Immanuel Kant Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

1795
PERPETUAL PEACE Whether this satirical inscription on a Dutch innkeeper's sign upon which a burial ground was painted had for its ob ect !ankind in general" or the rulers of states in particular" who are insatiable of war" or !erel# the philosophers who drea! this sweet drea!" it is not for us to decide$ %ut one condition the author of this essa# wishes to la# down$ The practical politician assu!es the attitude of looking down with great self&satisfaction on the political theorist as a pedant whose e!pt# ideas in no wa# threaten the securit# of the state" inas!uch as the state !ust proceed on e!pirical principles' so the theorist is allowed to pla# his ga!e without interference fro! the worldl#&wise states!an$ (uch being his attitude" the practical politician&&and this is the condition ) !ake&&should at least act consistentl# in the case of a conflict and not suspect so!e danger to the state in the political theorist's opinions which are *entured and publicl# e+pressed without an# ulterior purpose$ %# this clausula salvatoria the author desires for!all# and e!phaticall# to deprecate herewith an# !ale*olent interpretation which !ight be placed on his words$

SECTION I
C,-TA)-)-. T/E PREL)0)-AR1 ART)CLE( 2,R PERPETUAL PEACE A0,-. (TATE( 1. "No Treaty of Peace Shall Be Held Valid in Which There Is Tacitly Reserved Matter for a uture War" ,therwise a treat# would be onl# a truce" a suspension of hostilities but not peace" which !eans the end of all hostilities&&so !uch so that e*en to attach the word 3perpetual3 to it is a dubious pleonas!$ The causes for !aking future wars 4which are perhaps unknown to the contracting parties5 are without e+ception annihilated b# the treat# of peace" e*en if the# should be dug out of dust# docu!ents b# acute sleuthing$ When one or both parties to a treat# of peace" being too e+hausted to continue warring with each other" !ake a tacit reser*ation 4reservatio !entalis" in regard to old clai!s to be elaborated onl# at so!e !ore fa*orable opportunit# in the future" the treat# is !ade in bad faith" and we ha*e an artifice worth# of the casuistr# of a 6esuit$ Considered b# itself" it is beneath the dignit# of a so*ereign" ust as the readiness to indulge in this kind of reasoning is unworth# of the dignit# of his !inister$ %ut if" in conse7uence of enlightened concepts of statecraft" the glor# of the state is placed in its continual aggrandi8e!ent b# whate*er !eans" !# conclusion will appear !erel# acade!ic and pedantic$

9$ "No Inde#endent States$ %ar&e or S!all$ Shall 'o!e under the (o!inion of )nother State *y Inheritance$ +,chan&e$ Purchase$ or (onation" A state is not" like the ground which it occupies" a piece of propert# 4#atri!oniu!5$ )t is a societ# of !en who! no one else has an# right to co!!and or to dispose e+cept the state itself$ )t is a trunk with its own roots$ %ut to incorporate it into another state" like a graft" is to destro# its e+istence as a !oral person" reducing it to a thing' such incorporation thus contradicts the idea of the original contract without which no right o*er a people can be concei*ed$: E*er#one knows to what dangers Europe" the onl# part of the world where this !anner of ac7uisition is known" has been brought" e*en down to the !ost recent ti!es" b# the presu!ption that states could espouse one another' it is in part a new kind of industr# for gaining ascendanc# b# !eans of fa!il# alliances and without e+penditure of forces" and in part a wa# of e+tending one's do!ain$ Also the hiring&out of troops b# one state to another" so that the# can be used against an ene!# not co!!on to both" is to be counted under this principle' for in this !anner the sub ects" as though the# were things to be !anipulated at pleasure" are used and also used up$ ;$ "Standin& )r!ies 4!iles perpetuus5 Shall in Ti!e Be Totally )*olished" 2or the# incessantl# !enace other states b# their readiness to appear at all ti!es prepared for war' the# incite the! to co!pete with each other in the nu!ber of ar!ed !en" and there is no li!it to this$ 2or this reason" the cost of peace finall# beco!es !ore oppressi*e than that of a short war" and conse7uentl# a standing ar!# is itself a cause of offensi*e war waged in order to relie*e the state of this burden$ Add to this that to pa# !en to kill or to be killed see!s to entail using the! as !ere !achines and tools in the hand of another 4the state5" and this is hardl# co!patible with the rights of !ankind in our own person$ %ut the periodic and *oluntar# !ilitar# e+ercises of citi8ens who thereb# secure the!sel*es and their countr# against foreign aggression are entirel# different$ The accu!ulation of treasure would ha*e the sa!e effect" for" of the three powers&&the power of ar!ies" of alliances" and of !one#&&the third is perhaps the !ost dependable weapon$ (uch accu!ulation of treasure is regarded b# other states as a threat of war" and if it were not for the difficulties in learning the a!ount" it would force the other state to !ake an earl# attack$ -. "National (e*ts Shall Not Be 'ontracted .ith a Vie. to the +,ternal riction of States" This e+pedient of seeking aid within or without the state is abo*e suspicion when the purpose is do!estic econo!# 4e$g$" the i!pro*e!ent of roads" new settle!ents" establish!ent of stores against unfruitful #ears" etc$5$ %ut as an opposing !achine in the antagonis! of powers" a credit s#ste! which grows be#ond sight and which is #et a safe debt for the present re7uire!ents&& because all the creditors do not re7uire pa#!ent at one ti!e&&constitutes a dangerous !one# power$ This ingenious in*ention of a co!!ercial people <England= in this centur# is dangerous because it is a war treasure which e+ceeds the treasures of all other states' it cannot be e+hausted e+cept b# default of ta+es 4which is ine*itable5" though it can be long dela#ed b# the sti!ulus to trade which occurs through the reaction of credit on industr# and co!!erce$ This facilit# in !aking war" together with the inclination to do so on the part of rulers&&an inclination which

see!s inborn in hu!an nature&&is thus a great hindrance to perpetual peace$ Therefore" to forbid this credit s#ste! !ust be a preli!inar# article of perpetual peace all the !ore because it !ust e*entuall# entangle !an# innocent states in the ine*itable bankruptc# and openl# har! the!$ The# are therefore ustified in all#ing the!sel*es against such a state and its !easures$ /. "No State Shall *y orce Interfere .ith the 'onstitution or 0overn!ent of )nother State" 2or what is there to authori8e it to do so> The offense" perhaps" which a state gi*es to the sub ects of another state> Rather the e+a!ple of the e*il into which a state has fallen because of its lawlessness should ser*e as a warning$ 0oreo*er" the bad e+a!ple which one free person affords another as a scandalu! acce#tu! is not an infringe!ent of his rights$ %ut it would be 7uite different if a state" b# internal rebellion" should fall into two parts" each of which pretended to be a separate state !aking clai! to the whole$ To lend assistance to one of these cannot be considered an interference in the constitution of the other state 4for it is then in a state of anarch#5 $ %ut so long as the internal dissension has not co!e to this critical point" such interference b# foreign powers would infringe on the rights of an independent people struggling with its internal disease' hence it would itself be an offense and would render the autono!# of all states insecure$ ?$ "No State Shall$ durin& War$ Per!it Such )cts of Hostility Which Would Ma1e Mutual 'onfidence in the Su*se2uent Peace I!#ossi*le3 Such )re the +!#loy!ent of )ssassins 4percussores"$ Poisoners4*enefici"$ Breach of 'a#itulation$ and Incite!ent to Treason 4perduellio5 in the 5##osin& State" These are dishonorable stratage!s$ 2or so!e confidence in the character of the ene!# !ust re!ain e*en in the !idst of war" as otherwise no peace could be concluded and the hostilities would degenerate into a war of e+ter!ination 4*ellu! internecinu!5$ War" howe*er" is onl# the sad recourse in the state of nature 4where there is no tribunal which could udge with the force of law5 b# which each state asserts its right b# *iolence and in which neither part# can be ad udged un ust 4for that would presuppose a uridical decision5' in lieu of such a decision" the issue of the conflict 4as if gi*en b# a so&called 3 udg!ent of .od35 decides on which side ustice lies$ %ut between states no puniti*e war 4*ellu! #unitivu!5 is concei*able" because there is no relation between the! of !aster and ser*ant$ )t follows that a war of e+ter!ination" in which the destruction of both parties and of all ustice can result" would per!it perpetual peace onl# in the *ast burial ground of the hu!an race$ Therefore" such a war and the use of all !eans leading to it !ust be absolutel# forbidden$ %ut that the !eans cited do ine*itabl# lead to it is clear fro! the fact that these infernal arts" *ile in the!sel*es" when once used would not long be confined to the sphere of war$ Take" for instance" the use of spies 4uti e,#loratori*us". )n this" one e!plo#s the infa!# of others 4which can ne*er be entirel# eradicated5 onl# to encourage its persistence e*en into the state of peace" to the undoing of the *er# spirit of peace$ Although the laws stated are ob ecti*el#" i$e$" in so far as the# e+press the intention of rulers" !ere prohibitions 4le&es #rohi*itivae"$ so!e of the! are of that strict kind which hold regardless of circu!stances 4le&es strictae" and which de!and pro!pt e+ecution$ (uch are -os$ :" @" and ?$

,thers" like -os$ 9" ;" and A" while not e+ceptions fro! the rule of law" ne*ertheless are sub& ecti*el# broader 4le&es latae" in respect to their obser*ation" containing per!ission to dela# their e+ecution without" howe*er" losing sight of the end$ This per!ission does not authori8e" under -o$ 9" for e+a!ple" dela#ing until doo!sda# 4or" as Augustus used to sa#" adcalendas 0raecas" the re&establish!ent of the freedo! of states which ha*e been depri*ed of it&&i$e$" it does not per!it us to fail to do it" but it allows a dela# to pre*ent precipitation which !ight in ure the goal stri*en for$ 2or the prohibition concerns onl# the !anner of ac7uisition which is no longer per!itted" but not the possession" which" though not bearing a re7uisite title of right" has ne*ertheless been held lawful in all states b# the public opinion of the ti!e 4the ti!e of the putati*e ac7uisition5$9$ SECTION II C,-TA)-)-. T/E DE2)-)T)BE ART)CLE( 2,R PERPETUAL PEACE A0,-. (TATE( The state of peace a!ong !en li*ing side b# side is not the natural state 4status naturalis"6 the natural state is one of war$ This does not alwa#s !ean open hostilities" but at least an unceasing threat of war$ A state of peace" therefore" !ust be esta*lished$ for in order to be secured against hostilit# it is not sufficient that hostilities si!pl# be not co!!itted' and" unless this securit# is pledged to each b# his neighbor 4a thing that can occur onl# in a ci*il state5" each !a# treat his neighbor" fro! who! he de!ands this securit#" as an ene!#$; 2)R(T DE2)-)T)BE ART)CLE 2,R PERPETUAL PEACE "The 'ivil 'onstitution of +very State Should Be Re#u*lican" The onl# constitution which deri*es fro! the idea of the original co!pact" and on which all uridical legislation of a people !ust be based" is the republican$ A This constitution is established" firstl#" b# principles of the freedo! of the !e!bers of a societ# 4as !en5' secondl#" b# principles of dependence of all upon a single co!!on legislation 4as sub ects5' and" thirdl#" b# the law of their e7ualit# 4as citi8ens5$ The republican constitution" therefore" is" with respect to law" the one which is the original basis of e*er# for! of ci*il constitution$ The onl# 7uestion now isC )s it also the one which can lead to perpetual peace> The republican constitution" besides the purit# of its origin 4ha*ing sprung fro! the pure source of the concept of law5" also gi*es a fa*orable prospect for the desired conse7uence" i$e$" perpetual peace$ The reason is thisC if the consent of the citi8ens is re7uired in order to decide that war should be declared 4and in this constitution it cannot but be the case5" nothing is !ore natural than that the# would be *er# cautious in co!!encing such a poor ga!e" decreeing for the!sel*es all the cala!ities of war$ A!ong the latter would beC ha*ing to fight" ha*ing to pa# the costs of war fro! their own resources" ha*ing painfull# to repair the de*astation war lea*es behind" and" to fill up the !easure of e*ils" load the!sel*es with a hea*# national debt that would e!bitter peace itself and that can ne*er be li7uidated on account of constant wars in the future$ %ut" on the other hand" in a constitution which is not republican" and under which the sub ects are not citi8ens" a declaration of war is the easiest thing in the world to decide upon"

because war does not re7uire of the ruler" who is the proprietor and not a !e!ber of the state" the least sacrifice of the pleasures of his table" the chase" his countr# houses" his court functions" and the like$ /e !a#" therefore" resol*e on war as on a pleasure part# for the !ost tri*ial reasons" and with perfect indifference lea*e the ustification which decenc# re7uires to the diplo!atic corps who are e*er read# to pro*ide it$ )n order not to confuse the republican constitution with the de!ocratic 4as is co!!onl# done5" the following should be noted$ The for!s of a state 4civitas" can be di*ided either according to the persons who possess the so*ereign power or according to the !ode of ad!inistration e+ercised o*er the people b# the chief" whoe*er he !a# be$ The first is properl# called the for! of so*ereignt# 4for!a i!#erii"$ and there are onl# three possible for!s of itC autocrac#" in which one" aristocrac#" in which so!e associated together" or de!ocrac#" in which all those who constitute societ#" possess so*ereign power$ The# !a# be characteri8ed" respecti*el#" as the power of a !onarch" of the nobilit#" or of the people$ The second di*ision is that b# the for! of go*ern!ent 4for!a re&i!inis" and is based on the wa# in which the state !akes use of its power' this wa# is based on the constitution" which is the act of the general will through which the !an# persons beco!e one nation$ )n this respect go*ern!ent is either republican or despotic$ Republicanis! is the political principle of the separation of the e+ecuti*e power 4the ad!inistration5 fro! the legislati*e' despotis! is that of the autono!ous e+ecution b# the state of laws which it has itself decreed$ Thus in a despotis! the public will is ad!inistered b# the ruler as his own will$ ,f the three for!s of the state" that of de!ocrac# is" properl# speaking" necessaril# a despotis!" because it establishes an e+ecuti*e power in which 3all3 decide for or e*en against one who does not agree' that is" 3all"3 who are not 7uite all" decide" and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedo!$ E*er# for! of go*ern!ent which is not representati*e is" properl# speaking" without for!$ The legislator can unite in one and the sa!e person his function as legislati*e and as e+ecutor of his will ust as little as the uni*ersal of the !a or pre!ise in a s#llogis! can also be the subsu!ption of the particular under the uni*ersal in the !inor$ And e*en though the other two constitutions are alwa#s defecti*e to the e+tent that the# do lea*e roo! for this !ode of ad!inistration" it is at least possible for the! to assu!e a !ode of go*ern!ent confor!ing to the spirit of a representati*e s#ste! 4as when 2rederick )) at least said he was !erel# the first ser*ant of the state5$@,n the other hand" the de!ocratic !ode of go*ern!ent !akes this i!possible" since e*er#one wishes to be !aster$ Therefore" we can sa#C the s!aller the personnel of the go*ern!ent 4the s!aller the nu!ber of rulers5" the greater is their representation and the !ore nearl# the constitution approaches to the possibilit# of republicanis!' thus the constitution !a# be e+pected b# gradual refor! finall# to raise itself to republicanis!$ 2or these reasons it is !ore difficult for an aristocrac# than for a !onarch# to achie*e the one co!pletel# uridical constitution" and it is i!possible for a de!ocrac# to do so e+cept b# *iolent re*olution$ The !ode of go*ern!ents" ? howe*er" is inco!parabl# !ore i!portant to the people than the for! of so*ereignt#" although !uch depends on the greater or lesser suitabilit# of the latter to the end of <good= go*ern!ent$ To confor! to the concept of law" howe*er" go*ern!ent !ust ha*e a representati*e for!" and in this s#ste! onl# a republican !ode of go*ern!ent is possible' without it" go*ern!ent is despotic and arbitrar#" whate*er the constitution !a# be$ -one of the ancient so&called 3republics3 knew this s#ste!" and the# all finall# and ine*itabl# degenerated

into despotis! under the so*ereignt# of one" which is the !ost bearable of all for!s of despotis!$
(EC,-D DE2)-)T)BE ART)CLE 2,R A PERPETUAL PEACE

"The %a. of Nations Shall *e ounded on a ederation of ree States" Peoples" as states" like indi*iduals" !a# be udged to in ure one another !erel# b# their coe+istence in the state of nature 4i$e$" while independent of e+ternal laws5$ Each of then" !a# and should for the sake of its own securit# de!and that the others enter with it into a constitution si!ilar to the ci*il constitution" for under such a constitution each can be secure in his right$ This would be a league of nations" but it would not ha*e to be a state consisting of nations$ That would be contradictor#" since a state i!plies the relation of a superior 4legislating5 to an inferior 4obe#ing5" i$e$" the people" and !an# nations in one state would then constitute onl# one nation$ This contradicts the presupposition" for here we ha*e to weigh the rights of nations against each other so far as the# are distinct states and not a!alga!ated into one$ When we see the attach!ent of sa*ages to their lawless freedo!" preferring ceaseless co!bat to sub ection to a lawful constraint which the# !ight establish" and thus preferring senseless freedo! to rational freedo!" we regard it with deep conte!pt as barbarit#" rudeness" and a brutish degradation of hu!anit#$ Accordingl#" one would think that ci*ili8ed people 4each united in a state5 would hasten all the !ore to escape" the sooner the better" fro! such a depra*ed condition$ %ut" instead" each state places its !a est# 4for it is absurd to speak of the !a est# of the people5 in being sub ect to no e+ternal uridical restraint" and the splendor of its so*ereign consists in the fact that !an# thousands stand at his co!!and to sacrifice the!sel*es for so!ething that does not concern the! and without his needing to place hi!self in the least danger$D The chief difference between European and A!erican sa*ages lies in the fact that !an# tribes of the latter ha*e been eaten b# their ene!ies" while the for!er know how to !ake better use of their con7uered ene!ies than to dine off the!' the# know better how to use the! to increase the nu!ber of their sub ects and thus the 7uantit# of instru!ents for e*en !ore e+tensi*e wars$ When we consider the per*erseness of hu!an nature which is nakedl# re*ealed in the uncontrolled relations between nations 4this per*erseness being *eiled in the state of ci*il law b# the constraint e+ercised b# go*ern!ent5" we !a# well be astonished that the word 3law3 has not #et been banished fro! war politics as pedantic" and that no state has #et been bold enough to ad*ocate this point of *iew$ Up to the present" /ugo .rotius" Pufendorf" Battel" and !an# other irritating co!forters ha*e been cited in ustification of war" though their code" philosophicall# or diplo!aticall# for!ulated" has not and cannot ha*e the least legal force" because states as such do not stand under a co!!on e+ternal power$ There is no instance on record that a state has e*er been !o*ed to desist fro! its purpose because of argu!ents backed up b# the testi!on# of such great !en$ %ut the ho!age which each state pa#s 4at least in words5 to the concept of law pro*es that there is slu!bering in !an an e*en greater !oral disposition to beco!e !aster of the e*il principle in hi!self 4which he cannot disclai!5 and to hope for the sa!e fro! others$ ,therwise the word 3law3 would ne*er be pronounced b# states which wish to war upon one another' it would be used onl# ironicall#" as a .allic prince interpreted it when he said" 3)t is the prerogati*e which nature has gi*en the stronger that the weaker should obe# hi!$3

(tates do not plead their cause before a tribunal' war alone is their wa# of bringing suit$ %ut b# war and its fa*orable issue" in *ictor#" right is not decided" and though b# a treat# of peace this particular war is brought to an end" the state of war" of alwa#s finding a new prete+t to hostilities" is not ter!inated$ -or can this be declared wrong" considering the fact that in this state each is the udge of his own case$ -otwithstanding" the obligation which !en in a lawless condition ha*e under the natural law" and which re7uires the! to abandon the state of nature" does not 7uite appl# to states under the law of nations" for as states the# alread# ha*e an internal uridical constitution and ha*e thus outgrown co!pulsion fro! others to sub!it to a !ore e+tended lawful constitution according to their ideas of right$ This is true in spite of the fact that reason" fro! its throne of supre!e !oral legislating authorit#" absolutel# conde!ns war as a legal recourse and !akes a state of peace a direct dut#" e*en though peace cannot be established or secured e+cept b# a co!pact a!ong nations$ 2or these reasons there !ust be a league of a particular kind" which can be called a league of peace 4foedus #acificu!5" and which would be distinguished fro! a treat# of peace 4#actu! #acis" b# the fact that the latter ter!inates onl# one war" while the for!er seeks to !ake an end of all wars fore*er$ This league does not tend to an# do!inion o*er the power of the state but onl# to the !aintenance and securit# of the freedo! of the state itself and of other states in league with it" without there being an# need for the! to sub!it to ci*il laws and their co!pulsion" as !en in a state of nature !ust sub!it$ The practicabilit# 4ob ecti*e realit#5 of this idea of federation" which should graduall# spread to all states and thus lead to perpetual peace" can be pro*ed$ 2or if fortune directs that a powerful and enlightened people can !ake itself a republic" which b# its nature !ust be inclined to perpetual peace" this gi*es a fulcru! to the federation with other states so that the# !a# adhere to it and thus secure freedo! under the idea of the law of nations$ %# !ore and !ore such associations" the federation !a# be graduall# e+tended$ We !a# readil# concei*e that a people should sa#" 3There ought to be no war a!ong us" for we want to !ake oursel*es into a state' that is" we want to establish a supre!e legislati*e" e+ecuti*e" and udiciar# power which will reconcile our differences peaceabl#$3 %ut when this state sa#s" 3There ought to be no war between !#self and other states" e*en though ) acknowledge no supre!e legislati*e power b# which our rights are !utuall# guaranteed"3 it is not at all clear on what ) can base !# confidence in !# own rights unless it is the free federation" the surrogate of the ci*il social order" which reason necessaril# associates with the concept of the law of nations&& assu!ing that so!ething is reall# !eant b# the latter$ The concept of a law of nations as a right to !ake war does not reall# !ean an#thing" because it is then a law of deciding what is right b# unilateral !a+i!s through force and not b# uni*ersall# *alid public laws which restrict the freedo! of each one$ The onl# concei*able !eaning of such a law of nations !ight be that it ser*es !en right who are so inclined that the# should destro# each other and thus find perpetual peace in the *ast gra*e that swallows both the atrocities and their perpetrators$ 2or states in their relation to each other" there cannot be an# reasonable wa# out of the lawless condition which entails onl# war e+cept that the#" like indi*idual !en" should gi*e up their sa*age 4lawless5 freedo!" ad ust the!sel*es to the constraints of public law" and thus establish a continuousl# growing state consisting of *arious nations 4civitas &entiu!"$ which

will ulti!atel# include all the nations of the world$ %ut under the idea of the law of nations the# do not wish this" and re ect in practice what is correct in theor#$ )f all is not to be lost" there can be" then" in place of the positi*e idea of a world republic" onl# the negati*e surrogate of an alliance which a*erts war" endures" spreads" and holds back the strea! of those hostile passions which fear the law" though such an alliance is in constant peril of their breaking loose again$E uror i!#ius intus $ $ $ fre!it horridus ore cruento 4Birgil5$ T/)RD DE2)-)T)BE ART)CLE 2,R A PERPETUAL PEACE "The %a. of World 'iti7enshi# Shall Be %i!ited to 'onditions of 8niversal Hos#itality" /ere" as in the preceding articles" it is not a 7uestion of philanthrop# but of right$ /ospitalit# !eans the right of a stranger not to be treated as an ene!# when he arri*es in the land of another$ ,ne !a# refuse to recei*e hi! when this can be done without causing his destruction' but" so long as he peacefull# occupies his place" one !a# not treat hi! with hostilit#$ )t is not the right to be a per!anent *isitor that one !a# de!and$ A special beneficent agree!ent would be needed in order to gi*e an outsider a right to beco!e a fellow inhabitant for a certain length of ti!e$ )t is onl# a right of te!porar# so ourn" a right to associate" which all !en ha*e$ The# ha*e it b# *irtue of their co!!on possession of the surface of the earth" where" as a globe" the# cannot infinitel# disperse and hence !ust finall# tolerate the presence of each other$ ,riginall#" no one had !ore right than another to a particular part of the earth$ Uninhabitable parts of the earth&&the sea and the deserts&&di*ide this co!!unit# of all !en" but the ship and the ca!el 4the desert ship5 enable the! to approach each other across these unruled regions and to establish co!!unication b# using the co!!on right to the face of the earth" which belongs to hu!an beings generall#$ The inhospitalit# of the inhabitants of coasts 4for instance" of the %arbar# Coast5 in robbing ships in neighboring seas or ensla*ing stranded tra*elers" or the inhospitalit# of the inhabitants of the deserts 4for instance" the %edouin Arabs5 who *iew contact with no!adic tribes as conferring the right to plunder the!" is thus opposed to natural law" e*en though it e+tends the right of hospitalit#" i$e$" the pri*ilege of foreign arri*als" no further than to conditions of the possibilit# of seeking to co!!unicate with the prior inhabitants$ )n this wa# distant parts of the world can co!e into peaceable relations with each other" and these are finall# publicl# established b# law$ Thus the hu!an race can graduall# be brought closer and closer to a constitution establishing world citi8enship$ %ut to this perfection co!pare the inhospitable actions of the ci*ili8ed and especiall# of the co!!ercial states of our part of the world$ The in ustice which the# show to lands and peoples the# *isit 4which is e7ui*alent to con7uering the!5 is carried b# the! to terrif#ing lengths$ A!erica" the lands inhabited b# the -egro" the (pice )slands" the Cape" etc$" were at the ti!e of their disco*er# considered b# these ci*ili8ed intruders as lands without owners" for the# counted the inhabitants as nothing$ )n East )ndia 4/industan5" under the pretense of establishing econo!ic undertakings" the# brought in foreign soldiers and used the! to oppress the nati*es" e+cited widespread wars a!ong the *arious states" spread fa!ine" rebellion" perfid#" and the whole litan# of e*ils which afflict !ankind$

China F and 6apan 4-ippon5" who ha*e had e+perience with such guests" ha*e wisel# refused the! entr#" the for!er per!itting their approach to their shores but not their entr#" while the latter per!it this approach to onl# one European people" the Dutch" but treat the! like prisoners" not allowing the! an# co!!unication with the inhabitants$ The worst of this 4or" to speak with the !oralist" the best5 is that all these outrages profit the! nothing" since all these co!!ercial *entures stand on the *erge of collapse" and the (ugar )slands" that place of the !ost refined and cruel sla*er#" produces no real re*enue e+cept indirectl#" onl# ser*ing a not *er# praiseworth# purpose of furnishing sailors for war fleets and thus for the conduct of war in Europe$ This ser*ice is rendered to powers which !ake a great show of their piet#" and" while the# drink in ustice like water" the# regard the!sel*es as the elect in point of orthodo+#$ (ince the narrower or wider co!!unit# of the peoples of the earth has de*eloped so far that a *iolation of rights in one place is felt throughout the world" the idea of a law of world citi8enship is no high&flown or e+aggerated notion$ )t is a supple!ent to the unwritten code of the ci*il and international law" indispensable for the !aintenance of the public hu!an rights and hence also of perpetual peace$ ,ne cannot flatter oneself into belie*ing one can approach this peace e+cept under the condition outlined here$ .o to the 2irst (upple!ent" 3,f the .uarantee for Perpetual Peace3 .o the the (econd (upple!ent" 3(ecret Article for Perpetual Peace3 .o to Appendi+ )" 3,n the ,pposition %etween 0oralit# and Politics With Respect to Perpetual Peace3 .o to Appendi+ ))" 3,f the /ar!on# Which the Transcendental Concept of Public Right Established %etween 0oralit# and Politics3

ootnotes
:$ A hereditar# kingdo! is not a state which can be inherited b# another state" but the right to go*ern it can be inherited b# another ph#sical person$ The state thereb# ac7uires a ruler" but he" as a ruler 4i$e$" as one alread# possessing another real!5" does not ac7uire the state$ 9$ )t has not without cause hitherto been doubted whether besides the co!!ands 4le&es #raece#tivae" and prohibitions 4le&es #rohi*itivae" there could also be per!issi*e laws 4le&es #er!issivae" of pure reason$ 2or laws as such contain a principle of ob ecti*e practical necessit#" while per!ission i!plies a principle of the practical contingenc# of certain actions$ /ence a law of per!ission would i!pl# constraint to an action to do that to which no one can be constrained$ )f the ob ect of the law has the sa!e !eaning in both cases" this is a contradiction$ %ut in per!issi*e law" which is in 7uestion here" the prohibition refers onl# to the future !ode of ac7uisition of a right 4e$g$" b# succession5" while the per!ission annuls this prohibition onl# with reference to the present possession$ This possession" though onl# putati*e" !a# be held to be ust 4#ossessio #utative" in the transition fro! the state of nature to a ci*il state" b# *irtue of a per!issi*e law included under natural law" e*en though it is <strictl#= illegal$ %ut" as soon as it is

recogni8ed as illegal in the state of nature" a si!ilar !ode of ac7uisition in the subse7uent ci*il state 4after this transition has occurred5 is forbidden" and this right to continuing possession would not hold if such a presu!pti*e ac7uisition had taken place in the ci*il state$ 2or in this case it would be an infringe!ent which would ha*e to cease as soon as its illegalit# was disco*ered$ ) ha*e wished onl# to call the attention of the teachers of natural law to the concept of a le, #er!issive$ which s#ste!atic reason affords" particularl# since in ci*il 4statute5 law use is often !ade of it$ %ut in the ordinar# use of it" there is this differenceC prohibiti*e law stands alone" while per!ission is not introduced into it as a li!iting condition 4as it should be5 but counted a!ong the e+ceptions to it$ Then it is said" 3This or that is forbidden" e+cept -os$ :" 9" ;"3 and so on indefinitel#$ These e+ceptions are added to the law onl# as an afterthought re7uired b# our groping around a!ong cases as the# arise" and not b# an# principle$ ,therwise the conditions would ha*e had to be introduced into the for!ula of the prohibition" and in this wa# it would itself ha*e beco!e a per!issi*e law$ )t is" therefore" unfortunate that the subtle 7uestion proposed b# the wise and acute Count *on WindischgrGt8 was ne*er answered and soon consigned to obli*ion" because it insisted on the point here discussed$ 2or the possibilit# of a for!ula si!ilar to those of !athe!atics is the onl# legiti!ate criterion of a consistent legislation" and without it the so&called ius certu! !ust alwa#s re!ain a pious wish$ ,therwise we shall ha*e !erel# general laws 4which appl# to a great nu!ber of cases5" but no uni*ersal laws 4which appl# to all cases5 as the concept of law see!s to re7uires$ ;$ We ordinaril# assu!e that no one !a# act ini!icall# toward another e+cept when he has been acti*el# in ured b# the other$ This is 7uite correct if both are under ci*il law" for" b# entering into such a state" the# afford each other the re7uisite securit# through the so*ereign which has power o*er both$ 0an 4or the people5 in the state of nature depri*es !e of this securit# and in ures !e" if he is near !e" b# this !ere status of his" e*en though he does not in ure !e acti*el# 4facto5' he does so b# the lawlessness of his condition 4statu iniusto" which constantl# threatens !e$ Therefore" ) can co!pel hi! either to enter with !e into a state of ci*il law or to re!o*e hi!self fro! !# neighborhood$ The postulate which is basic to all the following articles isC All !en who can reciprocall# influence each other !ust stand under so!e ci*il constitution$ E*er# uridical constitution which concerns the person who stands under it is one of the followingC 4:5 The constitution confor!ing to the ci*il law of !en in a nation 4ius civitatis". 495 The constitution confor!ing to the law of nations in their relation to one another 4ius &entiu!5$ 4;5 The constitution confor!ing to the law of world citi8enship" so far as !en and states are considered as citi8ens of a uni*ersal state of !en" in their e+ternal !utual relationships 4ius cos!o#oliticu!".

This di*ision is not arbitrar#" being necessar# in relation to the idea of perpetual peace$ 2or if onl# one state were related to another b# ph#sical influence and were #et in a state of nature" war would necessaril# follow" and our purpose here is precisel# to free oursel*es of war$ A$ 6uridical 4and hence5 e+ternal freedo! cannot be defined" as is usual" b# the pri*ilege of doing an#thing one wills so long as he does not in ure another$ 2or what is a pri*ilege> )t is the possibilit# of an action so far as one does not in ure an#one b# it$ Then the definition would readC 2reedo! is the possibilit# of those actions b# which one does no one an in ur#$ ,ne does another no in ur# 4he !a# do as he pleases5 onl# if he does another no in ur#&&an e!pt# tautolog#$ Rather" !# e+ternal 4 uridical5 freedo! is to be defined as followsC )t is the pri*ilege to lend obedience to no e+ternal laws e+cept those to which ) could ha*e gi*en consent$ (i!ilarl#" e+ternal 4 uridical5 e7ualit# in a state is that relationship a!ong the citi8ens in which no one can lawfull# bind another without at the sa!e ti!e sub ecting hi!self to the law b# which he also can be bound$ -o definition of uridical dependence is needed" as this alread# lies in the concept of a state's constitution as such$ The *alidit# of these inborn rights" which are inalienable and belong necessaril# to hu!anit#" is raised to an e*en higher le*el b# the principle of the uridical relation of !an to higher beings" for" if he belie*es in the!" he regards hi!self b# the sa!e principles as a citi8en of a supersensuous world$ 2or in what concerns !# freedo!" ) ha*e no obligation with respect to di*ine law" which can be acknowledged b# !# reason alone" e+cept in so far as ) could ha*e gi*en !# consent to it$ )ndeed" it is onl# through the law of freedo! of !# own reason that ) fra!e a concept of the di*ine will$ With regard to the !ost subli!e reason in the world that ) can think of" with the e+ception of .od&&sa#" the great Aeon&&when ) do !# dut# in !# post as he does in his" there is no reason under the law of e7ualit# wh# obedience to dut# should fall onl# to !e and the right to co!!and onl# to hi!$ The reason wh# this principle of e7ualit# does not pertain to our relation to .od 4as the principle of freedo! does5 is that this %eing is the onl# one to which the concept of dut# does not appl#$ %ut with respect to the right of e7ualit# of all citi8ens as sub ects" the 7uestion of whether a hereditar# nobilit# !a# be tolerated turns upon the answer to the 7uestion as to whether the pre& e!inent rank granted b# the state to one citi8en o*er another ought to precede !erit or follow it$ -ow it is ob*ious that" if rank is associated with birth" it is uncertain whether !erit 4political skill and integrit#5 will also follow' hence it would be as if a fa*orite without an# !erit were gi*en co!!and$ The general will of the people would ne*er agree to this in the original contract" which is the principle of all law" for a noble!an is not necessaril# a noble !an$ With regard to the nobilit# of office 4as we !ight call the rank of the higher !agistrac#5 which one !ust earn b# !erit" this rank does not belong to the person as his propert#' it belongs to his post" and e7ualit# is not thereb# infringed" because when a !an 7uits his office he renounces the rank it confers and re&enters into the class of his fellows$ @$ The loft# epithets of 3the Lord's anointed$$$$$$ the e+ecutor of the di*ine will on earth"3 and 3the *icar of .od"3 which ha*e been la*ished on so*ereigns" ha*e been fre7uentl# censured as crude and into+icating flatteries$ %ut this see!s to !e without good reason$ 2ar fro! inspiring a !onarch with pride" the# should rather render hi! hu!ble" pro*iding he possesses so!e intelligence 4which we !ust assu!e5$ The# should !ake hi! reflect that he has taken an office

too great for !an" an office which is the holiest .od has ordained on earth" to be the trustee of the rights of !en" and that he !ust alwa#s stand in dread of ha*ing in so!e wa# in ured this 3apple of .od's e#e$3 ?$ 0allet du Pan" in his po!pous but e!pt# and hollow language" pretends to ha*e beco!e con*inced" after long e+perience" of the truth of Pope's well&known sa#ingC 32or for!s of go*ern!ent let fools contestC Whate'er is best ad!inistered" is best$3 )f that !eans that the best&ad!inistered state is the state that is best ad!inistered" he has" to !ake use of (wift's e+pression" 3cracked a nut to co!e at a !aggot$3 %ut if it !eans that the best&ad!inistered state also has the best !ode of go*ern!ent" i$e$" the best constitution" then it is thoroughl# wrong" for e+a!ples of good go*ern!ents pro*e nothing about the for! of go*ern!ent$ Whoe*er reigned better than a Titus and a 0arcus Aurelius> 1et one was succeeded b# a Do!itian and the other b# a Co!!odus$ This could ne*er ha*e happened under a good constitution" for their unworthiness for this post was known earl# enough and also the power of the ruler was sufficient to ha*e e+cluded the!$ D$ A %ulgarian prince ga*e the following answer to the .reek e!peror who good&naturedl# suggested that the# settle their difference b# a duelC 3A s!ith who has tongs won't pluck the glowing iron fro! the fire with his bare hands$3 E$ )t would not ill beco!e a people that has ust ter!inated a war to decree" besides a da# of thanksgi*ing" a da# of fasting in order to ask hea*en" in the na!e of the state" for forgi*eness for the great ini7uit# which the hu!an race still goes on to perpetuate in refusing to sub!it to a lawful constitution in their relation to other peoples" preferring" fro! pride in their independence" to !ake use of the barbarous !eans of war e*en though the# are not able to attain what is sought" na!el#" the rights of a single state$ The thanksgi*ing for *ictor# won during the war" the h#!ns which are sung to the .od of /osts 4in good )sraelitic !anner5" stand in e7uall# sharp contrast to the !oral idea of the 2ather of 0en$ 2or the# not onl# show a sad enough indifference to the wa# in which nations seek their rights" but in addition e+press a o# in ha*ing annihilated a !ultitude of !en or their happiness$ F$To call this great e!pire b# the na!e it gi*es itself" na!el# 3China3 and not 3(ina3 or an#thing like that" we ha*e onl# to refer to <A$= .eorgi" )l#ha*etu! Ti*etanu!" pp$ ?@:&@A" especiall# note b$ According to the note of Professor <6ohann Eberhard= 2ischer of Petersburg" there is no definite word used in that countr# as its na!e' the !ost usual word is 3Hin"3 i$e$" gold 4which the Tibetans call 3(er35$ Accordingl#" the e!peror is called 3the king of gold"3 that is" king of the !ost splendid countr# in the world$ )n the e!pire itself" this word !a# be pronounced 'hin" while because of the 'guttural sound the )talian !issionaries !a# ha*e called it 9in$&&)t is clear that what the Ro!ans called the 3Land of (eres3 was China' the silk" howe*er" was sent to Europe across .reater Tibet 4through Lesser Tibet" %ukhara" Persia" and then on5$ This suggests !an# reflections concerning the anti7uit# of this wonderful state" in co!parison with that of /industan at the ti!e of its union with Tibet and thence with 6apan$ We see" on the

contrar#" that the na!e 3(ina3 or 3Tshina"3 said to ha*e been used b# the neighbors of the countr#" suggests nothing$ Perhaps we can also e+plain the *er# ancient but ne*er well&known intercourse of Europe with Tibet b# considering the shout" 4'9on, 5!#a,'5" of the hierophants in the Eleusinian !#steries" as we learn fro! /#sichius 4cf$Travels of the :oun& )nacharsis$ Part B" p$ AAD ff$5$ 2or" according to .eorgi" o#. cit.$ the word 'oncoia !eans .od" which has a striking rese!blance to 9on,$ Pah;cio 4i*id.$ @9I5" which the .reeks !a# well ha*e pronounced pa+" !eans the #ro!ul&ator le&is" di*init# per*ading the whole of nature 4also called 'encresi" p$ :DD5$ 5!" howe*er" which La Cro8e translates as *enedictus 43blessed35" when applied to di*init# perhaps !eans 3the beatified3 4p$ @ID5$ P$ 2ran8 ,ra8io often asked the La!as of Tibet what the# understood b# 3.od3 4'oncoia5 and alwa#s got the answer" 3)t is the asse!bl# of saints3 4i$e$" the asse!bl# of the blessed ones who" according to the doctrine of rebirth" finall#" after !an# wanderings through bodies of all kinds" ha*e returned to .od" or Burchane' that is to sa#" the# are trans!igrated souls" beings to be worshiped" p$ 99;5$ That !#sterious e+pression 9on, 5!#a, !a# well !ean 3the hol#3 49on,5" the blessed 45!5" the wise 4Pa,5" the supre!e being per*ading the world 4nature personified5$ )ts use in the .reek !#steries !a# indicate !onotheis! a!ong the epopts in contrast to the pol#theis! of the people 4though ,ra8io scented atheis! there5$ /ow that !#sterious word ca!e to the .reeks *ia Tibet can perhaps be e+plained in this wa#' and the earl# traffic of Europe with China" also through Tibet" and perhaps earlier than co!!unication with /industan" is !ade probable$

2or a Polish translation of this essa#" seeC httpCJJwww$autoteiledirekt$deJscienceJi!!anuel&kant&wiec8nego&poko u& philosophical&sketch

Return to Vinnie<s Ho!e Pa&e .o to the 2irst (upple!ent" 3,f the .uarantee for Perpetual Peace3 .o the the (econd (upple!ent" 3(ecret Article for Perpetual Peace3 .o to Appendi+ )" 3,n the ,pposition %etween 0oralit# and Politics With Respect to Perpetual Peace3 .o to Appendi+ ))" 3,f the /ar!on# Which the Transcendental Concept of Public Right Established %etween 0oralit# and Politics3