موضوع عن peace

موضوع انجليزي عن الماء للصف الثامن فقرة  برزنتيشن بحث موضوع ملخص جاهز باللغة الانجليزية  انشاء موضوع انجليزي عن ابدا قصير كيفية كتابة موضوع تعبير باللغة الانجليزية توجيهي قواعد كتابة تعبير  بالانجليزي طريقة سهلة لكتابة تعبير بالانجليزي موضوع تعبير انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع كتابة تعبير بالانجليزي عن نفسك وصف تعبير انجليزي يصلح لكل المواضيع موضوع انشاء شامل لكل المواضيع موضوع يصلح لجميع المواضيع موضوع تعبير انجليزي جاهز برجراف ينفع لاى موضوع  موضوع انجليزي عن الماء قصير وسهل فوائد بالانجليزي عبارات  بالانجليزي طويل اهمية مترجم ثالث ثانوي اول ثاني ثانوي متوسط خمس سبع ثمان تسع اربع جمل كلمات كلام مقال علمي مقدمة بحث انجليزي حلول اسباب حل مشكلة

The project of perpetual peace seems utopian, however, modern examples may cast doubt on critics claiming the impossibility of this project. The European Union (EU) is the best example. Nevertheless, can it be said that this is a federal model as Kant describes it? A lawyer will quickly answer this question in the negative, since in the strict sense the EU is only a more or less loose confederation depending on the field. Despite a monetary merger and systems of agricultural and economic cooperation, sectors are still neglected. At the military level, for example, states are still fully sovereign, and attempts at harmonization have all been failures. This has resulted in the persistence of national military forces, contrary to what Kant wanted [5]. How to explain these failures? With a theoretician's view of International Relations using a neoliberal reading grid, this can be explained by a lack of trust between states. The structures of international relations as formed by the EU would not be enough to overcome distrust, and would not reduce sufficiently the uncertainties of behavior of each of the actors involved. Moreover, States do not feel ready to give up their sovereignty, even in part. The position of Switzerland in relation to the EU is justified in particular by this argument. [6]

Not only does the federal model described by Kant seem difficult to achieve, but its very basis now seems open to criticism. Indeed, if Kant suggests a federation of Republics it is because according to him it is the only form of government capable of maintaining peace, as we have seen previously. However, the basis of this reasoning can be questioned: citizens, if they have the choice between preparing for the war by arming themselves, and not arming themselves; will they really choose the second option? Will they really take the risk of remaining naked in front of others knowing that they do not know their intentions? It seems that states - including Republican countries in the sense of Kant - reason differently. They will certainly think in a selfish way by wondering which situation brings them the most well-being (peace) but they will also reason in collective terms (what strategy can the other adopt?). Thus everyone will choose a positron so that he can not leave without degrading his own well-being: this position is the balance of Nashqui is not necessarily in a situation of peace unarmed. The Weimach Republic has created a belligerent and violent empire. Of course, the question has never been formulated directly to the citizens as we have done, but it is interesting to consider the question knowing that the Third Reich was created because of the favorable vote of the citizens. Even if the German people did not suspect the horrors that would follow, Hitler's bellicose intentions were to be discovered in the elections of 1933. By voting for his party, the German people like to vote for the war What would Kant say of such a phenomenon?

As soon as we have addressed the subject, it becomes clear that the question is complex and that, consequently, it is waiting for a nuanced answer. The only advancement of the EU and its hypothetical success towards the federal path could clearly give an answer. Yet it seems that the state of European relations is leading the construction of the EU in another direction. In the future, some people envisage a multi-speed Europe with different levels of engagement (a bit like it is already the case but in a reinforced way). It seems that if technically perpetual peace seems feasible it is not conceivable in the 21st century. Even more so, if one takes into account the fragility of its theoretical base: peoples living in a republic may want war.