Philosophy has a special relationship with other disciplines and not least with history and with anthropology, because of the many ways they connect over subject matter. By this we do not mean simply that philosophical methodology and theories are used by other disciplines; we mean also that when others consider problems of specific interest to their field fresh philosophical issues begin to emerge. Philosophers have, of course, written on peace and war historically. One of the most important examples is Immanuel Kantâs Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795/1917: 134â135), an early manifesto for the idea of federalism with the fundamental aim of establishing peace in Europe. As Kant says:
The practicability or objective reality of this idea of federation which is to extend gradually over all states and so lead to perpetual peace can be shewn. For, if Fortune ordains that a powerful and enlightened people should form a republicâwhich by its very nature is inclined to perpetual peaceâthis would serve as a centre of federal union for other states wishing to join, and thus secure conditions of freedom among the states in accordance with the idea of the law of nations. Gradually, through different unions of this kind, the federation would extend further and further.
The essay was written as France and Prussia signed the Peace of Basel, establishing French sovereignty over the West Bank of the Rhine, but allowing Prussia, Russia and Austria to divide Poland. Kantâs motivation was indignation at what he saw as the absurdity of state foreign policy with its pursuit of peace using inadequate, selfish and (often) deceptive means. Kant set out six principles and three articles for a programme of perpetual peace among sovereign states, which resemble the foundational principles of the pioneers of European unity after the Second World War.
The six principles are:
- 1.No treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there is tacitly reserved matter for a future war.
- 2.No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase or donation.
- 3.Standing armies (miles perpetuus) shall in time be totally abolished.
- 4.National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states.
- 5.No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state.
- 6.No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual confidence in the subsequent peace impossible such as the employment of assassins (percussores), poisoners (venefici), breach of capitulation and incitement to treason (perduellio) in the opposing state.
The three fundamental articles are:
- 1.The civil constitution of every state should be republican.
- 2.The law of nations shall be founded on a federation of free states.
- 3.The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality.
The crux is that no âsovereignâ state, whether large or small, should come under the dominion of another state and that national armies should be abolished. The fundamental articles are concerned with relations among individuals, founded on republicanism, on a federation of free states and on a humanity derived from the virtue of universal hospitality. Others, such as Thomas Hobbes, developed philosophies of war and confrontation. In Leviathan (1651/2009), written towards the end of the English Civil War, Hobbes takes the dreadful power of the sea-monster as a metaphor for the absolute power of the state (the title being a reference from The Book of Job, verse 41). He argues that:
Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre; and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man. For, warre, consisteth not in Battell onely, or the act of fighting; but in a tract of time, wherein the Will to contend by Battell is sufficiently known and therefore the notion of time, is to be considered in the nature of Warre; ⊠So the nature of War, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is Peace. (Hobbes 1651/2009: 70)
Hobbes believed that humankind is naturally in a constant state of conflict which led him to advocate strong government, specifically absolutist monarchy, to keep this ânatural state of warâ in bounds. Hobbesâ Leviathan is in complete contrast with the republicanism and pacifism of Kantâs Perpetual Peace.
Philosophy may be a forum for other disciplines, a place where they find a unifying language for discussion of common problems. Arguably, this applies across all disciplines, from the arts and humanities to the hard sciences and, not least, to what concerns us here: the study of peace and war. It provides also an opportunity to use interdisciplinary approaches and to revisit neglected contributions. This is what is attempted in the present book from historical, philosophical, and anthropological perspectives.
There are, of course, outstanding contemporary scholars of peace, war and other conflict studies, such as Gene Sharp (2011) among others, and feminine scholars, such as Christine Sylvester (2013), again among others, as noted by Catia Cecilia Confortini in a comprehensive review article (Confortini 2020). Confortini argues that, by regarding all forms of violence as a continuum, feminists change the understanding of the concept of peace studies, and this makes women visible in both peace and conflict. This book does not seek to engage with such well-known work in any specific way. Instead, it presents a deliberately eclectic set of relatively neglected historical, philosophical, and anthropological perspectives on peace and war, explaining these profound aspects of the human condition.
We hope it will encourage readers to re-discover or to engage for the first time with important examples of the study of peace and war. We believe this is both important and timely, the bookâs aim being to contribute to peace and conflict studies in an interdisciplinary way and to show it as a global field of study. It provides fresh historical, philosophical, anthropological and indeed educational approaches to peace and war that contribute to a nuanced understanding of the fundamental issues. It is this that gives the book its coherence and determines the logic by which the chapters are presented. The individual contributions shed light on important but often underserved theorists, and this provides the book with a common purpose and approach which is sensitive to different contexts.
Given the terrible impact of war on humanity and the seeming impossibility of establishing a perpetual peace among the nations, the guidance of scholarly reflection is fundamentally important if we are to make progress in achieving it. It was in such hope that Johan Galtung, a Norwegian, established the Peace Research Institute in Oslo in 1959. Galtungâs pioneering theoretical contributions include contrasting definitions of negative (such as the absence of violent conflict) and positive peace (such as that founded on collaborative relationships), as well as his âwin-winâ approach to peace mediation (in which both sides feel that they have âwonâ).
However, others, such as Julien Freund, the French sociologist who established the Institute of Polemology (Greek polemos = âwarâ) at Strasbourg in 1970, have focused directly on war studies (see Chap. 6 in this volume). From this perspective comes the idea of a âjust warâ. Michael Walzer in his seminal Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (2015) affirms this. Considering perspectives such as those of Carl von Clausewitzâs On War (cf. von Clausewitz 1832/1984), Walzer says:
On the conventional military view, the only true aim in war is âthe destruction of the enemyâs main forces on the battlefieldâ. Clausewitz speaks of âthe overthrow of the enemyâ. But many wars end without any such dramatic ending, and many war aims can be achieved well short of destruction and overthrow. We need to seek the legitimate ends of war, the goals that can rightly be aimed at. These will also be the limits of a just war. Once they are won, or once they are within political reach, the fighting should stop. Soldiers killed beyond that point die needlessly, and to force them to fight and possibly die is a crime akin to that of aggression itself. It is commonly said of just war theory, however, that it does not in fact draw this line at any point short of destruction and overthrow, that the most extreme military argument and the âmoralistâ argument coincide in requiring that war be fought to its ultimate end. (Walzer 2015: 110)
The continuing relevance of history, philosophy, and anthropology to the study of peace and war is explained further by Leonardo Boff, a well-known Brazilian theologian and a founder of liberation theology. In Fundamentalism, Terrorism and the Future of Humanity (2006: 61) Boff argued that:
The prevalent global culture is presently structured around the desire for power. This is a desire that is fulfilled through the domination of nature, of the other, of people and of markets. This is a rationale of dinosaurs; it is a rationale that creates a culture of fear and of war. Of the 3400 years of human history that we can document, 3166 years have been of wars. The remaining 234 years were certainly not years of peace; they were years of preparation for war.
We turn now to the chapters of the present book:
Chapter 2, âBartolomĂ© de Las Casasâ Critique of War and Vision of Peaceâ, by David Thomas Orique, discusses a Dominican friarâs opposition to wars of co...