ImmanuelKant

PerpetualPeace:APhilosophicalSketch
1795

PERPETUALPEACE
WhetherthissatiricalinscriptiononaDutchinnkeeper'ssignuponwhichaburialgroundwas
paintedhadforitsobjectmankindingeneral,ortherulersofstatesinparticular,whoare
insatiableofwar,ormerelythephilosopherswhodreamthissweetdream,itisnotforusto
decide.Butoneconditiontheauthorofthisessaywishestolaydown.Thepracticalpolitician
assumestheattitudeoflookingdownwithgreatselfsatisfactiononthepoliticaltheoristasa
pedantwhoseemptyideasinnowaythreatenthesecurityofthestate,inasmuchasthe
statemustproceedonempiricalprinciplessothetheoristisallowedtoplayhisgame
withoutinterferencefromtheworldlywisestatesman.Suchbeinghisattitude,thepractical
politicianandthisistheconditionImakeshouldatleastactconsistentlyinthecaseofa
conflictandnotsuspectsomedangertothestateinthepoliticaltheorist'sopinionswhichare
venturedandpubliclyexpressedwithoutanyulteriorpurpose.Bythis
clausula

salvatoria
the
authordesiresformallyandemphaticallytodeprecateherewithanymalevolentinterpretation
whichmightbeplacedonhiswords.

SECTIONI
CONTAININGTHEPRELIMINARYARTICLESFORPERPETUALPEACEAMONG
STATES
1."NoTreatyofPeaceShallBeHeldValidinWhich
ThereIsTacitlyReservedMatterfor

a
Future

War"
Otherwiseatreatywouldbeonlyatruce,asuspensionofhostilitiesbutnotpeace,which
meanstheendofallhostilitiessomuchsothateventoattachtheword"perpetual"toitisa
dubiouspleonasm.Thecausesformakingfuturewars(whichareperhapsunknowntothe
contractingparties)arewithoutexceptionannihilatedbythetreatyofpeace,evenifthey
shouldbedugoutofdustydocumentsbyacutesleuthing.Whenoneorbothpartiestoa
treatyofpeace,beingtooexhaustedtocontinuewarringwitheachother,makeatacit
reservation(
reservatiomentalis)i
nregardtooldclaimstobeelaboratedonlyatsomemore
favorableopportunityinthefuture,thetreatyismadeinbadfaith,andwehaveanartifice
worthyofthecasuistryofaJesuit.Consideredbyitself,itisbeneaththedignityofa
sovereign,justasthereadinesstoindulgeinthiskindofreasoningisunworthyofthedignity
ofhisminister.
Butif,inconsequenceofenlightenedconceptsofstatecraft,thegloryofthestateisplaced
initscontinualaggrandizementbywhatevermeans,myconclusionwillappearmerely
academicandpedantic.
2.
"NoIndependentStates,LargeorSmall,ShallComeu
nder
theDominionofAnotherState
byInheritance,Exchange,Purchase,orDonation"

Astateisnot,likethegroundwhichitoccupies,apieceofproperty(
patrimonium)
.Itisa
societyofmenwhomnooneelsehasanyrighttocommandortodisposeexceptthestate
itself.Itisatrunkwithitsownroots.Buttoincorporateitintoanotherstate,likeagraft,isto
destroyitsexistenceasamoralperson,reducingittoathingsuchincorporationthus
contradictstheideaoftheoriginalcontractwithoutwhichnorightoverapeoplecanbe
conceived.
1
EveryoneknowstowhatdangersEurope,theonlypartoftheworldwherethismannerof
acquisitionisknown,hasbeenbrought,evendowntothemostrecenttimes,bythe
presumptionthatstatescouldespouseoneanotheritisinpartanewkindofindustryfor
gainingascendancybymeansoffamilyalliancesandwithoutexpenditureofforces,andin
partawayofextendingone'sdomain.Alsothehiringoutoftroopsbyonestatetoanother,
sothattheycanbeusedagainstanenemynotcommontoboth,istobecountedunderthis
principleforinthismannerthesubjects,asthoughtheywerethingstobemanipulatedat
pleasure,areusedandalsousedup.
3.
"StandingArmies
(milesperpetuus)
ShallinTimeBeTotallyAbolished"
Fortheyincessantlymenaceotherstatesbytheirreadinesstoappearatalltimesprepared
forwartheyincitethemtocompetewitheachotherinthenumberofarmedmen,andthere
isnolimittothis.Forthisreason,thecostofpeacefinallybecomesmoreoppressivethan
thatofashortwar,andconsequentlyastandingarmyisitselfacauseofoffensivewar
wagedinordertorelievethestateofthisburden.Addtothisthattopaymentokillortobe
killedseemstoentailusingthemasmeremachinesandtoolsinthehandofanother(the
state),andthisishardlycompatiblewiththerightsofmankindinourownperson.Butthe
periodicandvoluntarymilitaryexercisesofcitizenswhotherebysecurethemselvesandtheir
countryagainstforeignaggressionareentirelydifferent.
Theaccumulationoftreasurewouldhavethesameeffect,for,ofthethreepowersthe
powerofarmies,ofalliances,andofmoneythethirdisperhapsthemostdependable
weapon.Suchaccumulationoftreasureisregardedbyotherstatesasathreatofwar,andif
itwerenotforthedifficultiesinlearningtheamount,itwouldforcetheotherstatetomakean
earlyattack.
4."NationalDebtsShallNotBeContractedwithaViewtotheExternalFrictionofStates"
Thisexpedientofseekingaidwithinorwithoutthestateisabovesuspicionwhenthe
purposeisdomesticeconomy(e.g.,theimprovementofroads,newsettlements,
establishmentofstoresagainstunfruitfulyears,etc.).Butasanopposingmachineinthe
antagonismofpowers,acreditsystemwhichgrowsbeyondsightandwhichisyetasafe
debtforthepresentrequirementsbecauseallthecreditorsdonotrequirepaymentatone
timeconstitutesadangerousmoneypower.Thisingeniousinventionofacommercial
people[England]inthiscenturyisdangerousbecauseitisawartreasurewhichexceedsthe
treasuresofallotherstatesitcannotbeexhaustedexceptbydefaultoftaxes(whichis
inevitable),thoughitcanbelongdelayedbythestimulustotradewhichoccursthroughthe
reactionofcreditonindustryandcommerce.Thisfacilityinmakingwar,togetherwiththe
inclinationtodosoonthepartofrulersaninclinationwhichseemsinborninhuman
natureisthusagreathindrancetoperpetualpeace.Therefore,toforbidthiscreditsystem
mustbeapreliminaryarticleofperpetualpeaceallthemorebecauseitmusteventually
entanglemanyinnocentstatesintheinevitablebankruptcyandopenlyharmthem.Theyare
thereforejustifiedinallyingthemselvesagainstsuchastateanditsmeasures.
5."NoStateShallbyForceInterferewiththeConstitution

orGovernment

ofAnotherState"

Forwhatistheretoauthorizeittodoso?Theoffense,perhaps,whichastategivestothe
subjectsofanotherstate?Rathertheexampleoftheevilintowhichastatehasfallen
becauseofitslawlessnessshouldserveasawarning.Moreover,thebadexamplewhich
onefreepersonaffordsanotherasa
scandalumacceptumi
snotaninfringementofhis
rights.Butitwouldbequitedifferentifastate,byinternalrebellion,shouldfallintotwoparts,
eachofwhichpretendedtobeaseparatestatemakingclaimtothewhole.Tolend
assistancetooneofthesecannotbeconsideredaninterferenceintheconstitutionofthe
otherstate(foritistheninastateofanarchy).Butsolongastheinternaldissensionhas
notcometothiscriticalpoint,suchinterferencebyforeignpowerswouldinfringeonthe
rightsofanindependentpeoplestrugglingwithitsinternaldiseasehenceitwoulditselfbe
anoffenseandwouldrendertheautonomyofallstatesinsecure.
6.
"NoStateShall,

during

War,PermitSuchActsofHostilityWhichWouldMakeMutual
ConfidenceintheSubsequentPeaceImpossible:SuchAretheEmployment

ofAssassins
(
percussore
s),Poisoners
(venefici
),BreachofCapitulation,andIncitementtoTreason
(perduellio)in
theOpposingState"
Thesearedishonorablestratagems.Forsomeconfidenceinthecharacteroftheenemy
mustremaineveninthemidstofwar,asotherwisenopeacecouldbeconcludedandthe
hostilitieswoulddegenerateintoawarofextermination(
belluminternecinum)
.War,
however,isonlythesadrecourseinthestateofnature(wherethereisnotribunalwhich
couldjudgewiththeforceoflaw)bywhicheachstateassertsitsrightbyviolenceandin
whichneitherpartycanbeadjudgedunjust(forthatwouldpresupposeajuridicaldecision)
inlieuofsuchadecision,theissueoftheconflict(asifgivenbyasocalled"judgmentof
God")decidesonwhichsidejusticelies.Butbetweenstatesnopunitivewar(
bellum
punitivum
)isconceivable,becausethereisnorelationbetweenthemofmasterandservant.
Itfollowsthatawarofextermination,inwhichthedestructionofbothpartiesandofalljustice
canresult,wouldpermitperpetualpeaceonlyinthevastburialgroundofthehumanrace.
Therefore,suchawarandtheuseofallmeansleadingtoitmustbeabsolutelyforbidden.
Butthatthemeansciteddoinevitablyleadtoitisclearfromthefactthattheseinfernalarts,
vileinthemselves,whenonceusedwouldnotlongbeconfinedtothesphereofwar.Take,
forinstance,theuseofspies
(utiexploratoribus).I
nthis,oneemploystheinfamyofothers
(whichcanneverbeentirelyeradicated)onlytoencourageitspersistenceevenintothe
stateofpeace,totheundoingoftheveryspiritofpeace.
Althoughthelawsstatedareobjectively,i.e.,insofarastheyexpresstheintentionofrulers,
mereprohibitions
(legesprohibitivae),s
omeofthemareofthatstrictkindwhichhold
regardlessofcircumstances
(legesstrictae)
andwhichdemandpromptexecution.Suchare
Nos.1,5,and6.Others,likeNos.2,3,and4,whilenotexceptionsfromtheruleoflaw,
neverthelessaresubjectivelybroader
(legeslatae)
inrespecttotheirobservation,
containingpermissiontodelaytheirexecutionwithout,however,losingsightoftheend.This
permissiondoesnotauthorize,underNo.2,forexample,delayinguntildoomsday(or,as
Augustususedtosay,ad
calendasGraecas)t
hereestablishmentofthefreedomofstates
whichhavebeendeprivedofiti.e.,itdoesnotpermitustofailtodoit,butitallowsadelay
topreventprecipitationwhichmightinjurethegoalstrivenfor.Fortheprohibitionconcerns
onlythemannerofacquisitionwhichisnolongerpermitted,butnotthepossession,which,
thoughnotbearingarequisitetitleofright,hasneverthelessbeenheldlawfulinall

statesby
thepublicopinionofthetime(thetimeoftheputativeacquisition).
2.

SECTIONII
CONTAININGTHEDEFINITIVEARTICLES
FORPERPETUALPEACEAMONGSTATES
Thestateofpeaceamongmenlivingsidebysideisnotthenaturalstate
(statusnaturalis)
thenaturalstateisoneofwar.Thisdoesnotalwaysmeanopenhostilities,butatleastan
unceasingthreatofwar.Astateofpeace,therefore,mustbe
established,
forinordertobe
securedagainsthostilityitisnotsufficientthathostilitiessimplybenotcommittedand,
unlessthissecurityispledgedtoeachbyhisneighbor(athingthatcanoccuronlyinacivil
state),eachmaytreathisneighbor,fromwhomhedemandsthissecurity,asanenemy.
3
FIRSTDEFINITIVEARTICLEFORPERPETUALPEACE

"TheCivilConstitutionofEveryStateShouldBeRepublican"
Theonlyconstitutionwhichderivesfromtheideaoftheoriginalcompact,andonwhichall
juridicallegislationofapeoplemustbebased,istherepublican.

4
Thisconstitutionis
established,firstly,byprinciplesofthefreedomofthemembersofasociety(asmen)
secondly,byprinciplesofdependenceofalluponasinglecommonlegislation(assubjects)
and,thirdly,bythelawoftheirequality(ascitizens).Therepublicanconstitution,therefore,
is,withrespecttolaw,theonewhichistheoriginalbasisofeveryformofcivilconstitution.
Theonlyquestionnowis:Isitalsotheonewhichcanleadtoperpetualpeace?
Therepublicanconstitution,besidesthepurityofitsorigin(havingsprungfromthepure
sourceoftheconceptoflaw),alsogivesafavorableprospectforthedesiredconsequence,
i.e.,perpetualpeace.Thereasonisthis:iftheconsentofthecitizensisrequiredinorderto
decidethatwarshouldbedeclared(andinthisconstitutionitcannotbutbethecase),
nothingismorenaturalthanthattheywouldbeverycautiousincommencingsuchapoor
game,decreeingforthemselvesallthecalamitiesofwar.Amongthelatterwouldbe:having
tofight,havingtopaythecostsofwarfromtheirownresources,havingpainfullytorepair
thedevastationwarleavesbehind,and,tofillupthemeasureofevils,loadthemselveswith
aheavynationaldebtthatwouldembitterpeaceitselfandthatcanneverbeliquidatedon
accountofconstantwarsinthefuture.But,ontheotherhand,inaconstitutionwhichisnot
republican,andunderwhichthesubjectsarenotcitizens,adeclarationofwaristheeasiest
thingintheworldtodecideupon,becausewardoesnotrequireoftheruler,whoisthe
proprietorandnotamemberofthestate,theleastsacrificeofthepleasuresofhistable,the
chase,hiscountryhouses,hiscourtfunctions,andthelike.Hemay,therefore,resolveon
warasonapleasurepartyforthemosttrivialreasons,andwithperfectindifferenceleave
thejustificationwhichdecencyrequirestothediplomaticcorpswhoareeverreadyto
provideit.
Inordernottoconfusetherepublicanconstitutionwiththedemocratic(asiscommonly
done),thefollowingshouldbenoted.Theformsofastate
(civitas)
canbedividedeither
accordingtothepersonswhopossessthesovereignpoweroraccordingtothemodeof
administrationexercisedoverthepeoplebythechief,whoeverhemaybe.Thefirstis
properlycalledtheformofsovereignty(
formaimperii),a
ndthereareonlythreepossible
formsofit:autocracy,inwhichone,aristocracy,inwhichsomeassociatedtogether,or
democracy,inwhichallthosewhoconstitutesociety,possesssovereignpower.Theymay
becharacterized,respectively,asthepowerofamonarch,ofthenobility,orofthepeople.
Theseconddivisionisthatbytheformofgovernment(
forma
regiminis)a

ndisbasedonthe
wayinwhichthestatemakesuseofitspowerthiswayisbasedontheconstitution,whichis

theactofthegeneralwillthroughwhichthemanypersonsbecomeonenation.Inthis
respectgovernmentiseitherrepublicanordespotic.Republicanismisthepoliticalprinciple
oftheseparationoftheexecutivepower(theadministration)fromthelegislativedespotism
isthatoftheautonomousexecutionbythestateoflawswhichithasitselfdecreed.Thusina
despotismthepublicwillisadministeredbytherulerashisownwill.Ofthethreeformsof
thestate,thatofdemocracyis,properlyspeaking,necessarilyadespotism,becauseit
establishesanexecutivepowerinwhich"all"decidefororevenagainstonewhodoesnot
agreethatis,"all,"whoarenotquiteall,decide,andthisisacontradictionofthegeneralwill
withitselfandwithfreedom.
Everyformofgovernmentwhichisnotrepresentativeis,properlyspeaking,withoutform.
Thelegislatorcanuniteinoneandthesamepersonhisfunctionaslegislativeandas
executorofhiswilljustaslittleastheuniversalofthemajorpremiseinasyllogismcanalso
bethesubsumptionoftheparticularundertheuniversalintheminor.Andeventhoughthe
othertwoconstitutionsarealwaysdefectivetotheextentthattheydoleaveroomforthis
modeofadministration,itisatleastpossibleforthemtoassumeamodeofgovernment
conformingtothespiritofarepresentativesystem(aswhenFrederickIIatleast
said
hewas
merelythefirstservantofthestate).
5
Ontheotherhand,thedemocraticmodeof
governmentmakesthisimpossible,sinceeveryonewishestobemaster.Therefore,wecan
say:thesmallerthepersonnelofthegovernment(thesmallerthenumberofrulers),the
greateristheirrepresentationandthemorenearlytheconstitutionapproachestothe
possibilityofrepublicanismthustheconstitutionmaybeexpectedbygradualreformfinally
toraiseitselftorepublicanism.Forthesereasonsitismoredifficultforanaristocracythan
foramonarchytoachievetheonecompletelyjuridicalconstitution,anditisimpossiblefora
democracytodosoexceptbyviolentrevolution.
Themodeofgovernments,

6
however,isincomparablymoreimportanttothepeoplethan
theformofsovereignty,althoughmuchdependsonthegreaterorlessersuitabilityofthe
lattertotheendof[good]government.Toconformtotheconceptoflaw,however,
governmentmusthavearepresentativeform,andinthissystemonlyarepublicanmodeof
governmentispossiblewithoutit,governmentisdespoticandarbitrary,whateverthe
constitutionmaybe.Noneoftheancientsocalled"republics"knewthissystem,andtheyall
finallyandinevitablydegeneratedintodespotismunderthesovereigntyofone,whichisthe
mostbearableofallformsofdespotism.
SECONDDEFINITIVEARTICLEFORAPERPETUALPEACE

"TheLawofNationsShallbeFoundedonaFederationofFreeStates"

Peoples,asstates,likeindividuals,maybejudgedtoinjureoneanothermerelybytheir
coexistenceinthestateofnature(i.e.,whileindependentofexternallaws).Eachofthen,
mayandshouldforthesakeofitsownsecuritydemandthattheothersenterwithitintoa
constitutionsimilartothecivilconstitution,forundersuchaconstitutioneachcanbesecure
inhisright.Thiswouldbealeagueofnations,butitwouldnothavetobeastateconsisting
ofnations.Thatwouldbecontradictory,sinceastateimpliestherelationofasuperior
(legislating)toaninferior(obeying),i.e.,thepeople,andmanynationsinonestatewould
thenconstituteonlyonenation.Thiscontradictsthepresupposition,forherewehaveto
weightherightsofnationsagainsteachothersofarastheyaredistinctstatesandnot
amalgamatedintoone.
Whenweseetheattachmentofsavagestotheirlawlessfreedom,preferringceaseless
combattosubjectiontoalawfulconstraintwhichtheymightestablish,andthuspreferring

senselessfreedomtorationalfreedom,weregarditwithdeepcontemptasbarbarity,
rudeness,andabrutishdegradationofhumanity.Accordingly,onewouldthinkthatcivilized
people(eachunitedinastate)wouldhastenallthemoretoescape,thesoonerthebetter,
fromsuchadepravedcondition.But,instead,eachstateplacesitsmajesty(foritisabsurd
tospeakofthemajestyofthepeople)inbeingsubjecttonoexternaljuridicalrestraint,and
thesplendorofitssovereignconsistsinthefactthatmanythousandsstandathiscommand
tosacrificethemselvesforsomethingthatdoesnotconcernthemandwithouthisneedingto
placehimselfintheleastdanger.
7
ThechiefdifferencebetweenEuropeanandAmerican
savagesliesinthefactthatmanytribesofthelatterhavebeeneatenbytheirenemies,while
theformerknowhowtomakebetteruseoftheirconqueredenemiesthantodineoffthem
theyknowbetterhowtousethemtoincreasethenumberoftheirsubjectsandthusthe
quantityofinstrumentsforevenmoreextensivewars.
Whenweconsidertheperversenessofhumannaturewhichisnakedlyrevealedinthe
uncontrolledrelationsbetweennations(thisperversenessbeingveiledinthestateofcivil
lawbytheconstraintexercisedbygovernment),wemaywellbeastonishedthattheword
"law"hasnotyetbeenbanishedfromwarpoliticsaspedantic,andthatnostatehasyet
beenboldenoughtoadvocatethispointofview.Uptothepresent,HugoGrotius,Pufendorf,
Vattel,andmanyotherirritatingcomfortershavebeencitedinjustificationofwar,though
theircode,philosophicallyordiplomaticallyformulated,hasnotandcannothavetheleast
legalforce,becausestatesassuchdonotstandunderacommonexternalpower.Thereis
noinstanceonrecordthatastatehaseverbeenmovedtodesistfromitspurposebecause
ofargumentsbackedupbythetestimonyofsuchgreatmen.Butthehomagewhicheach
statepays(atleastinwords)totheconceptoflawprovesthatthereisslumberinginmanan
evengreatermoraldispositiontobecomemasteroftheevilprincipleinhimself(whichhe
cannotdisclaim)andtohopeforthesamefromothers.Otherwisetheword"law"would
neverbepronouncedbystateswhichwishtowarupononeanotheritwouldbeusedonly
ironically,asaGallicprinceinterpreteditwhenhesaid,"Itistheprerogativewhichnature
hasgiventhestrongerthattheweakershouldobeyhim."
Statesdonotpleadtheircausebeforeatribunalwaraloneistheirwayofbringingsuit.But
bywaranditsfavorableissue,invictory,rightisnotdecided,andthoughbyatreatyof
peacethisparticularwarisbroughttoanend,thestateofwar,ofalwaysfindinganew
pretexttohostilities,isnotterminated.Norcanthisbedeclaredwrong,consideringthefact
thatinthisstateeachisthejudgeofhisowncase.Notwithstanding,theobligationwhich
meninalawlessconditionhaveunderthenaturallaw,andwhichrequiresthemtoabandon
thestateofnature,doesnotquiteapplytostatesunderthelawofnations,forasstatesthey
alreadyhaveaninternaljuridicalconstitutionandhavethusoutgrowncompulsionfrom
otherstosubmittoamoreextendedlawfulconstitutionaccordingtotheirideasofright.This
istrueinspiteofthefactthatreason,fromitsthroneofsuprememorallegislatingauthority,
absolutelycondemnswarasalegalrecourseandmakesastateofpeaceadirectduty,even
thoughpeacecannotbeestablishedorsecuredexceptbyacompactamongnations.
Forthesereasonstheremustbealeagueofaparticularkind,whichcanbecalledaleague
ofpeace
(foeduspacificum
),andwhichwouldbedistinguishedfromatreatyofpeace
(
pactum

pacis)
bythefactthatthelatterterminatesonlyonewar,whiletheformerseeksto
makeanendofallwarsforever.Thisleaguedoesnottendtoanydominionoverthepower
ofthestatebutonlytothemaintenanceandsecurityofthefreedomofthestateitselfandof

otherstatesinleaguewithit,withouttherebeinganyneedforthemtosubmittocivillaws
andtheircompulsion,asmeninastateofnaturemustsubmit.
Thepracticability(objectivereality)ofthisideaoffederation,whichshouldgraduallyspread
toallstatesandthusleadtoperpetualpeace,canbeproved.Foriffortunedirectsthata
powerfulandenlightenedpeoplecanmakeitselfarepublic,whichbyitsnaturemustbe
inclinedtoperpetualpeace,thisgivesafulcrumtothefederationwithotherstatessothat
theymayadheretoitandthussecurefreedomundertheideaofthelawofnations.Bymore
andmoresuchassociations,thefederationmaybegraduallyextended.
Wemayreadilyconceivethatapeopleshouldsay,"Thereoughttobenowaramongus,for
wewanttomakeourselvesintoastatethatis,wewanttoestablishasupremelegislative,
executive,andjudiciarypowerwhichwillreconcileourdifferencespeaceably."Butwhenthis
statesays,"Thereoughttobenowarbetweenmyselfandotherstates,eventhoughI
acknowledgenosupremelegislativepowerbywhichourrightsaremutuallyguaranteed,"it
isnotatallclearonwhatIcanbasemyconfidenceinmyownrightsunlessitisthefree
federation,thesurrogateofthecivilsocialorder,whichreasonnecessarilyassociateswith
theconceptofthelawofnationsassumingthatsomethingisreallymeantbythelatter.
Theconceptofalawofnationsasarighttomakewardoesnotreallymeananything,
becauseitisthenalawofdecidingwhatisrightbyunilateralmaximsthroughforceandnot
byuniversallyvalidpubliclawswhichrestrictthefreedomofeachone.Theonlyconceivable
meaningofsuchalawofnationsmightbethatitservesmenrightwhoaresoinclinedthat
theyshoulddestroyeachotherandthusfindperpetualpeaceinthevastgravethatswallows
boththeatrocitiesandtheirperpetrators.Forstatesintheirrelationtoeachother,there
cannotbeanyreasonablewayoutofthelawlessconditionwhichentailsonlywarexceptthat
they,likeindividualmen,shouldgiveuptheirsavage(lawless)freedom,adjustthemselves
totheconstraintsofpubliclaw,andthusestablishacontinuouslygrowingstateconsistingof
variousnations
(civitasgentium),
whichwillultimatelyincludeallthenationsoftheworld.But
undertheideaofthelawofnationstheydonotwishthis,andrejectinpracticewhatis
correctintheory.Ifallisnottobelost,therecanbe,then,inplaceofthepositiveideaofa
worldrepublic,onlythenegativesurrogateofanalliancewhichavertswar,endures,
spreads,andholdsbackthestreamofthosehostilepassionswhichfearthelaw,though
suchanallianceisinconstantperiloftheirbreakinglooseagain.
8

Furor

impiusintus.
..
fremithorridusorecruento
(Virgil).
THIRDDEFINITIVEARTICLEFORAPERPETUALPEACE

"TheLawofWorldCitizenshipShallBeLimitedtoConditionsofUniversalHospitality"
Here,asintheprecedingarticles,itisnotaquestionofphilanthropybutofright.Hospitality
meanstherightofastrangernottobetreatedasanenemywhenhearrivesinthelandof
another.Onemayrefusetoreceivehimwhenthiscanbedonewithoutcausinghis
destructionbut,solongashepeacefullyoccupieshisplace,onemaynottreathimwith
hostility.Itisnottherighttobeapermanentvisitorthatonemaydemand.Aspecial
beneficentagreementwouldbeneededinordertogiveanoutsiderarighttobecomea
fellowinhabitantforacertainlengthoftime.Itisonlyarightoftemporarysojourn,arightto
associate,whichallmenhave.Theyhaveitbyvirtueoftheircommonpossessionofthe
surfaceoftheearth,where,asaglobe,theycannotinfinitelydisperseandhencemustfinally
toleratethepresenceofeachother.Originally,noonehadmorerightthananothertoa
particularpartoftheearth.

Uninhabitablepartsoftheearththeseaandthedesertsdividethiscommunityofallmen,
buttheshipandthecamel(thedesertship)enablethemtoapproacheachotheracross
theseunruledregionsandtoestablishcommunicationbyusingthecommonrighttotheface
oftheearth,whichbelongstohumanbeingsgenerally.Theinhospitalityoftheinhabitantsof
coasts(forinstance,oftheBarbaryCoast)inrobbingshipsinneighboringseasorenslaving
strandedtravelers,ortheinhospitalityoftheinhabitantsofthedeserts(forinstance,the
BedouinArabs)whoviewcontactwithnomadictribesasconferringtherighttoplunder
them,isthusopposedtonaturallaw,eventhoughitextendstherightofhospitality,i.e.,the
privilegeofforeignarrivals,nofurtherthantoconditionsofthepossibilityofseekingto
communicatewiththepriorinhabitants.Inthiswaydistantpartsoftheworldcancomeinto
peaceablerelationswitheachother,andthesearefinallypubliclyestablishedbylaw.Thus
thehumanracecangraduallybebroughtcloserandclosertoaconstitutionestablishing
worldcitizenship.
Buttothisperfectioncomparetheinhospitableactionsofthecivilizedandespeciallyofthe
commercialstatesofourpartoftheworld.Theinjusticewhichtheyshowtolandsand
peoplestheyvisit(whichisequivalenttoconqueringthem)iscarriedbythemtoterrifying
lengths.America,thelandsinhabitedbytheNegro,theSpiceIslands,theCape,etc.,were
atthetimeoftheirdiscoveryconsideredbythesecivilizedintrudersaslandswithoutowners,
fortheycountedtheinhabitantsasnothing.InEastIndia(Hindustan),underthepretenseof
establishingeconomicundertakings,theybroughtinforeignsoldiersandusedthemto
oppressthenatives,excitedwidespreadwarsamongthevariousstates,spreadfamine,
rebellion,perfidy,andthewholelitanyofevilswhichafflictmankind.
China
9

andJapan(Nippon),whohavehadexperiencewithsuchguests,havewisely
refusedthementry,theformerpermittingtheirapproachtotheirshoresbutnottheirentry,
whilethelatterpermitthisapproachtoonlyoneEuropeanpeople,theDutch,buttreatthem
likeprisoners,notallowingthemanycommunicationwiththeinhabitants.Theworstofthis
(or,tospeakwiththemoralist,thebest)isthatalltheseoutragesprofitthemnothing,since
allthesecommercialventuresstandonthevergeofcollapse,andtheSugarIslands,that
placeofthemostrefinedandcruelslavery,producesnorealrevenueexceptindirectly,only
servinganotverypraiseworthypurposeoffurnishingsailorsforwarfleetsandthusforthe
conductofwarinEurope.Thisserviceisrenderedtopowerswhichmakeagreatshowof
theirpiety,and,whiletheydrinkinjusticelikewater,theyregardthemselvesastheelectin
pointoforthodoxy.
Sincethenarrowerorwidercommunityofthepeoplesoftheearthhasdevelopedsofarthat
aviolationofrightsinoneplaceisfeltthroughouttheworld,theideaofalawofworld
citizenshipisnohighflownorexaggeratednotion.Itisasupplementtotheunwrittencodeof
thecivilandinternationallaw,indispensableforthemaintenanceofthepublichumanrights
andhencealsoofperpetualpeace.Onecannotflatteroneselfintobelievingonecan
approachthispeaceexceptundertheconditionoutlinedhere.
GototheFirstSupplement,"OftheGuaranteeforPerpetualPeace"
GothetheSecondSupplement,"SecretArticleforPerpetualPeace"
GotoAppendixI,"OntheOppositionBetweenMoralityandPoliticsWithRespectto
PerpetualPeace"
GotoAppendixII,"OftheHarmonyWhichtheTranscendentalConceptofPublicRight
EstablishedBetweenMoralityandPolitics"

Footnotes
1.Ahereditarykingdomisnotastatewhichcanbeinheritedbyanotherstate,buttheright
togovernitcanbeinheritedbyanotherphysicalperson.Thestatetherebyacquiresaruler,
buthe,asaruler(i.e.,asonealreadypossessinganotherrealm),doesnotacquirethestate.
2.Ithasnotwithoutcausehithertobeendoubtedwhetherbesidesthecommands
(leges
praeceptivae)
andprohibitions
(legesprohibitivae)t
herecouldalsobepermissivelaws
(legespermissivae)
ofpurereason.Forlawsassuchcontainaprincipleofobjective
practicalnecessity,whilepermissionimpliesaprincipleofthepracticalcontingencyof
certainactions.Hencealawofpermissionwouldimplyconstrainttoanactiontodothatto
whichnoonecanbeconstrained.Iftheobjectofthelawhasthesamemeaninginboth
cases,thisisacontradiction.Butinpermissivelaw,whichisinquestionhere,theprohibition
refersonlytothefuturemodeofacquisitionofaright(e.g.,bysuccession),whilethe
permissionannulsthisprohibitiononlywithreferencetothepresentpossession.This
possession,thoughonlyputative,maybeheldtobejust
(possessioputative)
inthe
transitionfromthestateofnaturetoacivilstate,byvirtueofapermissivelawincludedunder
naturallaw,eventhoughitis[strictly]illegal.But,assoonasitisrecognizedasillegalinthe
stateofnature,asimilarmodeofacquisitioninthesubsequentcivilstate(afterthistransition
hasoccurred)isforbidden,andthisrighttocontinuingpossessionwouldnotholdifsucha
presumptiveacquisitionhadtakenplaceinthecivilstate.Forinthiscaseitwouldbean
infringementwhichwouldhavetoceaseassoonasitsillegalitywasdiscovered.
Ihavewishedonlytocalltheattentionoftheteachersofnaturallawtotheconceptofa
lex
permissive,
whichsystematicreasonaffords,particularlysinceincivil(statute)lawuseis
oftenmadeofit.Butintheordinaryuseofit,thereisthisdifference:prohibitivelawstands
alone,whilepermissionisnotintroducedintoitasalimitingcondition(asitshouldbe)but
countedamongtheexceptionstoit.Thenitissaid,"Thisorthatisforbidden,exceptNos.1,
2,3,"andsoonindefinitely.Theseexceptionsareaddedtothelawonlyasanafterthought
requiredbyourgropingaroundamongcasesastheyarise,andnotbyanyprinciple.
Otherwisetheconditionswouldhavehadtobeintroducedintotheformulaoftheprohibition,
andinthiswayitwoulditselfhavebecomeapermissivelaw.Itis,therefore,unfortunatethat
thesubtlequestionproposedbythewiseandacuteCountvonWindischgrtzwasnever
answeredandsoonconsignedtooblivion,becauseitinsistedonthepointherediscussed.
Forthepossibilityofaformulasimilartothoseofmathematicsistheonlylegitimatecriterion
ofaconsistentlegislation,andwithoutitthesocalled
iuscertum
mustalwaysremaina
piouswish.Otherwiseweshallhavemerelygenerallaws(whichapplytoagreatnumberof
cases),butnouniversallaws(whichapplytoallcases)astheconceptoflawseemsto
requires.
3.Weordinarilyassumethatnoonemayactinimicallytowardanotherexceptwhenhehas
beenactivelyinjuredbytheother.Thisisquitecorrectifbothareundercivillaw,for,by
enteringintosuchastate,theyaffordeachothertherequisitesecuritythroughthesovereign
whichhaspoweroverboth.Man(orthepeople)inthestateofnaturedeprivesmeofthis
securityandinjuresme,ifheisnearme,bythismerestatusofhis,eventhoughhedoesnot
injuremeactively(facto)hedoessobythelawlessnessofhiscondition
(statuiniusto)
which
constantlythreatensme.Therefore,Icancompelhimeithertoenterwithmeintoastateof
civillawortoremovehimselffrommyneighborhood.Thepostulatewhichisbasictoallthe

followingarticlesis:Allmenwhocanreciprocallyinfluenceeachothermuststandunder
somecivilconstitution.
Everyjuridicalconstitutionwhichconcernsthepersonwhostandsunderitisoneofthe
following:
(1)Theconstitutionconformingtothecivillawofmeninanation
(iuscivitatis).
(2)Theconstitutionconformingtothelawofnationsintheirrelationtooneanother(
ius
gentium
).
(3)Theconstitutionconformingtothelawofworldcitizenship,sofarasmenandstatesare
consideredascitizensofauniversalstateofmen,intheirexternalmutualrelationships
(ius
cosmopoliticum).
Thisdivisionisnotarbitrary,beingnecessaryinrelationtotheideaofperpetualpeace.Forif
onlyonestatewererelatedtoanotherbyphysicalinfluenceandwereyetinastateof
nature,warwouldnecessarilyfollow,andourpurposehereispreciselytofreeourselvesof
war.
4.Juridical(andhence)externalfreedomcannotbedefined,asisusual,bytheprivilegeof
doinganythingonewillssolongashedoesnotinjureanother.Forwhatisaprivilege?Itis
thepossibilityofanactionsofarasonedoesnotinjureanyonebyit.Thenthedefinition
wouldread:Freedomisthepossibilityofthoseactionsbywhichonedoesnooneaninjury.
Onedoesanothernoinjury(hemaydoashepleases)onlyifhedoesanothernoinjuryan
emptytautology.Rather,myexternal(juridical)freedomistobedefinedasfollows:Itisthe
privilegetolendobediencetonoexternallawsexceptthosetowhichIcouldhavegiven
consent.Similarly,external(juridical)equalityinastateisthatrelationshipamongthe
citizensinwhichnoonecanlawfullybindanotherwithoutatthesametimesubjecting
himselftothelawbywhichhealsocanbebound.Nodefinitionofjuridicaldependenceis
needed,asthisalreadyliesintheconceptofastate'sconstitutionassuch.
Thevalidityoftheseinbornrights,whichareinalienableandbelongnecessarilytohumanity,
israisedtoanevenhigherlevelbytheprincipleofthejuridicalrelationofmantohigher
beings,for,ifhebelievesinthem,heregardshimselfbythesameprinciplesasacitizenofa
supersensuousworld.Forinwhatconcernsmyfreedom,Ihavenoobligationwithrespectto
divinelaw,whichcanbeacknowledgedbymyreasonalone,exceptinsofarasIcouldhave
givenmyconsenttoit.Indeed,itisonlythroughthelawoffreedomofmyownreasonthatI
frameaconceptofthedivinewill.WithregardtothemostsublimereasonintheworldthatI
canthinkof,withtheexceptionofGodsay,thegreatAeonwhenIdomydutyinmypost
ashedoesinhis,thereisnoreasonunderthelawofequalitywhyobediencetodutyshould
fallonlytomeandtherighttocommandonlytohim.Thereasonwhythisprincipleof
equalitydoesnotpertaintoourrelationtoGod(astheprincipleoffreedomdoes)isthatthis
Beingistheonlyonetowhichtheconceptofdutydoesnotapply.
Butwithrespecttotherightofequalityofallcitizensassubjects,thequestionofwhethera
hereditarynobilitymaybetoleratedturnsupontheanswertothequestionastowhetherthe
preeminentrankgrantedbythestatetoonecitizenoveranotheroughttoprecedemeritor
followit.Nowitisobviousthat,ifrankisassociatedwithbirth,itisuncertainwhethermerit
(politicalskillandintegrity)willalsofollowhenceitwouldbeasifafavoritewithoutanymerit
weregivencommand.Thegeneralwillofthepeoplewouldneveragreetothisintheoriginal
contract,whichistheprincipleofalllaw,foranoblemanisnotnecessarilyanobleman.With
regardtothenobilityofoffice(aswemightcalltherankofthehighermagistracy)whichone
mustearnbymerit,thisrankdoesnotbelongtothepersonashispropertyitbelongstohis

post,andequalityisnottherebyinfringed,becausewhenamanquitshisofficehe
renouncestherankitconfersandreentersintotheclassofhisfellows.
5.Theloftyepithetsof"theLord'sanointed......theexecutorofthedivinewillonearth,"and
"thevicarofGod,"whichhavebeenlavishedonsovereigns,havebeenfrequentlycensured
ascrudeandintoxicatingflatteries.Butthisseemstomewithoutgoodreason.Farfrom
inspiringamonarchwithpride,theyshouldratherrenderhimhumble,providinghe
possessessomeintelligence(whichwemustassume).Theyshouldmakehimreflectthathe
hastakenanofficetoogreatforman,anofficewhichistheholiestGodhasordainedon
earth,tobethetrusteeoftherightsofmen,andthathemustalwaysstandindreadof
havinginsomewayinjuredthis"appleofGod'seye."
6.MalletduPan,inhispompousbutemptyandhollowlanguage,pretendstohavebecome
convinced,afterlongexperience,ofthetruthofPope'swellknownsaying:
"Forformsofgovernmentletfoolscontest:
Whate'erisbestadministered,isbest."
Ifthatmeansthatthebestadministeredstateisthestatethatisbestadministered,hehas,
tomakeuseofSwift'sexpression,"crackedanuttocomeatamaggot."Butifitmeansthat
thebestadministeredstatealsohasthebestmodeofgovernment,i.e.,thebestconstitution,
thenitisthoroughlywrong,forexamplesofgoodgovernmentsprovenothingabouttheform
ofgovernment.WhoeverreignedbetterthanaTitusandaMarcusAurelius?Yetonewas
succeededbyaDomitianandtheotherbyaCommodus.Thiscouldneverhavehappened
underagoodconstitution,fortheirunworthinessforthispostwasknownearlyenoughand
alsothepoweroftherulerwassufficienttohaveexcludedthem.
7.ABulgarianprincegavethefollowinganswertotheGreekemperorwhogoodnaturedly
suggestedthattheysettletheirdifferencebyaduel:"Asmithwhohastongswon'tpluckthe
glowingironfromthefirewithhisbarehands.
"
8.Itwouldnotillbecomeapeoplethathasjustterminatedawartodecree,besidesadayof
thanksgiving,adayoffastinginordertoaskheaven,inthenameofthestate,for
forgivenessforthegreatiniquitywhichthehumanracestillgoesontoperpetuateinrefusing
tosubmittoalawfulconstitutionintheirrelationtootherpeoples,preferring,frompridein
theirindependence,tomakeuseofthebarbarousmeansofwareventhoughtheyarenot
abletoattainwhatissought,namely,therightsofasinglestate.Thethanksgivingforvictory
wonduringthewar,thehymnswhicharesungtotheGodofHosts(ingoodIsraelitic
manner),standinequallysharpcontrasttothemoralideaoftheFatherofMen.Fortheynot
onlyshowasadenoughindifferencetothewayinwhichnationsseektheirrights,butin
additionexpressajoyinhavingannihilatedamultitudeofmenortheirhappiness.
9.Tocallthisgreatempirebythenameitgivesitself,namely"China"andnot"Sina"or
anythinglikethat,wehaveonlytoreferto[A.]Georgi,
AlphabetumTibetanum,
pp.65154,
especiallynoteb.AccordingtothenoteofProfessor[JohannEberhard]Fischerof
Petersburg,thereisnodefinitewordusedinthatcountryasitsnamethemostusualwordis
"Kin,"i.e.,gold(whichtheTibetanscall"Ser").Accordingly,theemperoriscalled"thekingof
gold,"thatis,kingofthemostsplendidcountryintheworld.Intheempireitself,thisword
maybepronounced
Chin
,whilebecauseofthe'gutturalsoundtheItalianmissionariesmay
havecalledit
Kin
.ItisclearthatwhattheRomanscalledthe"LandofSeres"wasChina

thesilk,however,wassenttoEuropeacrossGreaterTibet(throughLesserTibet,Bukhara,
Persia,andthenon).
Thissuggestsmanyreflectionsconcerningtheantiquityofthiswonderfulstate,in
comparisonwiththatofHindustanatthetimeofitsunionwithTibetandthencewithJapan.
Wesee,onthecontrary,thatthename"Sina"or"Tshina,"saidtohavebeenusedbythe
neighborsofthecountry,suggestsnothing.
PerhapswecanalsoexplaintheveryancientbutneverwellknownintercourseofEurope
withTibetbyconsideringtheshout,('
KonxOmpax
'),ofthehierophantsintheEleusinian
mysteries,aswelearnfromHysichius(cf.
TravelsoftheYoungAnacharsis,
PartV,p.447
ff.).For,accordingtoGeorgi,
op.cit.,
theword
Concoia
meansGod,whichhasastriking
resemblanceto
Konx
.
Pahcio(ibid.,
520),whichtheGreeksmaywellhavepronouncedpax,
meansthe
promulgatorlegis,
divinitypervadingthewholeofnature(alsocalled
Cencresi,
p.
177).
Om
,however,whichLaCrozetranslatesas
benedictus
("blessed"),whenappliedto
divinityperhapsmeans"thebeatified"(p.507).P.FranzOraziooftenaskedtheLamasof
Tibetwhattheyunderstoodby"God"(
Concoia)
andalwaysgottheanswer,"Itisthe
assemblyofsaints"(i.e.,theassemblyoftheblessedoneswho,accordingtothedoctrineof
rebirth,finally,aftermanywanderingsthroughbodiesofallkinds,havereturnedtoGod,or
Burchane
thatistosay,theyaretransmigratedsouls,beingstobeworshiped,p.223).That
mysteriousexpression
KonxOmpax
maywellmean"theholy"(
Konx
),theblessed(
Om
),the
wise(
Pax
),thesupremebeingpervadingtheworld(naturepersonified).ItsuseintheGreek
mysteriesmayindicatemonotheismamongtheepoptsincontrasttothepolytheismofthe
people(thoughOrazioscentedatheismthere).Howthatmysteriouswordcametothe
GreeksviaTibetcanperhapsbeexplainedinthiswayandtheearlytrafficofEuropewith
China,alsothroughTibet,andperhapsearlierthancommunicationwithHindustan,ismade
probable.

ForaPolishtranslationofthisessay,see:
http://www.autoteiledirekt.de/science/immanuelkantwiecznegopokojuphilosophicalsketch
ForaFrenchtranslationofthisessaybyVickyRotarova,see:
http://www.piecesdiscount24.fr/edu/?p=3529
ReturntoVinnie'sHomePage
GototheFirstSupplement,"OftheGuaranteeforPerpetualPeace"
GothetheSecondSupplement,"SecretArticleforPerpetualPeace"
GotoAppendixI,"OntheOppositionBetweenMoralityandPoliticsWithRespectto
PerpetualPeace"
GotoAppendixII,"OftheHarmonyWhichtheTranscendentalConceptofPublicRight
EstablishedBetweenMoralityandPolitics"