Over the limits of war

The boundaries of civil freedom, above all family safety, have been proposed for centuries by great philosophers as the limits of war and political rivalry:

Kant proposes an international “league of nations” to help provide for mutual “protection against external aggression” and, thus, to discourage it and reduce the need to go to war. Still, when war cannot be avoided, it should be declared rather than launched by means of a sneak attack; secondly, there are legitimate limits that prohibit, for example, trying to exterminate or subjugate all members of the enemy society; third, when a war is over, the winning party cannot destroy the civil freedom of the losing parties, as by enslaving them; and, fourth, certain “rights of peace” must be assured and honored for all involved. Thus the ultimate goal of international relations and of the league of nations should be the ideal of “perpetual peace” among different states that share our planet (Justice, pp. 41, 43, 91-95, 113, 136-141, 146, 151-158; for more on Kant’s version of the social contract theory, see Writings, pp. 73-85, and for more on his views on war and “perpetual peace,” see Writings, pp. 93-130).¹

The philosophers' proposals seem to be alien to the European Union as the EU does not even guarantee the security of the migrant family in its own territory. The "Report and Recommendations on the Activities of the Working Group on Child Welfare Issues" clearly states that the migrant families are treated in the EU much worse than they would be treated in a war limited accordingly to the proposals of the philosophers:

The Petitions Committee has received approximately 20 petitions related to cases of children being taken into public care in England and Wales and subsequently being placed for adoption without the consent of their biological parents, so called non-consensual adoptions or forced adoptions. (...)

The Members of the working group met M. Pierre Chassagnieux, French journalist, co-director of a TV report (broadcasted on French TV) called “Enfants volés en Angleterre”² who was accompanied by his producer Mr Eric Colomer. They both delivered their testimony on several cases of parents and single mothers fleeing the UK to avoid the removal and placement or adoption of their children. The situations they spoke about were linked to those presented in some of the petitions received. (...)³

In the 21st century in Europe the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament states that there is no guarantee of a minimal humanity for families and civilians under the EU law. It brings back the memories of the Second World War.⁴ The Committee:

Calls on Member States to avoid discriminatory or disadvantaged judicial and administrative procedures against foreign parents, providing them with the necessary linguistic and translation assistance (...). Recommends that the Member States provide parents, from the outset and at every stage of child-related proceedings, with complete and clear information on the proceedings and on the possible consequences thereof; calls on them to inform parents about the rules on legal support and aid, for example by providing them with a list of bilingual specialised lawyers and by offering interpretation facilities (...); Calls on Member States to consider offering free of charge and accessible legal assistance, in adoption, custody or guardianship national and/or cross-border cases, to families with low or no income and to those facing risk of poverty or being below poverty line; (...) Recommends the establishment of family support centres in Member States offering comprehensive advice by international and interdisciplinary teams of lawyers, social workers, mediators and psychologists for mobile EU families requiring assistance in their cooperation with social services; calls on the Commission to fund NGO’s offering practical support to mobile families making use of their rights deriving from Union citizenship; (...)

The achievements of the centuries of political thought are being forgotten thanks to the EU.