59 However, functionally, the integration of economic provisions into peace agreements is the art of the possible. Economic provisions are included in peace agreements where the parties authorize their admission or are vulnerable to pressure from third parties to be on the agenda. The emphasis on economic arrangements in bad circumstances can lead to the failure of peace processes. If the debate on the economy goes to the heart of a party`s organizational structure, the insistence on the inclusion of economic provisions may encourage the parties to stay away from or leave the negotiating table. Most peace agreements address three main concerns: procedure, content and organization. 21. Kant believes that these wars are unfair and warns liberals of their vulnerability to them (Perpetual Peace 1970, p. 106). At the same time, he asserts that each nation “can and must” bring its neighbours into the peaceful union of liberal states (p.

102). Any form of government that is not representative is, well spoken, formless. The legislator cannot, in the same person, unite his function as a legislator and executor of his will, nor can the universal of the principal premise in a syllogism be the subsumtion of the individual among the universal in minor. And even if both constitutions are still flawed, to the extent that they leave room for this type of administration, it is at least possible that they adopt a mode of government consistent with the spirit of a representative system (as Frédéric II said at least that he is only the first servant of the state).5 Democratic governance makes this impossible.5 because everyone wants to be masters. Therefore, we can say that the smaller the government staff (the smaller the number of leaders), the greater their representation and the closer the Constitution is to the possibility of reputism; the Constitution can therefore be expected by a gradual reform, to finally become a republican. For these reasons, it is more difficult for an aristocracy than for a monarchy to obtain an entirely legal constitution, and it is impossible for a democracy to do so, except by violent revolution. If we consider the perversity of human nature that turns out to be naked in the uncontrolled relations between nations (this perversity is masked in the state of civil law by the restriction exercised by the government), we may be surprised that the word “law” has not yet been relegated as pedantic to the politics of war and that no state has yet been brave enough to adopt this view. Hugo Grotius, Pufendorf, Vattel and many other irritating comforters have been cited until today to justify the war, although their philosophical or diplomatic code does not have the slightest force of law and cannot have, because the States are not as such under a common external power.