About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


14 Kathmandu Sch. L. Rev. 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/kslr14 and id is 1 raw text is: Kathmandu School of Law Review (KSLR), Volume 14, 2025, pp 1-16 https://doi.org/10.46985/kslr.vl4il.2238 © KSLR, 2025 Perpetual Peace Models: An Analysis of Their Inadequacies Dr. Bhanu Pratap* Abstract The relativist nature, cultural speafidty and a priori approach to Peace Models make them tumultuous in the perspective of international law. A legal positidst's understanding of peace implies that it is a status akin to war, and construing it in philosophical termsyields absurdity. An argumentwill be made that European thinkers have dominated the feld of Perpetual Peace Models, thereby eclipsing Buddhist and Islamic ones. The claim of an alleged 'universal'peace is a European affair that undermines the complex and nuanced nature of peace. Apart from its unidimensional European perspective, peace models have variousfactual infirmities-they fail to consider the status of neutraity, a legal device used by European countries to restrict the theatre of war; and they are moral axioms thatfail to accountfor the complex nature of peace treaties. Peace treaties, which are only peaceful in name, alsofail to reflect the inequality among the State parties. As the victor usually positions itself as the dominant actor in peace treaties, it dwarfs the defeated party's negotiating capadt y. For instance, the Covenant of the League of Nations, though a part of Wilson's foreign poicy, contained clauses that institutiona/ised imperalism and rejected sovereign equality in the most blatant manner possible. Historically, the Kantian Peace model, though popular, is inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Medievalpeace modelsfail to consider the organic nature of peace. Peace in the 21 century is not merely the absence of war, but also the defence of self-determination, the protection of refugee rnghts, the institutiona/isation of transitional andpost-conflictjustice, the upholding of human rnghts, and the observance of laws related to war. These added dimensions of peace make perpetual Peace Models a minimaist deice for setting disputes. A curious case of peace formation is Japan, which adopted a pacfist constitution in 1945 under the influence of the USA, which was its Occupying Power. Article 9 of the 1945 Constitution made it unconstitutionalfor the Japanese to maintain an army. To circumventthis rngidprodision, the Japanese governmentformed the Special Defence Force, which can be considered a legislative manoeuvre, and the Japanese Courts have questioned its constitutionality. The Japanese Constitutional Peace process raises specafic questions of interest. Was the Japanese Constitution of 1945 an exercise of free will, as it was drafted under the influence and superdision of the USA as an occupying power? Has Article 9 and the Special Defence Forces created a curious conundrum in which the nature of peace itself has become a battleground between the legislature and the judiciary? This article explores such questions. Keywords: Perpetualpeace models, unidimensional European perspective * Dr. Bhanu Pratap is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Lucknow, India. The author can be reached at bpratap11235@gmail.com. 1