The Global Questions Series: Number 16 - A Clash Between Idealism and Realism

The Yin and Yang Of International Relations

Contents

1. Introduction

2. The Illusion of Kantian Stability

3. The Institutional Failure Problem

4. Flawed Incentives and The Global World Order

5. Concluding Remarks

---

Bitesize Edition

• Idealism and Realism clash over how we view human nature, international relations, and power. In an idealistic view, cooperation can contribute to a better future, institutions are important, and morality and rationality can guide foreign policy. In realism, nations act in self-interest, seek more power through military strength and economic dominance, and survival dictates foreign policy.

• Idealists believe that the world can be stable through established rules, whereas Realists believe the world is chaotic, and power brings order. A man who laid out some beliefs that heavily connect to both of these ideologies is Immanuel Kant, who laid out his vision for Europe in 1795.

• Some of the ideas proposed by Kant are visible within the European Union today, such as an environment of peace, whereas other ideas have been recognised as flawed, such as its fragmented economic system. What can we learn about our world today from Kant’s ideas over 200 years ago, and how can we determine the problems that exist in our global system today through the lenses of realism and idealism? Let’s explore below.

---

Introduction

In his 1795 essay “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch”, Immanuel Kant laid out his European vision. It involved a federation of republics existing peacefully under the rule of law. It would be a voluntary group that resolved conflict without war. Republics were preferred to monarchies since Kant believed they were less likely to wage wars since people had a say, and they were the biggest losers of traditional wars. Trade between nations was also mentioned, which acted as a foundation for modern theories of globalisation that exist today. One of Kant’s biggest ideas was to abolish all standing armies since they fuel perpetual conflict.

From my high horse, over two hundred years after Kant wrote this, and with him not here to defend himself, let’s break his essay down. Do you believe his essay was rational, or was it heavily flawed? From this writing, what can we understand about our world today, and how can it help formulate improvements in our global system? Let’s dive in.

---

The Illusion of Kantian Stability

In general, I’d say his hope was more rational than irrational. In writing his essay, Kant had a noble aim: He wanted to provide a moral and institutional framework for global stability. Many of his ideas persist today due to real-world examples of success. For example, institutions can generally moderate conflict and promote cooperation. Also, economic interdependence was promoted as a strategy to reduce incentives for nations to go to war, which we see with the United States and China today. Also, democracies rarely go to war with each other. Kant recognised these structural incentives as strategies to reduce conflict. His approach was a pragmatic one, a concept I believe we should all sprinkle into our world views.

The European Union has many characteristics of a grouping Kant proposed, and the United Nations took many of Kant’s aspects in its formation. Kant’s vision of peace through democracy, the rule of law, and economic interdependence wasn’t a roadmap, it was how things ought to be morally. This makes it very interesting that there are multiple examples of such a proposal that exist in the world today, all of which differ in their interpreted level of success, but alas, that’s a discussion for another day.

However, his proposal became flawed when Kant hoped reason and moral compass alone would lead to this peace. On multiple occasions throughout history, Europe has been incentivised to pursue a strategy to maintain peace on the continent, especially at moments of weakness when it is time to rebuild. Whether the Concert of Europe or the European Union today, no strategy is without its issues that eventually unravel. Typically, this isn’t the natural state of the world since power struggles often override morality, institutionalisation, democracy, and economic interdependence.

Photo by Birger Strahl on Unsplash

Today, we see Russia’s conflict in Ukraine, and with Trump looking like he will leave European security to Europe, the continent is scrambling. One of Kant’s proposed strategies was to end standing armies, but Europe's aim to rearm implies that they believe the opposite. Conflict can still arise even if no armies exist because of the hybrid nature of war today. Anybody with an Amazon account and an explosives expert can create a weaponised drone. The barriers of entry to war have fallen, and acts of terrorism and extremism have emerged in recent decades. Even if Kant wanted to prevent military competition, the world we live in today is trending in the opposite direction, even with defensive alliances such as NATO existing that could be interpreted as a Kantian success or failure.

A question towards the EU and if it is a success or failure when all is said and done will likely be affected dramatically by the next few years. Such conclusions made at the point of this hypothetical future could give us greater insight into where Kant was right and where he was wrong, but for now, I believe any mistakes Kant made stem from incentives in our geopolitical world today.