The Dilemmas of Just War and the Institutional Pacifism
The paper presents an extended argument for the view that it is a primary duty for all participants in international politics to create and keep in good shape a global peace-preserving system in the form of a very strong cosmopolitan institutional arrangement. The argument combines the Kantian view...
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/revus, |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Lenguaje: | Anglais |
| Publicado: |
Revus
2012
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Sumario: | The paper presents an extended argument for the view that it is a primary duty for all participants in international politics to create and keep in good shape a global peace-preserving system in the form of a very strong cosmopolitan institutional arrangement. The argument combines the Kantian view of institutional basic structure with Augustinian reservations about just war. It starts by listing reasons to believe that war creates perpetual and very dramatic moral conflicts for all participants. Given that such very dramatic moral conflicts are inacceptable, if follows that there is a very strong and urgent duty of everybody to work on prevention of war. Individual pacifism is too weak to guarantee peace, therefore an institutional »basic structure«is needed, in form of a reliable international system. Multi-polar systems do not guarantee peace, quite the contrary. The “democratic peace” is most successful when supported by supra-state systems. Therefore, the only practical way to secure peace is creation and preservation of a global peace-preserving system, i.e. a very strong cosmopolitan institutional arrangement. The role of small countries, like Slovenia, is to defend this line in institutions where they have voice stronger than their actual size, richness and power would procure, like in the UN and Security Council. |
|---|