Abstract

In recent years a debate has raged in American political science and philosophy about the validity of the hypothesis that the growth in the number of states with liberal-democratic polities will lead to a more stable and harmonious international order. This article travels down the path of democratic peace not with the present preoccupations in mind but rather with the intention of deciding what the argument looks like from Kant's and a Kantian perspective. In the literature on democratic peace Kant has been much referred to: it is true to say that he has become an emblem of the thesis. This is so to such an extent that authors need only cite Kant to show that they are engaging with the debate. The treatment of Kant in such articles tends to be quite cursory. Here I want to alter this emphasis by attempting to measure the democratic peace thesis by Kant's standards. There are intriguing differences of emphasis between current international liberal peace theorists and Kant's original argument which tell us a lot about the priorities of liberal internationalism now, and Kant's contrasting objectives for practical philosophy and humanity ingeneral