{"id":6256,"date":"2013-03-04T21:58:34","date_gmt":"2013-03-05T02:58:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/?p=6256"},"modified":"2013-10-03T20:14:26","modified_gmt":"2013-10-04T00:14:26","slug":"conceptualizing-china-within-the-kantian-peace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/2013\/03\/conceptualizing-china-within-the-kantian-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"Conceptualizing China Within the Kantian Peace"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Immanuel Kant\u2019s 1795 essay, \u201cTo Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch\u201d (Zum ewigen Frieden), established a concept of cosmopolitan law as the nemesis of war, instilling in generations of thinkers and practitioners a vision of a world without conflict. Kant\u2019s paradigm posited that \u201crepublican constitutions, a commercial spirit of international trade, and a federation of interdependent republics\u201d would provide the basis for a \u201cperpetual peace\u201d amongst states bound together under international law. Yet cultural relativists since the time of Kant have argued that only certain nations\u2014namely those with a \u201cEuropeanized\u201d culture\u2014are capable of coming together to secure this lasting peace.<\/p>\n<p>This Article seeks to challenge such claims and assess the contemporary relevance of Kant\u2019s \u201cperpetual peace\u201d under international law in light of one of the most important geopolitical developments of our time: the rise of China. It is clear today that efforts to secure an enduring world peace without China have limited prospects for success. Amidst this reality, the Article argues that historical and contemporary claims regarding the irreconcilability of the Kantian paradigm with Chinese thought are inaccurate and incomplete. It presents evidence to rebut these cultural relativist arguments by identifying sources of resonance with Kant in classical Chinese political philosophy; highlighting Chinese scholars\u2019 ongoing engagement with Kant\u2019s writings over the past century; and revealing trends in recent Chinese scholarship and foreign policy discourse that support Kantian liberal internationalism.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Article demonstrates that modern China is increasingly committed to two pillars of the Kantian project, international institutions and commercial interdependence, but concludes that the rising power must develop a missing third pillar\u2014liberal democracy\u2014if it is to strengthen its normative commitment to international law and participate in a lasting peace amongst states. China\u2019s fate and the future of international law thus appear inextricably tied.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/HLI103.pdf\">Read full article (PDF)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Immanuel Kant\u2019s 1795 essay, \u201cTo Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch\u201d (Zum ewigen Frieden), established a concept of cosmopolitan law as [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6258,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_FSMCFIC_featured_image_caption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_nocaption":"","_FSMCFIC_featured_image_hide":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[123],"tags":[47],"class_list":["post-6256","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-print-archives","tag-laws-of-war"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/84\/2013\/03\/china-grt-wall.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZu3S-1CU","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6256","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6256"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6256\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6256"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6256"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/ilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6256"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}