Session 15 - Kant the pragmatic one.

Kant’s Liberal Internationalism talks about the concept of liberal democracy, and even though it sounded a bit too simplistic, as he did not take into account many practical flaws present in the international sphere when it comes to institutionalization, he aptly paints a picture of the international system which we can say exists today. Kant needs to be lauded for his efforts to break away from the omnipresent concept of war and anarchy. Even though Doyle in his article put forwards the views of Schumpter’s liberal pacifism and Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism, Kant’s theory for me personally stands out as being more rational and pragmatic.

One of the main assumptions of his theory was that liberal states maintain peace amongst them but are likely to engage in war against non liberal states. This shows the realistic and the pragmatic nature with which Kant handles the delicate issue or war in the international arena. What really makes sense in his argument is that like the other extreme Liberal theorists, who call human nature peace love and paint a very rosy picture of the world, and claim that the chances of war are unlikely and there exists a constant harmony in the world, Kant does not support this absurdity, but rather he brings into view the distinction between liberal and non liberal states and how if you belong in the latter, you can still get involved in war.  Thus through his views, he does claim that there are chances of peace in the world, compared to the Realists we had constantly been studying about who continue crying about anarchy and war in the international system. Kant moves from that view and gives us a view that peace and war can exist in the system together. This differentiation between non-liberal and liberal states and its ripple effects shows that even though states can maintain peace and harmony, there does exist chances of war with the opposing nations.