卢梭、康德和凯尔森都提出了永久和平的构架,分别是统一的欧洲联邦国家、自由共和制国家的普遍性联盟、具有集中制裁权能的国际组织,都是后世国际法秩序的思想先驱,各自都为当今以联合国为核心的国际法律秩序提供了知识基础。三者在处理“自然状态”这一假设和作为和平前提的“国家同质性问题”上的差异导致其理论具有根本性的不同。自然状态是卢梭和康德要克服的状态,而凯尔森将其作为走向集中性制裁之国际组织的出发点;国家的同质性是康德和平理论的根本出发点,也是一种先验规定,而凯尔森的和平构架对此完全予以忽略。他们和平架构的深层规范性基础各具特色,但在特定历史条件下都显得比较狭窄。随着国际社会的发展,他们各自的规范性基础内容才得以充实。 Rousseau, Kant, and Kelsen both set forth the framework for a permanent peace. They are the unified European Union state, the universal alliance of free and republican countries, and the international organizations that have the power to centralize sanctions. All of them are thought leaders in the subsequent order of international law. Each of them Provided the knowledge base for today’s international legal order with the United Nations at its core. The differences among the three in dealing with the hypothesis of “natural state ” and the “problem of national homogeneity ” as a prerequisite for peace have led to a fundamental difference in their theories. The natural state is the state to be overcome by Rousseau and Kant, and Kelsen uses it as the starting point for an international organization moving toward centralized sanctions. The homogeneity of the state is the fundamental starting point and a priori rule of Kant’s peace theory. The peace framework of Alsace completely ignores this. The deep normative foundation of their peace architecture has its own characteristics, but it appears narrower under certain historical conditions. With the development of the international community, their respective normative basic elements have been enriched.