No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Kant and the Supreme Proprietor: A Response1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2011
Extract
Theories of global justice range from the utilitarian philosophy of Peter Singer to the institutional design arguments of Thomas Pogge. These works have grappled with a wide range of issues, but almost all of them have been driven by the recognition of two core problems: the huge numbers of people mired in poverty and the increasing levels of inequality. Much of this literature begins with these two problems and then proposes schemes to resolve them. This problem-solving approach to the issue of global poverty and inequality has tended to avoid engagements with figures in the history of political thought. One thinker who has certainly inspired much of this literature, either explicitly or implicitly, is Immanuel Kant. With his rigorous method, systemic structure of metaphysics and morality, and celebration of Enlightenment reason over staid authority structures, Kant presents a model for how to undertake rational arguments in response to moral dilemmas.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Kantian Review 2010
References
Archibugi, D. (2009) The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Towards Cosmopolitan Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Brown, G. W. (2009) Grounding Cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, M. (1983a) ‘Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs, Part I’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12: 205–35.Google Scholar
Doyle, M. (1983b) ‘Kant, liberal legacies and foreign affairs, Part II’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12: 323–53.Google Scholar
Dunoff, J. L. and Trachtman, J. P. (eds) (2009) Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, R. and Strauss, A. (2001) ‘Toward a global parliament’, Foreign Affairs, 80 (1): 212–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, A. (2002) Kant and Liberal Internationalism: Sovereignty, Justice and Global Reform (New York: Palgrave).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M. N. (2001) Global Limits: Immanuel Kant, International Relations, and Critique of World Politics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press).Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2006) ‘Does the constitutionalization of international law still have a chance?’, in The Divided West, ed. and trans. Cronin, C. (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
Klabbers, J., Peters, A. and Ulfstein, G. (2009) The Constitutionalization of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogge, T. and Moellendorf, D. (eds) (2008) Global Justice: Seminal Essays (St Paul, MN: Paragon House).Google Scholar
Pogge, T. and Horton, K. (eds) (2008) Global Ethics: Seminal Essays (St Paul, MN: Paragon House).Google Scholar
Schneiderman, D. (2008) Constitutionalizing Economic Globalization: Investment Rules and Democracy's Promise (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tan, K.-C. (2010) ‘Poverty and global distributive justice’, in Bell, D. (ed.), Ethics and World Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Wessel, R. A. (2008) ‘The Kadi Case: towards a more substantive hierarchy in international law?’, International Organizations Law Review, 5: 323–27, available online at: http://www.utwente.nl/mb/legs/research/wessel/wessel55.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, A. (2008) The Invisible Constitution of Politics: Contested Norms and International Encounters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, H. (2010) ‘Towards a Kantian theory of international distributive justice’, Kantian Review, 15 (2): 43–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar