{"title":"论正义战争与国际秩序","authors":"Nenad Miličić","doi":"10.2298/FID2101105M","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Kant’s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant’s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant’s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant’s and his critics’ theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents’ arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant’s position are compared and analysed.","PeriodicalId":41902,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kant on just war and international order\",\"authors\":\"Nenad Miličić\",\"doi\":\"10.2298/FID2101105M\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Kant’s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant’s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant’s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant’s and his critics’ theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents’ arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant’s position are compared and analysed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41902,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2101105M\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy and Society-Filozofija i Drustvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2101105M","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Kant’s legal and political philosophy is essential for understanding and advancing international order. The article aims to posit arguments that confront the claims that Kant was just war theorist. Since that is the most opposed part of Kant’s political philosophy, mostly due to the misleading interpretation of his argumentation, the author presents Kant’s standpoint on the matters of just war and international order and discusses potential ambiguities between Kant’s and his critics’ theories. Furthermore, the consequences of opponents’ arguments considering states of states, world republic and cosmopolitan democracy in contemporary political philosophy are debated. Finally, the possibility of consent between the three model solutions which are arising from the contemporary international order theory and Kant’s position are compared and analysed.