of extermination. According to Kant, a war serves to resolve claims that both parties assert. Both parties are on the same level. In the event of a violation of the order of war, no higher authority can intervene in the sense of a war of punishment, so that the warring parties who accuse themselves of such a violation get into a war of annihilation that cannot be decided otherwise than by the annihilation of one party.

The three definitive articles

The aim of the definitive articles is to determine the peace order. So it is not a question of the prerequisites for peace, but of necessary provisions of the form that it must take. Since, for Kant, peace is not just the absence of active hostilities, peace requires an order that brings moral persons (e.g. people and states) into clear relationships in which respective rights are protected and reciprocal violations and claims based on these legal systems can be decided. Outside of such a bourgeois order, there is no peace between people who do no de facto harm to one another , since their security is not mutually guaranteed. Only by entering into a common order in which both submit to an authority can they mutually guarantee their security. The state of nature between people is therefore, according to Kant legally considered a state of war.

According to Kant, the definitive articles are based on the postulate that all human beings must be part of a civil order for the sake of peace. According to the type of moral persons in legal relationships, three legal systems can be distinguished: citizenship law (between citizens of a state and this state), international law (between states) and global citizenship law (roughly human rights , as rights between people and states to which they are entitled do not belong). These three legal systems are what each definitive article describes.

1. The civil constitution in every state should be republican .

Kant derives the demand for a republican constitution from three principles that determine the members of society as people, subjects and citizens: freedom, submission to the law, and equality before the law. The first principle calls for "freedom of the members of a society", the second the "dependence of all on a single common legislation", the third "the constitution established according to the law of equality [of all members of society] (as citizens)." Freedom is defined as the ability to only follow one's own will in one's own actions, where this is not expressly forbidden by the law, which is to apply generally and without exception. According to Kant, no part of society, including authorities, may stand above the law: “Nobody may be exempt from it; everyone, including members of a government or legislative body, is affected ”. The republican form of the constitution is derived from these principles. According to Kant, a state with a republican constitution is a peaceful state, since all citizens jointly bear the consequences of their decisions (as rulers and legislators).

Kant feels compelled to specify the republican form of the constitution: he does not see autonomy realized through a general democracy, but through the existence of a constitution, the representative participation of the citizens in government and legislation, or at least in the decision about war and peace , guaranteed. This also gives rise to the demand for the separation of powers in his doctrine of forms of rule and government, which is briefly outlined here . According to Kant, regardless of the form of domination ( democracy , aristocracy / oligarchy or autocracy / monarchy) (rulership), a distinction can be made between republicanism and despotism according to the possible way in which power is exercised in the state . In despotism, legislation and government are in one hand, so that the abuse of power is not prevented: the government follows the interests of the rulers. Even in a non-republican democracy this is not impossible, but it is a given in a constitutional monarchy. Only the republican form follows the three principles and, according to Kant, is suitable for eternal peace, since here power is controlled by separating the executive and legislative branches : “Republicanism is the state principle of separating executive power (government) from legislative power ; “Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 352.

Perhaps also to avoid censorship and discrimination by the Prussian authorities, Kant names transitional forms that represent an approach to the goal of the republic, and expressly includes the government of Frederick II , insofar as his maxim “he is merely the highest servant of the state “Could be understood as the representation of all citizens and subordination to the law. “One can therefore say: the smaller the personalities of state power (the number of rulers), but the greater its representation, the more the state constitution agrees with the possibility of republicanism, and it can hope to finally rise to it through gradual reforms. “Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 353

Kant's draft of a republican state resembles today's representative democratic constitutional state ("What is meant is liberal democracy as we understand it today, that is, a legally constituted, parliamentary state order").

2. International law should be based on a federalism of free states.

Since states are at war with one another in an interstate natural state, analogous to people, peace must also mean here a transition to a legal state. According to Kant, this can only be achieved through a League of Nations . He considers the alternative of a nation-state to be contradictory: Since states are nothing more than the legal system and the governing body of the citizens, and this system must be republican in order to be conducive to peace, a nation-state would intervene in this essential function of the individual states. That would not only contradict the 5th preliminary article; this would restrict not only the external but also the internal freedom of the states and compromise their republican character. Insofar as the citizens of the individual states were subject to the legal order of the national state, the individual state would also be abolished and all peoples merged into one. In a League of Nations, the individual states remain in existence, and their sovereignty is not restricted internally and hardly at all externally.

A restriction of their sovereignty contradicts the efforts of the governments of the individual states to expand their power through conquest, but Kant nevertheless sees the possibility of a League of Nations. Precisely in the recognition of a martial law , to which the states cannot be compelled by any external authority, shows itself - even where it is paid lip service - the necessary "greater, although currently dormant, moral disposition in man". Since states can resolve legal disputes through wars without being able to clarify the legal question, a peace treaty can only be a temporary peace. Kant, on the other hand, outlines the idea of ​​a “peace alliance” in which the allied states mutually commit to “preserve and secure” their respective freedom, but without submitting to general laws. For Kant, the League of Nations is a minimal solution which, unlike the State of Nations, has no common legal system and no means of enforcing peace. Free federalism, however, as a “surrogate of the bourgeois society” can at least implement its first principle. For its realization, this League of Nations therefore needs republican states as a starting point:

"For if luck puts it this way: that a powerful and enlightened people can form a republic (which by its nature must be inclined to eternal peace), then this republic provides a focal point of the federal association for other states to show themselves on to join them, and so to secure the state of freedom of the states, according to the idea of ​​international law, and to gradually expand through several connections of this kind. "Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 356

In fact, instead, Kant seems to see a “world republic” that would incorporate all people into a uniform legal order as the logical vanishing point of peace. However, since this would require the states to be absorbed in it, this would contradict both their self-interest and the idea of ​​international law. So it is neither in the interest of existing states to enter into a binding relationship with a community that claims to be a world state, nor is it legally possible for them.

3. World citizenship should be restricted to conditions of general hospitality .

The third definitive article deals with the right to hospitality (“hostility”, right of visit, right of hospitality). Here, says Kant, everyone has the right to visit another country everywhere, i.e. H. he should be able to enter anywhere without his freedom being subject to additional restrictions; but he can also be rejected if this does not put him in existential danger. In particular, it must not be lawful to rob or enslave a stranger. Hospitality should in principle enable the establishment of relationships. Kant sees this as justified in the fact that originally nobody had a privilege to certain places on earth, but these were nevertheless finite and distributed.

Therefore, the right of the stranger is also restricted: just as he is supposed to have the right “to arrive” and to establish relationships intact, he must recognize the property and control of the hosts over their place; Here Kant criticizes colonialism , which, apart from soldiers, does not, in his opinion, bring the colonial powers any profit. He differentiates between the prohibition of access and the settlement; In addition, he demands the opportunity for free exchange and encounters between visitors and citizens of the host country.

Kant considers the idea of ​​such a global citizenship right to be possibly enforceable due to the stronger interweaving of peoples, since through the free exchange “the violation of the law is felt by everyone in one place on earth”. A “public human right” can only come into being at all if such a right of global citizenship and thus the possibility of free community of citizens of different states supplement the law of the individual states and international law - so that a global legal order or at least a common framework becomes possible; and only in this way can humanity assume that it is on the way to eternal peace.

additions

First addition: On the guarantee of eternal peace

According to Kant, peace among people is an end in nature. In the form of a providence of nature, eternal peace is guaranteed, even if the inner disposition of man includes a tendency to evil . However, there are no special forces behind this teleology , all events take place according to natural laws. The purpose orientation has to be considered in order to understand the story.

“What this guarantee provides is nothing less than the great artist nature ( natura daedala rerum ), whose mechanical course clearly shows expediency to let unity arise through the discord of people even against their will, [... ] "

- Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 360

The most important indicators for him are the facts that humanity can live in all areas of the earth and has also spread everywhere, as well as the conflict nature of humans. Since war and displacement lead to the spread of humanity over the whole earth, where different resources are found everywhere, which lead to exchange and trade and the ongoing mutual threat leads people to submit to laws, human history runs on eternal peace out.

Kant outlines early human history briefly: At first people lived as warlike hunters. Hunting in particular led to conflicts over the use of territories and therefore to expansion. The discovery of agriculture, salt and metal extraction led to trade and already partially pacified the people. But Kant feels compelled to explain how nature can persuade humanity to implement the definitive articles, which are morally imperative as laws of reason and freedom. Above all, it is about the transition from orders that are motivated by the natural features and thus characterized by selfishness, violence and coercion, with groups that wage war and do not grant foreigners any rights, to states with a republican order that are in a free federation and recognize a world citizenship.

Kant sees the formation of a community in general as sufficiently motivated by conflicts between groups: the danger from outside creates the need for an internal order. However, the question arises as to how this could naturally be a republican, or whether such a republic rather presupposes a moral disposition that follows the three principles of the first definitive article.

"The problem of the establishment of a state, as hard as it sounds, is solvable even to a people of devils (if they only have reason), and goes as follows:" A multitude of sensible beings who collectively demand general laws for their maintenance, each of them but is secretly inclined to avoid it, to order and to set up her constitution in such a way that, although they strive against one another in their private attitudes, these nevertheless hold one another back in such a way that in their public conduct the success is just the same as if they were not evil Have attitudes. ""

- Immanuel Kant: AA VIII, 366

According to Kant, the natural need to protect oneself from the interests of others already leads to the fact that everyone wants others to adhere to general rules, without there being a firm intention to submit to these rules themselves. Since compliance with such rules can only be monitored and violations punished if there is peace within society, a stable state develops in the play of dynamic forces, which outwardly resembles that which was normatively demanded in the first definitive article: the idea of ​​law develops - as an instrument the protection.

The content of the second article, the free federalism of different states, leads Kant to a balance between the efforts of a single state or its government to expand as far as possible - which would lead to a despotic universal state that could not in the long run maintain peace within society - and the ethnic diversity, which carries the danger of mutual hatred, but in the long run would bring civilizational progress through pride in individuality and competition within the individual groups. The development of their own social performance and freedom-oriented order is what enables states to mutually tolerate and accept within the federal order.

Ultimately, Kant sees their commercial interests in line with the global citizenship rights of the mutual opening up of states: general free trade provides the state with the funds it must strive for in order to increase its power. This detour via the interests of states is necessary, because a universal right of global citizenship would not dissuade people and states from reciprocal violence. Only because the state sees money as the most general (and even compatible with the republican constitution) means of power and trade as a whole promotes prosperity does states have an extra-moral motivation to protect trade and the necessary global citizenship and to avoid or mediate wars .

Second addition: Secret Article on Eternal Peace

The second addition deals with the relationship between governance and public opinion and is in the form of a secret article . It represents an essential addition to the second edition [B]. Kant explains that the use of secret articles objectively contradicts the idea of ​​public law, but subjectively protects the dignity of the final parties who have agreed something that seemed necessary to them, which, however, could bring them publicly criticism. Kant uses this relationship as an analogy: For example, it can damage the reputation of a state vis-à-vis its subjects and other states if its interests and actions are publicly debated or questioned. In Kant's opinion, the state should nevertheless take note of the debate as an advisory voice, but make it an open secret whether and which arguments it is following. In this way the state can be instructed by public opinion without losing any of its authority. Kant here particularly refers to the role of the philosophers who, for jurists as civil servants, legislators and in the judiciary, can discuss legal issues where they are bound by the applicable law.

Attachments

About the discrepancy between morality and politics, with the intention of eternal peace

In the first appendix, Kant examines the question of whether politics can or must be moral. According to Kant, a contradiction can only arise here if politics is understood as a doctrine of prudence that knows no absolute commandments. But where morality is understood as the theory of the rights and duties of everyone, politics and state theory are to be understood as the application and implementation of morality. So it has to be in “unanimity” a priori, without morality making impossible demands on politics. Because for Kant the ought is restricted by the ability. Nevertheless, Kant assumes that the commandments of morality (if one is not mistaken in them) never have to bow to circumstances for reasons of prudence. He cites the absolute prohibition of lying as an example .

For eternal peace (as a normative goal of politics) it is necessary that everyone submits to the legal system together. This is overwhelming for the individual - if he adheres to laws that others disregard, he puts himself in danger. The unification to a state under a legal system therefore seems to depend on someone rising to rulership by force. But why should the ruler also submit himself to the laws? Hobbes had therefore placed the ruler outside the law in the Leviathan . For a republican order in the sense of Kant, he even has to lay down the laws in a representative way, i.e. in representation and in the interests of the people. The problem repeats itself at the intergovernmental level: the holders of superior power or power should renounce their own arbitrariness in favor of the law and the community-determined legal order. To solve this problem, Kant refers to the concept of law itself. This implies that action is more than a mechanics determined by empirical self-interests (in view of people's tendency towards evil ) and possibilities. So a “moral politician” has to be imagined who brings moral precepts to political action, whereas a “political moralist”, who subordinates morality to politics, contradicts the actual concept of morality.

There are certain maxims for this moral politician. So it is imperative for him to gradually reform laws that do not correspond to natural law and not to overturn them radically; because the latter leads to civil unrest up to civil war. The same applies to the constitution, where Kant clearly places a change in constitutional practice to the republican form before a change de jure, since the people only experience the concept of law as fulfilled through participation and thus acquire the necessary respect and ability to shape legislation on their own . Likewise, the rioters must be punished during a revolution in the spirit of peace and republicanism, but after a successful revolution the idea of ​​a return to the old order is immoral. A state should also not be forced from outside to give up its despotic form if this endangers its security and its continued existence.

Practicing lawyers always considered the current constitution to be the best, writes Kant. But if they decided on legislation, too much of the old constitution would remain. Practicing jurists of despotism would work out a new constitution according to the following principles: 1. Arbitrary possession of the ruler, 2. Denial of responsibility for evil, 3. Divide and rule (cf. Divide et impera ).

The malice of the people does not come from themselves, but results from a not yet fully developed culture. In a state, however, malice diminishes as people obligate each other to act lawfully. The concept of law is significant for people both privately and publicly. Kant raises the rhetorical question of what should be higher: the purpose (as a moral disposition) or freedom (act in such a way that you can will, your maxim should become a general law - the purpose may be whichever it wants)? The latter must go ahead, concludes Kant, since it is an absolute necessity for the legal principle. How exactly one arrives at eternal peace is uncertain. The fewer people who pursued eternal peace as an end, the closer they are to it. This is due to the common will to create a legally constituted society. Laws would not be passed to create wealth or happiness, but to uphold the right to freedom and equality of everyone. Politics cannot develop without morality.

From the unanimity of politics with morality according to the transcendental concepts of public law

From the principle that every legal claim must be publicly known in order not to be wrong, Kant draws the following conclusion, which allows a look not at his morality but at his legal concept:

  1. In constitutional law , resistance to the authority of the state (even in the case of tyranny ) is wrong, because a right to insurrection cannot be part of a constitution.
  2. The concept of publicity (public) is already included in the concept of international law . International law should not be based on coercive laws (like constitutional law), but on a free association of states with the intention of maintaining peace among one another. There are, however, cases in which the public expression of intentions runs counter to the objective pursued: a) when a ruler does not intend to keep an agreement with another state for the protection of his people; b) in the event of a planned preventive strike against a neighboring country that is becoming too powerful; c) in the planned submission of a separatist country (partly). But international law and morality are in agreement if the legal association of states intends to prevent wars. Nevertheless, treaties with more powerful and larger states are often interpreted more favorably. Politics easily agrees with morality as ethics, but all too often denies its importance as legal theory. Rather, law and morality should apply equally in all laws where publicity does not run counter to the purpose of the law.

reception

Johann Gottlieb Fichte already attached great importance to Kant's writing in a review in terms of “scientific consideration”. For him, a peace guaranteed by public law was not just a “pious wish”, but a “necessary task of reason”.

Julius Ebbinghaus wrote in 1929: “Anyone who allows himself to be introduced into the context of conditions on which the possibility of a moral assessment of the war is based through Kant's Metaphysics of Morals will soon notice that he is running across all the tracks in which the public one is Opinion of the present moves [...] and one has to leave the modern sermon in hell against the war far behind if one wants to reach the stars on which the light of the pax kantiana was lit ”.

Karl-Otto Apel certifies that the peace writing is "topical in world history" at the end of the 20th century. Ernst-Otto Czempiel sees the reason for this in the current political history: “The democratization processes in Eastern Europe and the CIS followed exactly the Kantian script: Democracy spreads by itself because it is the system of rule that meets social demands for economic welfare and lordly participation , of course also after peace, optimally, if not maximally, fulfilled. "

Despite Kant's recognized vision, Ludger Kühnhardt evaluates his design as an unrealistic and educational ideal. In particular, there is no description of the way to the beautiful destination. However, he also states: “Kant would have been delighted if he had known that the issues that he placed at the center of the search for a lasting peace order in his three definitive articles were key political issues two centuries after his publication stayed in and between states. "

Beyond the vision and the normative claim, there are Kant interpreters who see the Friedensschrift as the foundation for a theory of politics. Thus, Volker Gerhardt that "only remarkable thing is that this extension of the problem inventory on ethics and law, it has been scarcely considered in the broad field of real politics of Kant interpreters. That is why they also missed the fact that a theory of politics is being drafted here - under the conditions of the critique of reason. "Similarly, the work according to Otfried Höffe is " not just a peace treaty, but a systematic philosophy of politics, understood as the theory of law and state " Georg Geismann, on the other hand, negates the moral claim and instead (with Fichte and Ebbinghaus) considers the text to be essentially "legal doctrine, more precisely: a priori legal doctrine", i.e. H. For him, Kant completely dispenses with the moral index finger and bases his writing on reason alone.

expenditure

  • To eternal peace. A philosophical draft. New increased edition. Königsberg, by Friedrich Nicolovius 1796 [second, expanded edition]. Google
  • About the common saying: That may be correct in theory, but not suitable for practice ; To eternal peace, a philosophical draft. With introduction, notes, bibliography, list of preliminary work, person and subject index, ed. by Heiner Klemme , Meiner Hamburg 1992, ISBN 978-3-7873-1030-2
  • To Eternal Peace and other scriptures. Fischer, Frankfurt 2008, ISBN 978-3-596-90021-3
  • To eternal peace. A philosophical draft. ed. by Rudolf Malter, Reclam, Stuttgart 2008, ISBN 978-3-15-001501-8
  • To eternal peace. With the passages on international law and global civil law from Kant's legal theory. Commentary by Oliver Eberl and Peter Niesen. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt 2011, ISBN 978-3-518-27014-1 ( reading sample ; PDF; 168 kB)
  • To eternal peace. A philosophical draft. Complete new edition with a biography of the author. ed. by Karl-Maria Guth, Hofenberg, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-8430-2116-6

literature

  • Matthias Hoesch: To eternal peace. In: Kant-Lexikon, ed. by M. Willaschek u. a., DeGruyter, Berlin / Boston 2015, 2727–2731.
  • Otfried Höffe (ed.): Immanuel Kant, for eternal peace . 3rd edited edition. Akademie Verlag, Berlin 2011, ISBN 978-3-05-005103-1
  • Volker Marcus Hackel: Kant's Peace Writing and International Law. Duncker and Humblot, Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-428-10206-1
  • Klaus Dicke, Klaus-Michael Kodalle (ed.): Republic and world citizenship: Kantian suggestions for the theory of political order after the end of the East-West conflict. Böhlau, Weimar / Cologne / Vienna 1998, ISBN 3-412-13996-3
  • Bernd Rolf: League of Nations or World Republic? Kant's writing “For Eternal Peace”. In: Philosophy lessons in NRW 30 (1997), 15–29.
  • Wolfgang Beutin et al .: Hommage à Kant. Kant's work "To Eternal Peace". von Bockel Verlag, Hamburg 1996, ISBN 3-928770-61-6 .
  • Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, James Bohman (Ed.): Peace through law . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt 1996, ISBN 978-3-518-28869-6
  • Volker Gerhardt: Immanuel Kant's draft "For Eternal Peace": a theory of politics. Darmstadt: WBG 1995 ISBN 3-534-03214-4

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 380 .
  2. ↑ Konstantin Pollok : The United Nations in the Light of Immanuel Kant's book on Eternal Peace , Sic et Non 1996; Lothar Brock : Why do we need the United Nations today? Balance sheet and perspectives of the world organization ( Federal Agency for Civic Education ) (accessed on 22. ai 2019)
  3. ↑ Karl Jaspers: Kant's "For Eternal Peace". In: Karl Jaspers: Philosophy and World, Piper, Munich 1958, 97-135, 131.
  4. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 347 .
  5. ↑ Volker Gerhardt: Immanuel Kant's draft "For Eternal Peace": a theory of politics . WBG, Darmstadt 1995, p. 85
  6. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 352 .
  7. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 353 .
  8. ↑ Volker Gerhardt: Immanuel Kant's draft "For Eternal Peace": a theory of politics. WBG, Darmstadt 1995, p. 89.
  9. ↑ Immanuel Kant: To Eternal Peace. With the passages on international law and global civil law from Kant's legal theory . Commentary by Oliver Eberl and Peter Niesen. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 2011, p. 237.
  10. ↑ Wolfgang Kersting: Law, Justice and Democratic Virtue . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 1997, p. 266.
  11. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 356 .
  12. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 360  / For Eternal Peace, First Addition.
  13. ↑ Immanuel Kant, Collected Writings. Ed .: Vol. 1-22 Prussian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 23 German Academy of Sciences in Berlin, from Vol. 24 Academy of Sciences in Göttingen, Berlin 1900ff., AA VIII, 366 .
  14. ↑ Johann Gottlieb Fichte: “Review” of Kant's work on the eternal peace (Philosophisches Journal 4/1796), in: Complete edition of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, edited by R. Lauth and H. Jacob, Dept. I, Works Volume 3, Stuttgart 1966, 219.
  15. ^ Johann Gottlieb Fichte: Basis des Naturrechts (1796/1797), in: Complete edition of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, published by R. Lauth and H. Jacob, Dept. I, Works Volume 3, Stuttgart 1966, 323.
  16. ↑ Julius Ebbinghaus: Kant's Doctrine of Eternal Peace and the War Guilt Question (1929), printed in: Collected essays, lectures and speeches. WBG, Darmstadt, 24-25.
  17. ↑ Karl-Otto Apel: Kant's "Philosophical Design: For Eternal Peace" as a historical-philosophical quasi-prognosis based on moral duty. Attempt of a critical-methodological reconstruction of the Kantian construction from the point of view of a transcendental-pragmatic ethics of responsibility, in: Reinhard Merkel, Roland Wittmann (Ed.): "To Eternal Peace". Basics, topicality and prospects of an idea by Immanuel Kant, Frankfurt 1996, 91–124, 92.
  18. ^ Ernst-Otto Czempiel: Europe's guide to peace. About Immanuel Kant and the topicality of his strategic concepts, in: Frankfurter Rundschau, Easter 1995, ZB3.
  19. ↑ Ludger Kühnhardt: From the eternal search for peace. Immanuel Kant's vision and Europe's reality, Bouvier, Bonn 1996, 175.
  20. ↑ Ludger Kühnhardt: From the eternal search for peace. Immanuel Kant's vision and Europe's reality, Bouvier, Bonn 1996, 181.
  21. ↑ Volker Gerhardt: Immanuel Kant's draft 'For Eternal Peace'. A theory of politics. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1995, 6-7.
  22. ↑ Otfried Höffe: Introduction. Peace - a neglected ideal, in: Otfried Höffe (Ed.): Immanuel Kant: Zum ewigen Frieden, Akademie, Berlin 1995, 5–29, 22
  23. ↑ Georg Geismann: Why Kant's theory of peace is good for practice and why the theory of peace from Fichte, Hegel and Marx are not correct in theory, in: Klaus-Michael Kodalle (ed.): Der Vernunft-Frieden. Kant's draft in conflict , Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 1996, 37–51, 37.