Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:34:12.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom in the External Relation of All Human Beings: On Kant’s Cosmopolitanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Christian F. Rostbøll
Christian F. Rostbøll*
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An influential interpretation of Kant’s Doctrine of Right suggests that the relationship between public right and freedom is constitutive rather than instrumental. The focus has been on domestic right and members’ relations to their own state. This has resulted in a statist bias which has not adequately dealt with the fact that Kant regards public right as a system composed of three levels – domestic, international and cosmopolitan right. This article suggests that the constitutive relationship is between all levels of right, on the one hand, and ‘freedom in the external relation’ of all human beings, on the other hand.

Keywords

cosmopolitanismstatismDoctrine of Rightexternal freedom
Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 243 - 265
Copyright
© Kantian Review, 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altman, Andrew, and Wellman, Christopher Heath (2008) ‘The Deontological Defense of Democracy: An Argument from Group Rights’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89 (3), 279–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beitz, Charles (1994) ‘Cosmopolitan Liberalism and the State System’. In Brown, Chris (ed.), Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge), 119–32.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon, and Hruschka, Joachim (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2010) ‘Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (4), 469–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2017) What is Orientation in Global Thinking? A Kantian Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geuss, Raymond (2008) Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe (2010) ‘Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense’. Ethics, 120, 791–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe (2012) ‘Realizing External Freedom: The Kantian Argument for a World State’. In Ellis, Elisabeth (ed.), Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), 101–34.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried (2006) Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace. Trans. Newton, Alexandra. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Jakob (2016) ‘No Right to Unilaterally Claim your Territory: On the Consistency of Kantian Statism’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20 (6), 677–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Gregor, Mary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (2004) ‘Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and his Ideal of a World Federation’. European Journal of Philosophy, 12 (3), 304–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine (1996) ‘Two Distinctions in Goodness’. In Creating the Kingdom of Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 249–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikalsen, Kjartan Koch (2017) ‘No Cosmopolitan Morality without State Sovereignty’. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 43 (10), 1072–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meckstroth, Christopher (2018). ‘Hospitality, or Kant’s Critique of Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights’, Political Theory 46 (4), 537–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpott, Daniel (2016) ‘Sovereignty’. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/sovereignty/.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas (2009) ‘Kant’s Vision of a Just World Order’. In Thomas, E. Hill (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Kant’s Ethics (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell), 196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Reglitz, Merten (2019) ‘A Kantian Argument Against World Poverty’. European Journal of Political Theory, 18 (4), 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. (2016) ‘Kant, Freedom as Independence, and Democracy’. Journal of Politics, 78 (3), 792–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostbøll, Christian F. (2019) ‘Kant and the Critique of the Ethics-First Approach to Politics’. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 22 (1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stilz, Anna (2011) ‘Nations, States, and Territory’. Ethics, 121 (3), 572–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Howard (2014) ‘Kantian Underpinnings for a Theory of Multirights’. In Follesdal, Andreas and Maliks, Reidar (eds), Kantian Theory and Human Rights (London and New York, Routledge), 8–26.Google Scholar
Wood, Allen W. (2002) ‘The Final Form of Kant’s Practical Philosophy’. In Timmons, Mark (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretative Essays (New York: Oxford University Press), 1–21.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea (2012) ‘A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights’. European Journal of Philosophy, 22 (2), 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zylberman, Ariel (2016) ‘The Public Form of Law: Kant on the Second-Personal Constitution of Freedom’. Kantian Review, 21 (1), 101–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar