01 Jun Kant on War
01.06.07
|
2 Comments
“War is only a regrettable expedient for asserting one’s rights by force within a state of nature, where no court of justice is available to judge with legal authority.”
Immanuel Kant
Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch
An alternative translation of this is, “War, however, is only the sad recourse in the state of nature (where there is no tribunal which could judge with the force of law) by which each state asserts its right by violence and in which neither party can be adjudged unjust (for that would presuppose a juridical decision); in lieu of such a decision, the issue of the conflict (as if given by a so-called “judgment of God”) decides on which side justice lies.”
One can hardly disagree with Kant’s essential statement regarding war: it occurs by default, as it were, in the absence of successful legal and diplomatic efforts to avoid it. However, this does not address the question of whether the “rights” which are being asserted are or may be properly judged by “the decent opinions of mankind” and apart from any formal juridical process, to be in fact, rights at all. Nor does it specifically address the situation “where no court of justice is available” in the sense that one state simply refuses to recognize it or cynically uses it while it effectively thumbs it’s nose at the rule of law and proceeeds to wage a war of aggression regardless of extant legal mechanisms. War and its outcome do not constitute a “judgement of God” deciding “on which side justice lies”, nor are they acceptable substitutes for civilized, peaceful relations between states–especially in today’s world.
When you are not the aggressor, then I’d agree.
If you are the aggressor then I’d disagree. There are legal options for conflicts prior to the starting a war.