Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

How does Kant’s critique of imperial expansion and colonialism anticipate later anti-imperial thought? What moral or legal arguments does he use to condemn conquest?

Compare Kant’s idea of moral autonomy to his vision of political autonomy. How do these concepts intersect in Perpetual Peace? How does Kant distinguish between morality and legality in his vision of international relations?

Why does Kant argue that republican constitutions are the only legitimate foundation for peace? What qualities distinguish a republic from other forms of government in his model? How do Kant’s arguments compare to those of other political theorists, such as Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

Is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace compatible with the existence of nationalism? Why or why not?

Kant condemns European colonial practices as violations of cosmopolitan right. How might his critique resonate with contemporary debates about globalization and migration? How might Kant’s idea of “a right to visit” (but not settle) be interpreted today in relation to refugees, asylum seekers, and/or global displacement?

What is the role of commerce in promoting peace, according to Kant? Does his idea of “the spirit of trade” hold true in a modern capitalist context? Why or why not?

Kant describes perpetual peace as a regulative idea rather than an achievable end state. What does this mean? How does it affect the work’s political implications?

Compare Kant’s notion of perpetual peace to other Enlightenment visions of progress, such as those of Voltaire or Condorcet. How are his ideas different or similar to the ideas of progress advanced by these other thinkers?