This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by SØRENSEN, G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Kant and Processes of Democratization: Consequences for Neorealist Thought

Institute of Political Science, University of Aarhus

Does the spread of democracy present a bright future, with peace among nations? The theoretical foundation for expecting peace to flow from democracy was set forth by Immanuel Kant. According to the interpretation in this article, Kant's notion of a pacific union of democracies rests on three pillars; first, the mere existence of democracies with their culture of peaceful resolution of conflict; second, the common moral bonds which are forged between democracies on this basis; third, the democracies' economic cooperation towards mutual advantage. The paper analyses each of the three conditions in the light of recent processes of democratization. It concludes that the emergence of a global pacific union embracing all the new and old democracries cannot be taken for granted. Success for the pacific union demands that the three basic conditions laid down by Kant are met by all members. Presently, this is far from the case. A pacific union is a reality among the industrialized democracies in the West; it may expand to include several of the new democracies in the East. Yet most of the democracies in the South fail to meet at least two of Kant's conditions, and instead of further democratic progress, they may backslide towards authoritarian rule. Finally, the article argues that it is possible to accept Kant's vision without rejecting basic insights of neorealism. The distance between Kant's idealism and neorealism is often overdone, as in Mearsheimer's analysis. A pacific union is the type of anarchy called a security community. It is only the extreme vision of Mearsheimerian neorealism with its one-sided emphasis on raw anarchy, and patterns of alliance and threat between anonymous state-units as the only sources of peace and war, which creates an insurmountable gulf between neorealism and Kantian thinking.

Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, 397-414 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343392029004004


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. A. WEITSMAN and G. E. SHAMBAUGH International Systems, Domestic Structures, and Risk Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 2002; 39(3): 289 - 312. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Gates, T. L. Knutsen, and J. W. Moses Democracy and Peace: A More Skeptical View Journal of Peace Research, February 1, 1996; 33(1): 1 - 10.

				C. W. KEGLEY JR and M. G. HERMANN The Political Psychology of `Peace through Democratization' Cooperation and Conflict, March 1, 1995; 30(1): 5 - 30. [Abstract]

				D. ROY Neorealism and Kant: No Pacific Union Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 1993; 30(4): 451 - 453. [Abstract]

				G. SORENSEN A Rejoinder Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 1993; 30(4): 453 - 454.

				N. P. GLEDITSCH Democracy and Peace Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 1992; 29(4): 369 - 376.