Abstract

My essay does not have a question as much as a theme. I am interested in the idea of a One World State (OWS), and the positives and negatives of such a system. In the long run, I am a proponent of the OWS, so that is the position from which I will approach the essay.

The main text I’m focusing on is Kant’s Perpetual Peace. Part of the reason I support the One World State is because I believe it is an institution that could assist humanity in reaching the kind of peace Kant is discussing. What I found interesting is that Kant seems to want to reject the OWS in favour of keeping the status quo of segregated nation-states: one of the major contributors to conflict (in my opinion). So the structure of my essay will follow that of Kant’s paper, albeit indirectly, because Kant’s investigation does not always focus on the issue of the OWS.

There are specific areas, such as sections 2 and 3 of the First Supplement on pages 113-114, that I will pick apart thoroughly. Here, Kant denies that we should be striving towards the OWS because of his strong support of the nation-state system. I will attempt to argue against this, by dismissing Kant’s fears regarding despotism, anarchy, and lack of power as unfounded, especially within the context of our modern times.

Since beginning planning this essay, I have read Habermas’s Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight and realised that our arguments are somewhat similar. So Habermas will be my scholarly backup; not informing my opinions and arguments, but supporting them where necessary. To a lesser degree, I will also draw from O’Neill’s Bounds of Justice, specifically Chapter 9.

I also intend to discuss issues of governance. That is, what kind of governmental system would be most practical for the OWS (democracy, monarchy, tyranny, etc.) and which, if any, would most contribute to Kant’s idea of Perpetual Peace. Space permitting, I also will to argue that Capitalism as we now understand it could not survive under any OWS striving for Perpetual Peace. Finally (again, space permitting) I will look at whether or not Perpetual Peace is really a goal to which we should be striving in the first place, thus raising discussion of issues such as pacifism and militarism.

My final conclusion is that, assuming the goal of Perpetual Peace, the One World State should be a parallel goal. While it may not be practical now, or even in the near future, it is still an ideal system to which we should be striving.