84 CHAPTER THREE ■ InternatIonal relatIons theorIes
and forms separate nations. War is a product of society, not an attribute inherent in
individuals. To overcome defects in society, education is imperative; it prepares one
for civil life. Groups of states are united according to the law of nations, which regu-
lates conduct even during war. Montesquieu optimistically stated that “dif er ent nations
ought in time of peace to do one another all the good they can, and in time of war as
little harm as pos si ble, without prejudicing their real interests.”^13
Likewise, the writings of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) form the core of Enlight-
enment beliefs. According to Kant, international anarchy can be overcome through a
par tic u lar kind of collective action— a federation of republics in which sovereignties
would be left intact. Like other liberal phi los o phers, Kant’s argument held out the pos-
sibility of transcending the limitations of anarchy in the international system and the
withering away of war. Unlike others, however, Kant’s philosophy did not assume or
require moral actors. On the contrary, Kant assumed that states would act in self-
interested ways and that the repeated interaction of self- interested states would even-
tually lead to an expanding zone of peace, in spite of that self- interest. As he famously
put it, what is required for the emergence of perpetual peace is not moral angels, but
“rational devils.”^14
Nineteenth- century liberalism took the rationalism of the Enlightenment and refor-
mulated it by adding a preference for democracy over aristocracy and for free trade
over national economic self- sufficiency. Sharing the Enlightenment’s optimistic view
of human nature, nineteenth- century liberalism saw humanity as capable of satisfying
its natu ral needs and wants in rational ways. These needs and wants could be met most
efficiently when each individual pursued his or her own freedom and autonomy in a
demo cratic state, unfettered by excessive governmental restrictions. Likewise, po liti cal
freedoms are most easily achieved in cap i tal ist states, where rational and acquisitive
human beings can improve their own conditions, maximizing both individual and
collective economic growth and economic welfare. Free markets must be allowed to
flourish, and governments must permit the free flow of trade and commerce. Liberal
theorists believe that free trade and commerce create interdependencies among states,
thus raising the cost of war and reducing its likelihood.
Twentieth- century idealism also contributed to liberalism, finding its greatest adher-
ent in U.S. president Woodrow Wilson. Wilson authored the covenant of the League
of Nations— hence the term Wilsonian idealism. The basic proposition of Wilson’s
idealism is that war is preventable through the collective action of states; more than
half of the League covenant’s 26 provisions focused on preventing war. The covenant
even included a provision legitimizing the notion of collective security, whereby
aggression by one state would be countered by automatic and collective reaction,
embodied in a “league of nations.”
Thus, the League of Nations illustrated the importance that liberals place on the
potential of international institutions to deal with war and the opportunity for collec-