Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch

“No treaty of peace that tacitly reserves issues for a future war shall be held valid.”

This statement is the first of Kant’s Preliminary Articles. Kant immediately diagnoses the difference between armistice and genuine peace. A treaty signed in bad faith plants the seeds for future wars. This passage grounds the theme of The Moral Obligation of States in the idea that governments have a duty of sincerity. States that hide intentions violate the categorical imperative.

“A nation is not (like the ground on which it is located) a possession. It is a society of men whom no other than the nation itself can command or dispose of.”

Kant criticizes those who treat peoples and states as transferable possessions, which he argues contradicts moral law. This is a direct legal-moral claim: States as moral persons cannot be bought or bartered without violating rights. This idea rebukes Lockean property metaphors which are used to justify conquest. By distinguishing the people from the land, Kant elevates the moral personhood of the state.

“Standing armies shall be gradually abolished. For they constantly threaten other nations with war by giving the appearance that they are prepared for it, which goads nations into competing with one another.”

Kant uses the image of standing armies as a symbol of perpetual insecurity and a contrast to lasting peace. His diction highlights the performative nature of militarism: The mere existence of an army produces anxiety and rivalry. This aligns with the theme of Republican Constitutions as a Framework for Peace, since republican citizens, who bear the cost of war, would not vote for permanent military installations.