IMMANUEL KANT’S PERPETUAL PEACE MODEL: ITS RELEVANCE IN HUMAN RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DOCTRINE AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

IMMANUEL KANT’S PERPETUAL PEACE MODEL: ITS RELEVANCE IN
HUMAN RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
DOCTRINE AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
AUTHOR: BHANU PRATAP
LECTURER
AMITY UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW CAMPUS
INTRODUCTION
The paper will discuss the impact of Immanuel Kant’s Peace model in the 21 st century
and how this hypothetical model has affected the Human Rights Jurisprudence in the
21 st Century. Kant’s model has baffled theorists all over the globe. But it seems that the
Doctrine of Responsibility to protect has found the solution to put Kant’s ideas in
motion. This doctrine is applicable for the political inclusion of Fail / Weak States who
are constant violators of Human Rights. The paper argues that Responsibility to Protect
when read with the medieval Christian doctrine of Vindicae Contra Tyrannos and
Subsidiarity, provides a practical application of Kant’s model .This will improve the
Human Rights situation in the Fail/ Weak States.
SECTION I
KANT’S PEACE MODEL
Kant’s Perpetual peace model was primarily based on the idea of Trans nationalism and
interdependence among States.

James Rosneau defines trans nationalism as follows:

"the processes whereby international relations conducted by government have been
supplemented by relations among private individuals group and society that can and do

have important consequences for the course of events." 1 In focusing on transnational
relation, sociological liberal are reasserting and old tradition in international relation
Robert Jackson , Georg Sorenson , ‘ Introduction to International Relations .’ Theories And Approaches (New
Delhi : Oxford University Press . ( 2008 ) Page 201

1

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 255


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

that relation between people are more cooperative than government who compete to
survive.
Karl Deutsch was a leading figure in the study of transnational relations. He
argued that a high degree of transnational ties between societies leads to peaceful
relations that means more than absence of war. It brings integration or in other world a
sense of community where people resolve their disputes without resort to large scale
physical force. 2 The tools of responsibility to protect further support this argument.
This idea was taken to a whole new level by the work of John Burton. He wrote
a book entitled "World Society" in which he envisioned a 'Cobweb model' of
transnational realist. Burton points out that the Cobweb model shows a world driven by
mutual exchange of benefits and the relationship between States is cooperative and

symbiotic in nature.

This is in complete contrast to the Realist view which shows

States as a set of billiards ball i.e. set of independent and self contained units. This
shows that conflicts will be muted at best and overlapping membership minimize the
risk of conflicts between two nations.

Rosneau thus supports a pluralistic world

supported by transnational and individual. The basic idea being that since individuals
are a part of numerous cosmopolitan groups then their overlapping interest will not
divide them in antagonistic groups. 3
This idea of Rosneau is a modern application of Immanuel Kant's utopia
'Perpetual Peace'. Kant's idea is built on the basic premise that liberal democracies are
more peaceful and law abiding than the other political systems. It does not mean that
democracies will never go to war with each other, but the friction will be minimized to
a large extent. Kant's model required a peaceful international relation. He presented
international relation as a State of nature not governed by any higher legal authority.
The only way out is the peace agreement. Kant was of the view that republics will be
reliable treaty partners because they are ruled by responsible as well as responsive
leaders. Thus, a federation of such republic would be able to establish a stable peace
among them. Fernando Teson is of the view that liberal State give preference to liberal
2
3

Ibid, page 102.
Ibid.

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity

http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 256


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

government in recognition decision and that liberal government should intervene in
liberal State in situation of civil conflict or massive human rights abuse to setup liberal
government. 4

Kant's idea of liberal Democratic and Humanitarian Intervention: Before
discussing the ideas of Kant regarding humanitarian intervention it is important to
understand his concept of liberal democratic peace or perpetual peace, as it is the
foundation of liberal thought. Policy makers, especially in the west have cited this as an
example to justify intervention in other countries. This is a fact, if one considers the
policy of United States of America. One of the major tenets of U.S. foreign policy is the
encouragement and support of democraticization in the world. At the core of this
argument is a national security objective of a less war prone world. It is believed that
democratic states are unlikely to fight wars against each other. In other words, the
participants have a low competitive intent.
There are three requirements of Kant's seminal essay on perpetual peace.
i)

The constitution of States should be republican.

ii)

The basis of International law should be a federation of Free states.

iii)

Each individual is entitled to be treated with hospitality when meeting the

inhabitants of other states.
The democratic peace also includes a handful of other claims such as:
i)

Democracies tend to prevail in wars they fight with non democracies. 5

ii)

In wars they initiate, democracies suffer fever casualties and fight shorter was
then non democratic states. 6

4

Fernando R. Teson, Collective Humanitarian Intervention, 17 Michigan Journal of International Law, pages 323,
332-333 (1996), Fernando Teson, The Kantian Theory of International Law, 1992, Columbia Law Review 53, pages
91-93.
5
Dan Reiter and Allan C Stam III, "Democracy, War, Initiation and Victory" American Political Science review.
92:2 (June 1998) pages 377-389
6
D. Scott Bennett and Allan C. Stam, "The Duration of Interstate Wars, 1816-1985", American Political Science
review 90:2 (June 1996) Pages 239-257

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 257


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH
iii)

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

Democratic states locked in disputes with each other choose more peaceful
means of resolution. 7 .

iv)

Democratic powers do not initiate preventive war. 8
One of the writers who most effectively caught on to this trend was Michael

Doyle who in two articles in "Philosophy and Public Affair in 1983 highlighted Kant's
legacy to liberalism and internationalism which were crystallized into one article in
American Political Science Review 80 (1986), 'Liberalism and World Politics '. Doyle
objects is to put forward Kant's Political theory as a model of good practice for liberal
democratic states to follow:
The entire argument can be summed up in three points:
i)

Democratic institutions place constraints on the ability of leaders to fight other
democracies or simply make them reluctant to choose war.

ii)

The pacifists’ norms shared by democratic states cause them to view each other
as pacific and unthreatening.

iii)

Democracy tends to foster economic interdependence which reduces likelihood
of war.
A more recent institutional argument focuses on the desire of democratic

elites to be re elected. 9 Therefore, democratic leaders are primarily concerned about
retaining office and they are concerned about policy failure. War is likely to be long
and bloody and there is a greater risk of policy failure. Hence democratic states are
prone to negotiate with each other rather then fight.
Kyle Grayson has elaborated and explained the democratic peace
formula to show why liberal democracies engage in humanitarian intervention when

7

William J. Dixon, "Democracy and the peaceful settlement of international conflict" American Political Science
Review 88:1 (March 1994) Page 14-32.
8
Randall Schweller, "Domestic structure and Preventive war : Are Democracies more Pacific" World Politics, 44:2
(January 1992) Pages 235-269.
9
Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Randolph M. Siverson and Alastair Smith, "An Institutional

explanation of the Democratic peace", America Political Review, 93:4 (December, 1999) Pages 791-807

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 258


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

dictatorial regimes massacre their civilian population. The author enumerates four
points.
1.

Democracies are inherently peaceful unless unjustly attacked by authoritarian
regimes.

2.

Use of force by democracies is justified because they are directed against the real
threat launched by rogue actors’ intent on undermining the democratic way of
life.

3.

Democracies by definition cannot go to war with one another (Assertion of 1)

4.

The best way to ensure global stabilit y is to promote the spread of democracy.
The author has raised a pertinent point, when he uses the above mentioned four

points to justify humanitarian intervention by the western liberal societies. In his own
wards:
"........... They muster support and help to provide a basis of legitimacy for action
(including the large scale use of violence) that may have otherwise generated internal
apathy if not opposition. In particular, the spread of democracy has been touted by
Western Government as the panacea to all global ills and has therefore been used as a
rationale for the use of force in several instances including NATO's bombing of Serbia,
the Coalition war against the Taliban, and the invasion of Iraq ......." 10
Michael Doyle's thesis has a moral as well as empirical side to it. The moral side
shows that policy makers should be informed by Kant's liberal internationalism and
empirical side shows that when policy makers were informed of Kant's idea, they took
successful decision.
Kant and Humanitarian Intervention: It is a Herculean task to trace the
argument present in Kant's work that would support the cause of Humanitarian
Intervention. There is nothing that can be directly attributed to the cause of

10

Kyle Grayson, "Democratic Peace theory as Practice : (Re) Reading the significance of liberal Representation of
War and Peace, YCISS working paper number 22, March 2003. Page 3.

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 259


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

humanitarian intervention. At the same time Kant's over all ideas of gradually
supplanting the state of nature with semi juridical state of cosmopolitanism legal
relationship has a number of significant implications for humanitarian intervention.
One of the foremost and influential works on Kant's thought regarding
humanitarian intervention is connected to George Fletcher and Jens David Ohlin. They
have elaborated the idea in their monumental work "Defending Humanity: When war is
justified. It is a unique work to think through the proper relationship between th e
criminal law and international law of defensive force. According to this theory the right
to use force is derived from a legal order that secures equal autonomy by enforcing fair
rules.

11

Thus, any actor is authorized to resist injury to anyone's legal r ights because

these rights embody the legal order that protects the autonomy of all. 12 Fletcher and
Ohlin justify on the basis of six conditions. Legitimate self defense must be:
1)

Reasonably necessary and

2)

Intended to repel an attack.

3)

Overt

4)

Imminent

5)

Unlawful

6)

Attack 13
Fletcher and Ohlin distinguish legitimate resistance from both preemptive and

punitive force, as neither of these is necessary to repel an imminent attack. 14 They add
that punitive force is illegitimate because states are moral equals without authority over
one another. 15 They go on to apply this theory to a number of issues in the international
law of war.
In applying Kantian criminal justice theory to the international arena, Fletcher
and Ohlin liken the international legal system, particularly as embodied by the United
11

George Flatcher, Jens David Ohlin, Defending Humanity : When war is justified, New York, Oxford University

Press, 2008 Pages 28-29.
12
Ibid, Pages 76, 79, 83-85
13
Ibid, Pages 86-106
14
Ibid, Page 90
15
Ibid, Page 57

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 260


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

Nations. To a Kantian liberal state, and treat states and nations as individual citizens. 16
Based on this criterion, they support the presumptive right of every state to intervene
against aggression, until the Security Council takes action. 17 The support humanitarian
intervention in defense of national groups but not in defense of human rights of
individuals. 18
Fletcher and Ohlin have defended a Kantian theory of defensive force in
international law. Such a theory has considerable appeal because it provides a coherent
national for the U.N. Charter's scheme for regulating the interventional use of force.

Kant's ideas on humanitarian intervention can be understood when we compare
his ideas with Thomas Hobbes. Just like Hobbes, Kant also believes that before a public
legal condition can be established, people cannot be secure against violence from one
another. Individuals in the state of nature have a fundamental moral obligation to quit
that situation and could themselves under the rule of enforced law. If Hobbes social
contract is limited to formation of state then Kant carries the idea further. According to
Kant, humanity need not remain trapped in the state of nature, just as people emerge
from this condition domestically; similarly it is possible to emerge internationally
although the road map is of necessity, different for each transition. For Hobbes, state is
the finality, whereas, Kant's international theory assumes that the same general
principles justifying the sovereign state are operative for international politics.
Whereas Hobbes views the social contract as primarily an instrumental decision
of fearful individuals, Kant uplifts the moral status of the state; it rests on the perfect
duties to us and others to respect humanity. 19 The state of nature among states is a
threat to the system of right within states. Kant has argued that unlike the domestic
state of nature, states cannot be coerced into joining a world republic. This movement
of states to adopt a "perpetual peace" should be a gradual process. According to Kant
16

Ibid, Pages 59-60, 86
Ibid, Pages 76, 84-85
18
Ibid, pages 129, 133-134
19
Antonio Franceschet, Humanity's Intervention and Humanitarian Intervention : A Kantian Analysis, A paper
presented at world International studies committee 2nd Global International studies conference, "What keeps us
apart? What keeps us together? International order, Justice, values, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 23-26 July
2008, Page 3
17

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 261


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

when people freely choose perpetual peace or a world state model through international
and cosmopolitan law then this is the best way to develop a global order. Such peace
should not coerce but spontaneous. 20
Thus , it can be safely concluded that Kant’s idea of a Peace Model is a loose
congregation of Democratic republics who have opted to come out of the State of nature
at an international level .The ideas of Kant’s Perpetual peace model can be traced to his
idea of Right which in turn are his principles of Justice . Ultimately it can be said that
these are a part of Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The idea can now be used as a
theoretical model in the post modern concept of State Building also. It is my argument
that Responsibility to Protect Doctrine when combined with the Medieval Concept of
Vindicae Contra Tyrannos has provided a new lease of life to the perpetual peace model
and Responsibility to Protect has given a practical application to Kant’s vision.

Section II
The Doctrine of of Responsibility to Protect
In the 20 th Century the concept of Humanitarian Intervention was usually
frowned upon by the International Legal theorists as it was against the traditional
concept of sovereignty. It was believed that the only deterrent effect that a tyrannical

government would understand was a military intervention in the internal territory of
that government. But this would violate the narrow and pedantic definition of Art 2 ( 4 )
of the U.N.Charter . As a result, the very concept of humanitarian intervention has been
metamorphosed into a new breed of peacekeeping strategy, Responsibility to Protect. It
can be called a new version of Humanitarian Intervention which has been stripped of
the traditional/intimidating answer of military intervention. Despite the well intended
intention, military humanitarian interventions were always viewed as Trojan Horse
tactics employed by Western Powers. The framing of responsibility to protect doctrine
by the ICISS (International Commission on Intervention and state sovereignty) has
turned the debate about "the right to intervene" on its head and re characterized it not as
an argument about the "right" of states to do anything but rather about their
20

Ibid, Page 4

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 262


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

responsibility to protect people at grave risk. If any right, was involved, it was of the
victims of mars atrocity crimes to be protected. The searchlight has found its true focus,
on the need to protect communities from mars killing and ethnic cleaning, woman from

systematic rape, children from starvation and the herculean task of state building.
Responsibility to Protect is composed of three tools that analyze a conflict
situation from three different angles i.e. before a conflict, deriving a conflict and after a
conflict is over. There three tools are :i)

Responsibility to prevent

ii)

Responsibility to React

iii)

Responsibility to Rebuild
As it has been discussed earlier. Kantian concept of 'Democratic Peac e' is

being realized at the cost of humanitarian intervention. Although Kant himself was not
in favour of intervention per se but work of Rawls and Habermas have brought a change
worth of inter galactic proportions. Think tanks around the world realized th e strategic
importance of the new form of interventionism and created the idea that through
humanitarian intervention the ''Weak'' political infrastructure of a state can get a new
lease of life. James D. Fearon and David D. Latin are on the exponents in t his strategic
tool. They have used the concept to in this strategic tool. They have used the concept to
show the problem of conflict resolution nation building and humanitarian intervention.
The authors have termed it as "Neotrusteeship".
Therefore,

this

updated

version

of

humanitarian

interventionism

or

"Humanitarian Interventionism 2.0" is different from the classical group troop
engagement. It does not aim to besieging an enemy but at foreclosing massive human
rights violations.. It focuses on individual human life worthy of protection. The
Responsibility to Protect doctrine has incorporated the doctrine of Responsibility to
Prevent and Responsibility to Re build. This mean that the former relies on an age old
saying that "prevention is better than cure" while the letter relies on the post 9/11
concept of "exit strategy" It has been realized that a hasty exit of the intervening focus
International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 263


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

will only worsen situation for the targeted states. These targets do not have the required
political, legal culture that would prevent future problems of genocide or ethnic
cleansing. So the new version of humanitarian intervention focuses on economic
support and technical assistance for these impoverished states. Thus, those states which
are considered "outlaw" in Rawlsian can be rehabilitated and re integrated in a
democratic order. In other words, new intervention aims at political inclusion of the
outlaw region.
The Responsibility to prevent tool of the new doctrine, anticipates a conflict
and tries to remove it before it occurs. It identifies the sources of conflict and tries to
remove them. Conflict resolution theory has provided the earliest and relevant analysis
of the roots and dynamics of ethnic and other conflict. According to Wibke Hansen,
Oliver Rombsthem and Tom Woodhous 21 this analytical contribution is best exemplified
in the theoretical models of protracted social conflict [PSC] and international social
conflict. The authors have modified the work of Edward Azar and have proposed a
model that explains the emergence of conflict. 22 According the them observation social
conflict originate wherever communal groups (sharing ethnic, religious, linguistic or
other cultural characteristics) are denied their distinct place or identity.
According to Hansen, Rambotham and Woodhouse Azar's model has four
specific indicator of social conflict.
A)

Communal Content

B)

Human needs

C)

Governance

D)

International linkage :

An example of International Social conflict [ISC] 23 An Example of ISC are Bosnia,
Rwanda, Somalia and Kosovo. Bosnia was a problem related to state formation, Reward
21

Wibke Hansen, Oliver Ramsbothom, Tom Woodhouse, Hawks and Doves : Peacekeeping and conflict Resolution
Bergh of Research Enter for Constructive conflict Mansenent Edited Version Aug 2004
22
Ibid, Page 9
23
Ibid, Pages 9-10

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 264


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

an example of state control, Somalia was an eventual state collapse and Kosov o the
biggest example of secession conflict. 24

Another important point is that the model proposes to act as a tool for the social
inclusion of failed, weak and rogue state. If one follows the Constructivist model of
global order then we can say that global values super imposes its value on a nation
state. Hence adoption of democratic model is a legitimate expectation of a ll rational
actors. Therefore, the idea is to incorporate these weak and failed states into the main
stream of democracy through the three tools of Responsibility to Protect. In this
doctrine we fine a unique amalgamation of persuasive, preventive diplomacy, military
action, criminal prosecution as well as methods of state building and peace building
missions. Hence Kant’s Perpetual Peace is now been animated and being given and
activist approach through various peaceful and aggressive tools of intervention . It can
be said that 'Responsibility to Protect is Perpetual Peace in motion'.
SECTION III
STATE FORMATION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO
PROTECT
The concept of 'state building' is now a pertinent part of any peace building tool. The
concept of 'weak' and 'failed' states is slowly making its way into the legal framework.
This section deals with the concept, consequences and characteristics of week / failed
states, how it has brought untold miseries in the form of civil war and loss of hum an
life. The new and updated concept of humanitarian interventionism in the form of
Responsibility to protect is new tackling the problem in the form of state building. The
responsibility to rebuild tools is specifically designed to deal with problem like these.
The growth of failed states strikes at the very existence of a viable political order in
international law. The survival of a strong responsible, responsive, democratic state is
important for a strong world order. This is somewhat some to Kant’s model of perpetual

24

Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes once and for all (Washington D.C.
2008) Brooking Institute Press, 2008)

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 265


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

peace but differs in one important aspect. These tools help in the long term
development of the states.
Since 1990s the traditional state versus state conflict has decreased drastically.
According to Peter Wallenstein and Margareta Sollenberg 94 percent of wars resulting
in more than 1000 battle related deaths

(the generally agreed, social scientific

definition of a bonafide war), were civilian. 25 This means that most of the conflicts were
civil in nature. In the post 9/11 Scenario, security and development are being
interlinked once again. This was the case in 1950 when the nature of international
politics was bi polar in nature. It gave rise to concept of Marshall Aid and its Russian
counterpart. In the 21st Century, these concept have been added to the as tool of
humanitarian intervention. It has been euphemized with altruistic assumption,
especially with ICISS doctrine of Responsibility to protect. If pushed to its logical
conclusion, the new interventionism is a combination of Kant's per petual peace model
having a reformatory zeal and the expansion of medieval version of Christian theology
i.e. Vindicae contra Tyrannos.

Responsibility to Rebuild and state formation : The responsibility to rebuild
tools of the responsibility to protect doctrine is build to provide, particularly often a
military intervention, full assistance with recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation,
addressing the causes of the harm the intervention was designed to halt or avert. In the
words of Gareth Evans, "The best single indicator we have of the probability of future
conflict is past conflict." 26 Post conflict peace building is not the end of the process of
conflict resolution, it is just the beginning of a new process of conflict prevention and
focuses on the structural problem of a state.. The responsibility to rebuild a society has
the following inter related dimensions.
a)

Achieving security

b)

Good governance

25

Peter Wallenstein and Margareta Sollenberg, "Armed Conflict" 1989-2000, Journal of Peace Research 38 No. 5
(2001) page 632
26
supra note 24, Page 148

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 266

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH
c)

Justice and Reconciliation

d)

Economic and paid development

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

The toolbox of rebuilding measures reflect the reality that very similar kinds of
structural strategies are involved here as for long terms crises and conflict prevention.
The rebuilding tool box 27
Political / Diplomatic Measures
Structural


Rebuilding governance institutions.



Maximizing local ownership.

Economic / Social Measures


Support economic development



Social programs for sustainable peace.

Constitutional / Legal Measures


Rebuilding criminal justice



Managing transitional justice



Supporting traditional justice



Managing refugee returns.

Security Sector measures
Structural


27

Peacekeeping in support of nation building.

Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration.

Ibid, Page 150

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 267


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH


online ISSN 2277 – 9809

Security Sector reform.

Gareth Evans has given some important pointers for an ideal development and
exit strategy. 28
i)
Sort out who should do what and when and then allocate the roles and
coordinate them effectively.
ii)

Commit the necessary resources and sustain that commitment as long it takes.

iii)
An understanding of the local political dynamics and the limits of what

outsiders can do.
iv)
Have an exit strategy which is not necessarily devoted to holding early
elections but with vesting real local authority and responsibility.
v)
Exit strategy should not be confused with exit time table, outsiders should be
prepared to stay subject to local consent.
The concept of 'Human Security' and 'Human Development' (Developed by
United Nation Development Programme) have shown that the concept of human rights
is essential for a viable view of human life that is possible only when the gover nment
allow its citizens to live freely. Therefore responsibility to Protect is a particular
application of social inclusion tool , giving an opportunity to the weak states to
integrate them in democratic world order , thus fulfilling Kant’s vision.
SECTION IV
THE IMPACT OF MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos , a medieval political treatise sets out a
theoretical basic for something, that would in 2001 be reform as and named by
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty as Responsibility to
Protect. The VCT argued that princes had a duty to defend the subject of other princes
against tyrant, abusive and oppressive and other princes have a duty to defend those
subjects. Responsibility to protect echoes the same ideas. It declares crime against
humanity. war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing as un lawful

. In the 16th Century,

discourse against abusive government emerged in influential treaties on political

28

Supra note 24, Page 149

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 268


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

thought and the nascent domain of 'Law of Nations'. Lawyers and statesmen, as well as
philosophers and theologians, argued that tyranny and atrocity were illegitimate .
In the Second half of the sixteenth century, however, the right to act against tyranny
and oppression was extended to Christian Princes and was characterized as duty. This is
reflected in "Vindiciae Contra tyrannos" (VCT), a treatise First published in the
Calumnist Swiss City of Basel 1579 29. That "Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos" thus argues
that all princes had a duty to defend the subjects of other princes against abusive
tyranny and oppression. Part and parcel of sovereignty was what could be termed an
obligation to aid or duty to defend. In medieval times tyranny was illegitimate and
caused a legitimate ground for foreign rulers to intervene because they thereby were
defending the people and ensuring their safety. This idea can be said to be the
intellectual father of the 21st century norm of Responsibility to Protect.
PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY : John. H. Jackson connects the idea of "Principle
of subsidiarity with "allocation" issues, in the modern and global context, which
reference to policies that might suggest the need for a higher or lower level allocation
of power. 30 The principle of subsidiarity roughly stands for the proposition that
governmental functions should be allocated, among hierarchical governmental

institutions, to those as near as possible to the most concerned constituents, usually
downward on the hierarchical scale. It attacks the "antiquated" d efinition of sovereignty
which could characterized as the nation state's power to kill its citizens, torture citizens,
and engage in all sorts of arbitrariness. The march is toward the sovereignty of people.
The idea is to have government decisions made as far down the power ladder as
possible. The idea is that a government closer to the constituents can better reflect the
subtleties, necessary complexity and detail embodied in its decisions in a way that most
benefits those constituents.
The Responsibility to Protect is closely linked to the principle of
'subsidiarity'. This principle implies that, if the state entertaining the strongest link to a
29

Brendan Simms, and D.J.B. Trim (Eds.) Humanitarian Intervention : A History (Kundli, Haryana Cambridge
University Press 2011) page 32
30
John H. Jackson, "Sovereignty Modern : A New Approach to An outdated Concept,, 97, America Journal of
International Law (2003) Page 785

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 269


Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

IRJMSH

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

situation does not assume its jurisdictional responsibility, it may forfeit its right to
protest against other states jurisdictional assertions over that situation. Sovereignty
should no longer be used as a shield to tend off unwelcome jurisdictional assertion.
Sovereignty entails responsibility : the responsibility to bring their laws on
internationally harmful situations. In Dworkian terms it can be said that Human Right
have 'TRUMPED' the traditional notion of sovereignty.
SECTION V
CONCLUSION
A combined reading of Kant , Responsibility to Protect and principles of Subsidiarity
and vindicate Contra Tyrannos clearly suggest that all these concepts belonging to three
different eras of time have clamped the traditional tool of sovereignty and have created
an inclusive mode of inclusion for fail states .Kant’s vision was to create a utopian
model of Democratic states which would lead to 'World Peace'. I propose to call it, "An
Optimal Level of Democratization". It can be called a “Hypothetical Democratic
Contract". I propose that the following stages show that the Perpetual Peace model of
Kant has been the basis of humanitarian intervention and has reached its zenith with
Responsibility to Protect.
Stage 1 - Stage 1 is related to the classical utopian model of Perpetual peace
which Immanuel Kant had proposed.
Stage 2 - This stage is related to the classical military intervention. However
this stage did not serve its purpose because of an aggressive military stance.
Stage 3 - The third stage is represented by the Responsibility to Protect which
in my analysis has three dimensions.
a)

Persuasive - Responsibility to prevent.

b)

Coercive - Responsibility to react.

c)

Reconstructive - Responsibility to rebuild.
Another important point is that the model proposes to act as a tool for the

social inclusion of failed, weak and rogue state. If one follows the Constructiv ist model
of global order then we can say that global values super imposes its value on a nation
International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 270


IRJMSH

Volume 5 Issue 3 [Year 2014]

online ISSN 2277 – 9809

state. Hence Kant’s Perpetual Peace is now been animated and being given and activist
approach It can be said that 'Responsibility to Protect is Perpetual Peac e in motion'.
Following is a flowchart depicting the progress of the above mentioned model.
PROGRESS TOWARDS OPTIMAL LEVEL OF DEMOCRATIZATION
CLASSICAL MODEL OF KANT
(Hypothetical Idea based on
Kant's Views on rights and
justice)

MILITARY INTERVENTION

(A conflict between human rights
and state sovereignty)

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
(Its three dimensional approach
and relation with state formation
for the failed and weak states)

CLAMPING OF SOVEREIGNTY
THROUGH THE CONCEPTS OF
MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

VINDICAE CONTRA
TYRANNOS

PRINCIPLE OF
SUBSIDIARITY

International Research Journal of Management Sociology & Humanity
http:www.irjmsh.com

Page 271