POL109 Paper

POL109S1- TUT0701
Justin Ha 1009651510
David Polansky/Gamal Mansour
03/06/2023
 When one nation-state interferes in the internal affairs of another or initiates military

action this is considered foreign intervention. Some political theorists are proponents of foreign

intervention while others stand in opposition. Prominent amongst them are Immanuel Kant and

John Stuart Mill, two renowned international relations scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries,

who played crucial roles in defining the concept of foreign intervention as we know it today.

Much of their work on foreign intervention focuses on the question of acceptability and the

circumstances in which they believed it to be justified. Whilst Kant advocates for perpetual

peace and argues that foreign involvement should be limited to exceptional cases, Mill views

foreign intervention as an effective instrument that should be deployed to depose despotic

governments, promote the concept of democracy, and ultimately enable economic and political

development. Although Kant and Mill both agree that there are a limited number of scenarios in

which foreign intervention is justified, their views differ in regard to the conditions for

intervention.

Kant thought that nation-states should be able to rule themselves and that no other

nation-state should intervene in their affairs. His thesis of "perpetual peace," which posits that

peace should be long-lasting and stable at all times, serves as the cornerstone of his argument

(Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 68). Kant regards each nation as a distinct entity with its own set of

ideals, entitled to its own rule. Therefore, he perceived the intervention as a violation of the

rights of the local population. This is exemplified in his book, Toward Perpetual Peace, where

Kant states that “no state shall forcibly interfere in the constitution and government of another

state” (Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 70). In fact, much of the present concept of liberalism in

international relations is founded on the Kantian ideal that peace must be permanent. Long-term

peace can be assured only when countries have a firm basis of governance and are free to make
judgments about how their country should be managed without interference from other

nation-states (Kant and Kleingeld 2006). The evidence suggests that Kant opposes foreign

intervention because he believes it violates a nation's inherent right to exercise sovereignty and

maintain autonomy. After all, foreign intervention places the affected nation-state's governance at

the mercy of another nation, which by extension affects its citizens. Additionally, Kant feels that

foreign involvement disrupts the peace since annexing a nation-state almost always forces it to

react by declaring war to safeguard its sovereignty and the right of its population to

self-determination (Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 84). Furthermore, it sets precedence as the more

common military annexation becomes, the more states may become emboldened to violate the

sovereignty of their counterparts with impunity (Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 70). As a result, Kant

considers such interventions to be abhorrent as it jeopardizes the sovereignty and

self-determination of all nation-states (Kant and Kleaingeld, 2006: 81).

Mill, on the other hand, believed that it was ethically appropriate for powerful

nation-states to act outside their borders and engage in international intervention on altruistic

grounds. This includes the removal of a repressive dictatorship and the promotion of peace via

the establishment of a stable system of government for the benefit of the local populace. In his

essay, “A Few Words on Non-Intervention”, Mill argues that powerful nation-states should

intervene in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations to impose a type of governance that

will be beneficial to the nation and enhance stability for its population. Its significance stems

from Mill's belief in the noble motives of foreign involvement. He further claims that particular

countries do not wish to gain anything at the expense of others or from which others do not

equally benefit (Mill, 2006: 252). However, Mill’s ideas are highly Anglo-centric, as seen in his

article, in which he endorses the British government's expansionist foreign policy, especially the
purchase of colonies such as India. This demonstrates Mill's hypocrisy since he justifies British

imperialism's activities by claiming that the British Empire's primary objective in conquering

regions by way of colonization was to care for other nations ahead of itself by ensuring that they

had a stable form of government and civilized culture. He argued that their goal was to promote

peace and prosperity for everybody and that Britain would wage war to ensure good civilized

governance by British standards (Mill, 2006: 252). Therefore, one can deduce that Mill believed

in exporting British imperialism throughout the globe. The evidence suggests that contrary to

Mill's perspective, British imperialism was typically advantageous to international relations

because Britain acquired states for humanitarian motives. This includes enhancing people's

welfare by imposing more civilized practices and ensuring the nations they conquered became

prosperous by imposing their system of governance, even though British imperialism was not

altruistic in the least (Mill, 2006: 258). When it came to the treatment of their subjects, British

colonists engaged in some of the most brutal actions in history, imposing their authority through

the use of violent force, depriving people of their right to representation, and plundering their

natural resources to the extent that people were struggling to obtain basic needs to survive.

While Kant and Mill may agree on their openness to foreign intervention in exceptional

circumstances, the main difference in their viewpoints is how they interpret the prerequisites for

intervention. Foreign intervention, according to Kant, is a violation of state sovereignty, but Mill

takes a more imperialist stance, viewing it as a method of preserving "barbaric civilizations"

from self-destruction. Kant expresses his opinion on the precise situations in which he feels

foreign intervention is justified, by stating “one cannot conceive of international right as a right

to war; one would have to mean by it that it is perfectly just that people who are so disposed of

annihilate each other and thereby find perpetual peace in the vast grave that covers all the horrors
of violence together with their perpetrators […] The growing prevalence of a (narrower or wider)

community among the peoples of the earth has now reached a point at which the violation of

right at any one place on the earth is felt in all places” (Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 81, 84). Kant

justifies foreign intervention in cases where a country commits major human rights violations

against its people, especially crimes against humanity such as genocide. However, he also

believes that foreign intervention should be used only as a last resort, after all, other options,

including diplomacy, have been exhausted, and to protect citizens' fundamental rights. The core

concepts of human rights, peace, and justice in today's international relations come from the

Kantian view that maintaining these ideals is important for a nation-state to develop and provide

a just and stable society. These principles are important when studying Kant's perspective on

international relations and in understanding why Kant frequently mentions the concept of

individual rights in his works as he believed citizens are an important asset when it comes to

ensuring a nation has a just and stable society, as by nature, inhabitants of a nation-state have the

right to publicly participate in the political affairs of the state, the right to legal equality, and the

right to a fair trial. Kant believed that citizens' rights were sacred and that nation-states, whether

domestic or foreign, have a responsibility to protect these rights by whatever means necessary,

including foreign intervention to defend against any impediments and intrusions of these rights.

Moreover, Kant felt that individuals have an intrinsic sense of moral value that cannot be

measured by external techniques such as money, affluence, or social rank and that these

distinguishing characteristics must be acknowledged by others, including the government (Kant

and Kleingeld 2017, 74). This complicates matters since Kant's condition of maintaining

individual rights as zealously as possible intersects with his theory of permanent peace, as he

embraces the concept that war should be undertaken only as a necessary last resort when a nation
commits serious abuses and injustices against its people, in which case intervention is for the

greater good. Meanwhile, Mill argues that “there are cases in which it is allowable to go to war,

without having been ourselves attacked, or threatened with an attack” (Mill, 2006: 258).

Furthermore, he justifies foreign intervention based on the context, taking into account the

situation of the nation and the potential consequences of Mill's principles. For example, in

historical cases of colonization such as India, he felt that it was "in their best interests for

foreigners to conquer them and keep them under their control" as before colonial authority the

nation was governed by barbarous despots who used military force to suppress its people. Mill

also argued that the fundamental commitment that civilized nations have to respect each other's

sovereignty and nationality did not apply to people whose nationality and independence were

either a certain evil or a debatable benefit (Mill, 2006: 259). This is important because Mill's

interpretation of the conditions for foreign intervention is more flexible than Kant's, as both

individuals have different philosophies when it comes to their interpretation of the conditions for

foreign intervention. Mill's guiding principle is utilitarianism (Mill 2006) in contrast to Kant

whose theories are guided by the notion of morality (Kant and Kleingeld, 2006: 94).

Ultimately, despite their differences of opinion, Kant and Mill believe that their

viewpoint on international relations and foreign intervention should be the dominant theory that

nation-states across the world should adopt. While Mill believed in foreign intervention to

depose dictatorial governments and provide economic prosperity and political stability, he was in

practice spreading the dominating ideological viewpoint of British supremacy overseas. On the

other hand, Kant believes that peace should be long-lasting and that individual rights must

always be protected, asserting that nation-states should participate in international intervention

only in extreme situations, such as when people's human rights are infringed. This paper
exemplifies the fact that international relations is a diverse field, and adhering to either Kant's or

Mill's viewpoint would significantly impact how nations evaluate whether foreign intervention is

permissible and whether waging war against another nation-state is justifiable.

 Works Cited

Kant, Immanuel, Pauline. Kleingeld, Jeremy. Waldron, Michael W. Doyle, and Allen W.

Wood. 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. New

Haven: Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300128109.

Mill, John Stuart. 2006. A few words on non-intervention. New England Review 27, (3):

252-264,267,http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.co

m%2Fscholarly-journals%2Ffew-words-on-non-intervention%2Fdocview%2F234361684%2Fse

-2%3Faccountid%3D14771 (accessed March 6, 2023).