自由主义与世界政治

3.自由主义与世界政治　Liberalism and World Politics^[105]

本节导读

迈克尔·多伊尔，美国著名国际关系学者，研究课题涉及国际关系理论、国际法、国际历史、战争与和平、联合国等领域；先后在美国多所大学任教，也曾在多家机构任职，如2001—2003年曾任联合国前秘书长安南的助理和特别顾问，现任联合国民主基金主席、美国哥伦比亚大学全球治理研究中心主任等。多伊尔著有Ways of War and Peace:Realism,Liberalism,and Socialism（《战争与和平思想：现实主义、自由主义和社会主义》）；Empires（《帝国论》）；UN Peacekeeping in Cambodia:UNTAC’s Civil Mandate（《联合国在柬埔寨的维和行动》）；Striking First:Preemption and Prevention of International Conflict（《先发打击——国际冲突的先制与预防》）；Making War and Building Peace（《制造战争和建构和平》）等书籍，并在各种刊物上发表过大量文章。

多伊尔尤以对“民主和平”的论述而闻名。1983年多伊尔在《康德、自由主义遗产与外交》（Kant,Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs）一文中正式将“民主和平”作为一种理论提出来，并于1986年在《自由主义与世界政治》（Liberalism and World Politics）中作进一步的阐述。多伊尔在论证“民主和平”时大量借鉴了康德在《论永久和平》一书中所表达的自由主义国际主义思想，提出了以下观点：国际关系实践表明，民主国家之间从不（或很少）发生战争，而专制国家之间、民主国家与专制国家之间更容易发生冲突。《自由主义与世界政治》一文的发表激起了当代学术界关于“民主和平论”的新一轮激烈争论，而该文也成为《美国政治学评论》被引用次数最多的论文之一。“民主和平论”在冷战结束后更是成为国际关系理论界研究的热点，对该理论的批判和否定者也不乏有之。可以说，该论调是冷战结束后美国制定和推行外交政策的重要理论支柱之一。

在本节选文段中，作者提出了“民主和平论”的基本观点，并引用了康德关于实现“永久和平”的三个“正式条款”：①每个国家的公民体制都应该是共和制；②各国自愿结成联盟，其成员国的权利都得到保障；③各国公民在他国应受友好对待，享有“世界公民权利”。文中还进一步引述了康德关于实现“永久和平”的政治、法律、经济保证——宪制、国际法、世界公民法，三者缺一不可。

Promoting freedom will produce peace,we have often been told.In a speech before the British Parliament in June of 1982,President Reagan proclaimed that governments founded on a respect for individual liberty exercise“restraint”and“peaceful intentions”in their foreign policy.He then announced a“crusade for freedom”and a“campaign for democratic development.”

In making these claims the president joined a long list of liberal theorists(and propagandists)and echoed an old argument:the aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties make for^[106]war.Liberal states,founded on such individual rights as equality before the law,free speech and other civil liberties,private property,and elected representation are fundamentally against war this argument asserts.When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments,wars become impossible.Furthermore,citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be enjoyed only under conditions of peace.Thus the very existence of liberal states,such as the U.S.,Japan,and our European allies,makes for peace.

＊＊＊

I find,with Kant^[107]and other liberal republicans,that liberalism does leave a coherent legacy on foreign affairs.Liberal states are different.They are indeed peaceful,yet they are also prone^[108]to make war,as the U.S.and our“freedom fighters”are now doing,not so covertly,against Nicaragua.Liberal states have created a separate peace,as Kant argued they would,and have also discovered liberal reasons for aggression,as he feared they might.

＊＊＊

Liberal Internationalism^[109]

Modern liberalism carries with it two legacies.They do not affect liberal states separately,according to whether they are pacifistic^[110]or imperialistic^[111],but simultaneously.

The first of these legacies is the pacification of foreign relations among liberal states.

＊＊＊

Beginning in the eighteenth century and slowly growing since then,a zone of peace,which Kant called the“pacific federation”or“pacific union,”has begun to be established among liberal societies.More than 40 liberal states currently make up the union.Most are in Europe and North America,but they can be found on every continent,as Appendix 1 indicates.

Here the predictions of liberal pacifists(and President Reagan)are borne out: liberal states do exercise peaceful restraint,and a separate peace exists among them.This separate peace provides a solid foundation for the United States’crucial alliances with the liberal powers,e.g.,the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and our Japanese alliance.This foundation appears to be impervious to the quarrels with our allies that bedeviled^[112]the Carter and Reagan administrations.It also offers the promise of a continuing peace among liberal states,and as the number of liberal states increases,it announces the possibility of global peace this side of the grave^[113]or world conquest.

Of course,the probability of the outbreak of war in any given year between any two given states is low.The occurrence of a war between any two adjacent^[114]states, considered over a long period of time,would be more probable.The apparent absence of war between liberal states,whether adjacent or not,for almost 200 years thus may have significance.Similar claims cannot be made for feudal,fascist,communist,authoritarian,or totalitarian forms of rule,nor for pluralistic^[115]or merely similar societies.More significant perhaps is that when states are forced to decide on which side of an impending world war they will fight,liberal states all wind up on the same side despite the complexity of the paths that take them there.These characteristics do not prove that the peace among liberals is statistically significant nor that liberalism is the sole valid explanation for the peace.They do suggest that we consider the possibility that liberals have indeed established a separate peace—but only among themselves.

Liberalism also carries with it a second legacy:international“imprudence^[116]”. Peaceful restraint only seems to work in liberals’relations with other liberals.Liberal states have fought numerous wars with non-liberal states.

Many of these wars have been defensive and thus prudent by necessity.Liberal states have been attacked and threatened by non-liberal states that do not exercise any special restraint in their dealings with the liberal states.Authoritarian rulers both stimulate and respond to an international political environment in which conflicts of prestige,interest，and pure fear of what other states might do all lead states toward war. War and conquest have thus characterized the careers of many authoritarian rulers and ruling parties,from Louis XIV and Napoleon to Mussolini’s^[117]fascists,Hitler’s Nazis,and Stalin’s communists.

Yet we cannot simply blame warfare on the authoritarians or totalitarians,as many of our more enthusiastic politicians would have us do.Most wars arise out of calculations and miscalculations of interest,misunderstandings,and mutual suspicions,such as those that characterized the origins of World War I.However,aggression by the liberal state has also characterized a large number of wars.Both France and Britain fought expansionist^[118]colonial wars throughout the nineteenth century.The United States fought a similar war with Mexico from 1846 to 1848, waged a war of annihilation against the American Indians,and intervened militarily against sovereign states many times before and after World War II.Liberal states invade weak non-liberal states and display striking distrust in dealings with powerful non-liberal states.

Neither realist(statist)nor Marxist theory accounts well for these two legacies. While they can account for aspects of certain periods of international stability,neither the logic of the balance of power nor the logic of international hegemony explains the separate peace maintained for more than 150 years among states sharing one particular form of governance—liberal principles and institutions.Balance-of-power theory expects—indeed is premised upon—flexible arrangements of geostrategic^[119]rivalry that include preventive war.Hegemonies wax and wane^[120],but the liberal peace holds.Marxist“ultra-imperialists”expect a form of peaceful rivalry among capitalists,but only liberal capitalists maintain peace.Leninists expect liberal capitalists to be aggressive toward non-liberal states,but they also(and especially)expect them to be imperialistic toward fellow liberal capitalists.

Kant’s theory of liberal internationalism helps us understand these two legacies. The importance of Immanuel Kant as a theorist of international ethics has been well appreciated,but Kant also has an important analytical theory of international politics.Perpetual Peace,written in 1795,helps us understand the interactive nature of international relations.Kant tries to teach us methodologically that we can study neither the systemic relations of states nor the varieties of state behavior in isolation from each other.Substantively,he anticipates for us the ever-widening pacification of a liberal pacific union,explains this pacification,and at the same time suggests why liberal states are not pacific in their relations with non-liberal states. Kant argues that perpetual peace will be guaranteed by the ever-widening acceptance of three“definitive articles^[121]”of peace.When all nations have accepted the definitive articles in a metaphorical“treaty”of perpetual peace he asks them to sign,perpetual peace will have been established.

The First Definitive Article requires the civil constitution of the state to be republican.By republican Kant means a political society that has solved the problem of combining moral autonomy,individualism,and social order.A private property and market-oriented economy partially addressed that dilemma in the private sphere.The public,or political,sphere was more troubling.His answer was a republic that preserved juridical freedom—the legal equality of citizens as subjects—on the basis of a representative government with a separation of powers.Juridical freedom is preserved because the morally autonomous individual is by means of representation a self-legislator making laws that apply to all citizens equally,including himself or herself.Tyranny is avoided because the individual is subject to laws he or she does not also administer.

Liberal republics will progressively establish peace among themselves by means of the pacific federation,or union(foedus pacificum),described in Kant’s Second Definitive Article.The pacific union will establish peace within a federation of free states and securely maintain the rights of each state.The world will not have achieved the“perpetual peace”that provides the ultimate guarantor of republican freedom until“a late stage and after many unsuccessful attempts.”At that time,all nations will have learned the lessons of peace through right conceptions of the appropriate constitution,great and sad experience,and good will.Only then will individuals enjoy perfect republican rights or the full guarantee of a global and just peace.In the meantime,the“pacific federation”of liberal republics—“an enduring and gradually expanding federation likely to prevent war”—brings within it more and more republics—despite republican collapses,backsliding^[122],and disastrous wars—creating an ever-expanding separate peace.Kant emphasizes that it can be shown that this idea of federalism,extending gradually to encompass all states and thus leading to perpetual peace,is practicable and has objective reality. For if by good fortune one powerful and enlightened nation can form a republic(which is by nature inclined to seek peace),this will provide a focal point for federal association among other states.These will join up with the first one,thus securing the freedom of each state in accordance with the idea of international right, and the whole will gradually spread further and further by a series of alliances of this kind.

The pacific union is not a single peace treaty ending one war,a world state,nor a state of nations.Kant finds the first insufficient.The second and third are impossible or potentially tyrannical.National sovereignty precludes reliable subservience^[123]to a state of nations;a world state destroys the civic freedom on which the development of human capacities rests.Although Kant obliquely refers to various classical interstate confederations and modern diplomatic congresses,he develops no systematic organizational embodiment of this treaty and presumably does not find institutionalization necessary.He appears to have in mind a mutual nonaggression^[124]pact, perhaps a collective security^[125]agreement,and the cosmopolitan^[126]law set forth in the Third Definitive Article.

The Third Definitive Article establishes a cosmopolitan law to operate in conjunction with the pacific union.The cosmopolitan law“shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality.”In this Kant calls for the recognition of the“right of a foreigner not to be treated with hostility when he arrives on someone else’s territory.”This“does not extend beyond those conditions which make it possible for them[foreigners]to attempt to enter into relations[commerce]with the native inhabitants.”Hospitality does not require extending to foreigners either the right to citizenship or the right to settlement,unless the foreign visitors would perish if they were expelled.Foreign conquest and plunder also find no justification under this right.Hospitality does appear to include the right of access and the obligation of maintaining the opportunity for citizens to exchange goods and ideas without imposing the obligation to trade(a voluntary act in all cases under liberal constitutions).

Perpetual peace,for Kant,is an epistemology^[127],a condition for ethical action, and,most importantly,an explanation of how the“mechanical process of nature visibly exhibits the purposive plan of producing concord among men,even against their will and indeed by means of their very discord.”Understanding history requires an epistemological foundation,for without a teleology^[128],such as the promise of perpetual peace,the complexity of history would overwhelm human understanding.Perpetual peace,however,is not merely a heuristic^[129]device with which to interpret history.It is guaranteed,Kant explains in the“First Addition”to Perpetual Peace(“On the Guarantee of Perpetual Peace”),to result from men fulfilling their ethical duty or,failing that,from a hidden plan.Peace is an ethical duty because it is only under conditions of peace that all men can treat each other as ends,rather than means to an end.

＊＊＊

In the end,however,our guarantee of perpetual peace does not rest on ethical conduct.

＊＊＊

The guarantee thus rests,Kant argues,not on the probable behavior of moral angels,but on that of“devils,so long as they possess understanding.”In explaining the sources of each of the three definitive articles of the perpetual peace,Kant then tells us how we(as free and intelligent devils)could be motivated by fear,force, and calculated advantage to undertake a course of action whose outcome we could reasonably anticipate to be perpetual peace.Yet while it is possible to conceive of the Kantian road to peace in these terms,Kant himself recognizes and argues that social evolution also makes the conditions of moral behavior less onerous^[130]and hence more likely.In tracing the effects of both political and moral development, he builds an account of why liberal states do maintain peace among themselves and of how it will(by implication,has)come about^[131]that the pacific union will expand. He also explains how these republics would engage in wars with nonrepublics and therefore suffer the“sad experience”of wars that an ethical policy might have avoided.

The first source of the three definitive articles derives from a political evolution—from a constitutional law.Nature(providence)has seen to it that human beings can live in all the regions where they have been driven to settle by wars.(Kant,who once taught geography,reports on the Lapps,the Samoyeds,the Pescheras.)“Asocial sociability^[132]”draws men together to fulfill needs for security and material welfare as it drives them into conflicts over the distribution and control of social products.This violent natural evolution tends towards the liberal peace because“asocial sociability”inevitably leads toward republican governments, and republican governments are a source of the liberal peace.

Republican representation and separation of powers are produced because they are the means by which the state is“organized well”to prepare for and meet foreign threats(by unity)and to tame the ambitions of selfish and aggressive individuals(by authority derived from representation,by general laws,and by nondespotic^[133]administration).States that are not organized in this fashion fail.Monarchs thus encourage commerce and private property in order to increase national wealth.They cede rights of representation to their subjects in order to strengthen their political support or to obtain willing grants of tax revenue.

Kant shows how republics,once established,lead to peaceful relations.He argues that once the aggressive interests of absolutist^[134]monarchies are tamed and the habit of respect for individual rights engrained by republican government,wars would appear as the disaster to the people’s welfare that he and the other liberals thought them to be.The fundamental reason is this:

If,as is inevitability the case under this constitution,the consent of the citizens is required to decide whether or not war should be declared,it is very natural that they will have a great hesitation in embarking on so dangerous an enterprise.For this would mean calling down on themselves all the miseries of war,such as doing the fighting themselves,supplying the costs of the war from their own resources, painfully making good the ensuing devastation,and,as the crowning evil,having to take upon themselves a burden of debts which will embitter peace itself and which can never be paid off on account of the constant threat of new wars.But under a constitution where the subject is not a citizen,and which is therefore not republican,it is the simplest thing in the world to go to war.For the head of state is not a fellow citizen,but the owner of the state and war will not force him to make the slightest sacrifice so far as his banquets,hunts,pleasure palaces and court festivals are concerned.He can thus decide on war,without any significant reason,as a kind of amusement,and unconcernedly leave it to the diplomatic corps(who are always ready for such purposes)to justify the war for the sake of propriety.

Yet these domestic republican restraints do not end war.If they did,liberal states would not be warlike,which is far from the case.They do introduce republican caution—Kant’s“hesitation”—in place of monarchical caprice^[135].Liberal wars are only fought for popular,liberal purposes.The historical liberal legacy is laden^[136]with popular wars fought to promote freedom,to protect private property,or to support liberal allies against non-liberal enemies.Kant’s position is ambiguous.He regards these wars as unjust and warns liberals of their susceptibility^[137]to them.At the same time,Kant argues that each nation“can and ought to”demand that its neighboring nations enter into the pacific union of liberal states.Thus to see how the pacific union removes the occasion of wars among liberal states and not wars between liberal and non-liberal states,we need to shift our attention from constitutional law to international law,Kant’s second source.

Complementing the constitutional guarantee of caution,international law adds a second source for the definitive articles:a guarantee of respect.The separation of nations that asocial sociability encourages is reinforced by the development of separate languages and religions.These further guarantee a world of separate states—an essential condition needed to avoid a“global,soul-less despotism.”Yet,at the same time,they also morally integrate liberal states:“as culture grows and men gradually move towards greater agreement over their principles,they lead to mutual understanding and peace.”As republics emerge(the first source)and as culture progresses,an understanding of the legitimate rights of all citizens and of all republics comes into play;and this,now that caution characterizes policy,sets up the moral foundations for the liberal peace.Correspondingly,international law highlights the importance of Kantian publicity.Domestically,publicity helps ensure that the officials of republics act according to the principles they profess^[138]to hold just and according to the interests of the electors they claim to represent.Internationally,free speech and the effective communication of accurate conceptions of the political life of foreign peoples is essential to establishing and preserving the understanding on which the guarantee of respect depends.Domestically just republics, which rest on consent,then presume foreign republics also to be consensual,just, and therefore deserving of accommodation.The experience of cooperation helps engender further cooperative behavior when the consequences of state policy are unclear but(potentially)mutually beneficial.At the same time,liberal states assume that non-liberal states,which do not rest on free consent,are not just.Because non-liberal governments are in a state of aggression with their own people,their foreign relations become for liberal governments deeply suspect.In short,fellow liberals benefit from a presumption of amity^[139];non-liberals suffer from a presumption of enmity^[140].Both presumptions may be accurate;each,however,may also be self-confirming.

Lastly,cosmopolitan law adds material incentives to moral commitments.The cosmopolitan right to hospitality permits the“spirit of commerce”sooner or later to take hold of every nation,thus impelling states to promote peace and to try to avert war.Liberal economic theory holds that these cosmopolitan ties derive from a cooperative international division of labor and free trade according to comparative advantage.Each economy is said to be better off than it would have been under autarky^[141];each thus acquires an incentive to avoid policies that would lead the other to break these economic ties.Because keeping open markets rests upon the assumption that the next set of transactions will also be determined by prices rather than coercion,a sense of mutual security is vital to avoid security-motivated searches for economic autarky.Thus,avoiding a challenge to another liberal state’s security or even enhancing each other’s security by means of alliance naturally follows economic interdependence.

A further cosmopolitan source of liberal peace is the international market’s removal of difficult decisions of production and distribution from the direct sphere of state policy.A foreign state thus does not appear directly responsible for these outcomes,and states can stand aside from,and to some decree above,these contentious market rivalries and be ready to step in to resolve crises.The interdependence of commerce and the international contacts of state officials help create crosscutting transnational ties that serve as lobbies for mutual accommodation.According to modern liberal scholars,international financiers and transnational and transgovernmental organizations create interests in favor of accommodation.Moreover,their variety has ensured that no single conflict sours^[142]an entire relationship by setting off a spiral of reciprocated retaliation^[143].Conversely,a sense of suspicion, such as that characterizing relations between liberal and non-liberal governments, can lead to restrictions on the range of contacts between societies,and this can increase the prospect that a single conflict will determine an entire relationship.

No single constitutional,international,or cosmopolitan source is alone sufficient, but together(and only together)they plausibly connect the characteristics of liberal polities^[144]and economies with sustained liberal peace.Alliances founded on mutual strategic interest among liberal and non-liberal states have been broken;economic ties between liberal and non-liberal states have proven fragile;but the political bonds of liberal rights and interests have proven a remarkably firm foundation for mutual nonaggression.A separate peace exists among liberal states.

In their relations with non-liberal states,however,liberal states have not escaped from the insecurity caused by anarchy^[145]in the world political system considered as a whole.Moreover,the very constitutional restraint,international respect for individual rights,and shared commercial interests that establish grounds for peace among liberal states establish grounds for additional conflict in relations between liberal and non-liberal societies.

＊＊＊

思考题

1.What are the 2 legacies of modern liberalism that affect both pacifistic and imperialistic liberal states?

2.What are the 3 definitive articles of peace in Kant’s Perpetual Peace?

3.What are the sources of the 3 definitive articles of peace according to Kant?

4.How does Kant explain that liberal states are not pacific in their relations with non-liberal states?

5.What is your opinion on Democratic Peace Thoery?