Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mx8w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-01T02:36:08.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cosmopolitanism for Earth Dwellers: Kant on the Right to be Somewhere

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2017

Jakob Huber
Jakob Huber*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
*
Email: j.huber@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper provides a systematic account of Kant’s ‘right to be somewhere’ as introduced in the Doctrine of Right. My claim is that Kant’s concern with the concurrent existence of a plurality of corporeal agents on the earth’s surface (to which the right speaks) occupies a rarely appreciated conceptual space in his mature political philosophy. In grounding a particular kind of moral relation that is ‘external’ (as located in bounded space) but not property-mediated, it provides us with a fundamentally new perspective on Kant’s cosmopolitanism, which I construe as a cosmopolitanism for ‘earth dwellers’.

Keywords

Kantcosmopolitanismrightsoriginal common possession

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Kantian Review , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 1 - 25
Copyright
© Kantian Review 2017 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Benhabib, Seyla (2004) The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Byrd, Sharon (2009) ‘Intelligible Possession of Objects of Choice’. In Lara Denis (ed.) Kant’s ‘Metaphysics of Morals’: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 93–111.Google Scholar
—— and Hruschka, Joachim (2010) Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denis, Lara (ed.) (2009) Kant’s ‘Metaphysics of Morals’: A Critical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2000) Kant and Modern Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2009) ‘Kant’s Non-Individualist Cosmopolitanism’. In Heiner Klemme (ed.), Die Zukunft der Europäischen Aufkläung (Berlin: De Gruyter), pp. 425–448.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2011a) ‘Political Obligation: Property, Trade, Peace’. In Will Dudley and Kristina Engelhard (eds), Immanuel Kant: Key Concepts (Durham: Durham University Press), pp. 136–155.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin (2011b) ‘Innate Right and Acquired Right in Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom ’, Jurisprudence, 1 (2), 295–304.Google Scholar
Grotius, Hugo (2005) The Rights of War and Peace [De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Ed Richard Tuck. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1997) ‘Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight’. In James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), pp. 113–153.Google Scholar
Held, David (1995) Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Herb, Karlfriedrich, and Bernd, Ludwig (1993) ‘Naturzustand, Eigentum und Staat’, Kant-Studien, 84, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe (2010) ‘Kant on the Right to Freedom: A Defense’. Ethics, 120, 791–819.Google Scholar
Hodgson, Louis-Philippe (2012) ‘Realising External Freedom: The Kantian Argument for a World State’. In Elisabeth Ellis (ed.), Kant’s Political Theory: Interpretations and Applications (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press), pp. 101–134.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried (1999) ‘Der Kategorische Rechtsimperativ: “Einleitung in die Rechtslehre”’. In Otfried Höffe (ed.), Immanuel Kant: Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (Berlin: Akademie Verlag), pp. 41–63.Google Scholar
Höffe, Otfried (2013) ‘Anthropology and Metaphysics in Kant’s Categorical Imperative of Law’. In Sorin Baiasu and Mark Timmons (eds), Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretive Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 110–124.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1900–) Kant’s gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Kgl. Pr. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1996) Practical Philosophy. Trans. and ed. Mary J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel (1999) Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. and ed. Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang (1984) Wohlgeordnete Freiheit. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kersting, Wolfgang (2004) Kant über Recht. Paderborn: Mentis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (1998) ‘Kant’s Cosmopolitan Law: World Citizenship for a Global Order’. Kantian Review, 2, 72–90.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (1999) ‘Six Varieties of Cosmopolitanism in Late Eighteenth-Century Germany’. Journal of the History of Ideas, 60, 505–524.Google Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline (2011) Kant and Cosmopolitanism. The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
—— and Brown, Eric (2014) ‘Cosmopolitanism’. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/cosmopolitanism (accessed Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
Ludwig, Bernd (1988) Kant’s Rechtslehre. Berlin: F. Meiner.Google Scholar
Milstein, Brian (2013) ‘Kantian Cosmopolitanism beyond “Perpetual Peace”: Commercium, Critique, and the Cosmopolitan Problematic’. European Journal of Philosophy, 21, 118–143.Google Scholar
Moggach, Douglas (2000) ‘The Construction of Juridical Space’. Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, 7, 201–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthu, Sankar (2003) Enlightenment Against Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Niesen, Peter (2007) ‘Colonialism and Hospitality’. Journal of International Political Theory, 3, 90–108.Google Scholar
Niesen, Peter ( forthcoming) ‘Cosmopolitanism in One Country: A Right to Free Transnational Communication’. In Peter Niesen and David Owen (eds), Cosmopolitanism in One Country.Google Scholar
—— and Eberl, Oliver (2011) Kommentar zu Immanuel Kant: ‘Zum Ewigen Frieden’. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2009) Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur (2011) ‘Reply to Flikschuh and Pavlakos’. Jurisprudence, 1, 317–324.Google Scholar
Shabel, Lisa (2004) ‘Kant’s “Argument from Geometry”’. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 42.2, 195–215.Google Scholar
Shell, Susan (1996) The Embodiment of Reason: Kant on Spirit, Generation, and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stilz, Anna (2011) Liberal Loyalty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea (2014) ‘A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights’. European Journal of Philosophy, 22, 288–312.Google Scholar
—— and Flikschuh, Katrin (eds) (2014) Kant and Colonialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar