Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Other editions.
|Published (Last):||13 July 2005|
|PDF File Size:||17.33 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
State University of Paraiba. E-mail: cruiz usp. The study chooses and highlights three central and specific themes: the evolution of the human species, the dilemma between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, and the issue of hospitality. By casting light on these themes, the article attempts to fill in a gap in specialized literature from the fields of international relations and philosophy. The dilemma between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism leads to the significant analysis of whether Kant has reflected upon or proposed transcending the paradigm of classical sovereignty.
Finally, the discussion about hospitality becomes particularly relevant, and is scrutinized according to its juridical and ethical. Key words: Immanuel Kant; cosmopolitanism; hospitality; sovereignty; ethics; international relations. Studying and reflecting upon them continues to hold a high degree of academic relevance, as demonstrated by publications and research projects dedicated to the subject in the area. The object of this article is, again, to investigate this Kantian canon, which is especially represented by five works:.
Yet, we do seek to illuminate three significant founding questions of Kantian political thinking which are directly related to cosmopolitanism and have received relatively scant attention in international relations and political science studies — such as in the case of the idea of the evolution of the human species as a part or result of nature.
Also, these questions ensue significant contemporary implications, challenges and practices — such as in the case of the intersection between sovereignty and hospitality on one side and highly topical issues as migration, citizenship, and nationality on the other.
Each of these issues retains its specificities, although they all are inscribed under the grand liberal chapter of political ideas. With regard to issue of cosmopolitanism versus sovereignty, further explored in specialized literature, the proposal consists of revising and engendering inflections about the interpretive possibilities of this debate by presenting two analytical perspectives.
On the one hand, the perspective of those who characterize Kant as an author who adheres to and defends sovereignty. This is based on his considerations about the decision-making process in international scale and the irrevocability of territorial integrity. On the other hand, there is an interpretive line which insinuates a feasible inflection of Kantian thought with regard to the clausula petrea, summa potestas superiorem non recognoscens. This derives especially from the innovative proposal of cosmopolitan law beyond ius gentium or international law.
Hospitality, our third issue, constitutes the most concrete basis for Kantian cosmopolitanism. The centrality of hospitality for Kant invokes highly relevant ethical and juridical parameters not only from a hermeneutic point of view, but also regarding international relations and its contemporary dilemmas. Our approach to hospitality will discuss the juridical dimension, expressed in Perpetual Peace and highlighted by commentators, but also attempt an original interpretation by incorporating the ethical dimension contained in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Interpreters of Perpetual Peace frequently underline that it was directly influenced by the Peace of Basel, which would halt hostilities between Revolutionary France, Prussia and Spain.
Yet, three other historic specificities are equally significant for understanding Kantian writings. In first place comes the importance of considering the intellectual impact of social relations established with the conquest of the New World on Europe.
This historic circumstance sparked a series of theoretical works approaching so-called ius gentium. Francisco de Vitoria, considered by many the father of international law, acquired notoriety for conceiving the principles of ius peregrinandi, ius migrandi and ius communicationis , among others, which were actually elevated to the category of rights.
Another historic phenomenon which draws our consideration are religious wars. The so-called Westphalian sovereign paradigm is a heritage from religious wars. Lastly, it is pertinent to consider the French Revolution, even though this subject might have been widely discussed. Endless factor have amounted to the Revolution — our most profound genetic-political-cultural-baggage 2. The character of the species, in accordance with that which notoriously results from the experiences of all times and all peoples, is this: The human race taken collectively as the entire human species is a great number of people living successively and simultaneously.
They cannot be without peaceful co-existence, and yet they cannot avoid continuous disagreement with one another. Consequently, they feel destined by nature to develop, through mutual compulsion and laws written by them, into a coalition, which is constantly threatened by dissension. Yet, generally progressing toward a universal civil society cosmopolitanism. It is difficult to understand Kantian cosmopolitanism without considering the notion of the evolution of the human species.
This notion, widely characteristic of his work, constitutes a cornerstone for the construction of the political edifice of Perpetual Peace and cosmopolitanism. In other words, it is confirmed as a cognitive presumption for the construction of peace and cosmopolitan law — a statement especially corroborated by the book Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose.
This perspective characterizes nature with inherent reason and internal order, which obeys universal laws. This implies that nature has as a purpose to fulfill an objective, a design connected to the order of things. A logical connection can thereby be identified between the means and the ends of nature — which the philosopher similarly refers to as providence 3.
His first observations about them are part of his reflections in fields such as natural life or natural sciences. Later, his studies on international politics — of main interest to us — begin to include them. This process thus can only be noted and evidenced in macro-history — or the universal history. Brought to its logical extreme, this is about a kind of human drama which spurs a behavior characteristic of double personalities with antagonistic character: isolate oneself and, simultaneously, associate oneself; reject and want, reject and need.
In summary, the philosopher concludes that the human species evolves in accordance with the designs of nature, as this evolution has the antagonism between men as its origin.
The contradiction in movement — interactions of forces — is what often brings humanity to the brink of war. It is thus unsociable sociability that enables progress.
And this progress becomes politically evident: first in the civil peace, second in the constitution of a state and, subsequently, in the perpetual peace, agreed upon by all states. The thesis about the evolution of the human species — which implies we are advancing with the passing of time — thereby becomes a foundation for Kantian political thinking which has direct implications for cosmopolitanism and the perpetual peace. It is thus worth the effort to further elaborate on the bases that explain such evolution.
Hence, the idea of evolution as engendered by nature and by unsociable sociability is in its essence not empirically proven. In this regard, the preface and the ninth proposition of Universal History Kant, b are important.
Kant mentions some empirically verifiable historic factors, but, according to Wood, only highlighted in order to find some meaning over the course of time. Once again, Enlightenment prevails, leaving its legacy to the several lines of liberalism. The evolution of the human species at first finds its political realization in the founding of the civil state as a practical result of evolution.
These principles not only define a civil state established by contract, but also imply its republican character 6. This pattern should eventually reach a higher level, at which the civil state encompasses the world, the international and the Cosmo polis. As we move beyond the discussion between theory and experience regarding the notions of evolution and progress, and as we approach the proposition of free will, a pertinent question arises: is Kantian politics not derived from the designs of nature and unsociable sociability?
On the one hand, the Kantian edifice is especially derived from a theoretical construct. Besides the comprehension that we naturally move towards justice and perpetual peace, Kant displays a moral proposition of duty, which defines human beings as participants in the course of history.
In the words of Wood: a theoretical and a practical or moral thesis Wood, In other — and in our — words, cosmopolitanism would at the same time be a common destiny of humanity and a moral duty of the individuals in their actions in society.
A timely international relations issue which has inspired philosophers and thinkers relates to whether cosmopolitanism, if brought to its final consequences, would supersede the paradigm of territorial sovereignty. Contemporary international relations lead us to wonder whether cosmopolitanism already supersedes sovereignty in some cases. With respect to the legal environment, it is plausible to consider that the Charter of the United Nations comprises a dual focus.
If, on the one hand, the Charter elaborates on and defends the principle of sovereign equality and non-interference Chapter 1, Article 2 , on the other hand, it applies a more flexible approach to the paradigm of territorial inviolability in Chapter VII. The ideas of a politically unitary world, a world government, a world republic, and a cosmopolitan constitution — all of which enable multiple interpretations — inspire — by recovering an ethical spirit — and alarm — by promoting a significant rupture.
How is it, however, that this issue appears in Kant? Does it appear in the form of a dichotomy — or possibly even an antinomy — or in the form of coexistence and harmony? Is it possible to think of cosmopolitan law as conflicting with the practice of the sovereign state? Is this a new cognitive paradigm? The change materializes in the relation between the collective and the individual, by attributing centrality to the individual.
This would ensue abolishing — in the most radical form — or transcend — in its mildest form — the particularity of the national and the link between the individual and the state or nation. Thinking of the cosmopolitan citizen nonetheless leads to the question: what political order would follow him?
Immediate association leads us to believe that the sovereign state in this new order would tend to become at least diminished in force or potency in order to give way to a new potestas- collective. However, what looks at first like an opposition sovereignty versus cosmopolitanism is brought together by Kant into coexistence in possible harmony.
The very beginning of Perpetual Peace includes six preliminary articles for the construction of perpetual peace between states. Kant makes a careful of the sovereign prerogatives in what concerns the control of internal territories. Yet, considering that his political philosophy works were among the last of his life, and that they were still under elaboration 11 , it would not be too unwary to present the hypothesis that the philosopher thought of the possibility and the need to diminish or loosen sovereignty to the benefit of cosmopolitan law.
Maybe the most central passage at the core of the text, which in a very clear manner exemplifies the contradiction between cosmopolitanism and sovereignty, could help us to justify the hypothesis:. According to reason, there is only one way for states involved in reciprocal relations with one another to leave the lawless condition, which involves nothing but war: as individual human beings, they give up their savage lawless freedom, consent to coercive public laws and form an always increasing s tate of nations civitas gentium which would finally encompass all nations of the earth.
If they, however, according to their idea of the right of nations, do not at all want this, thus rejecting in hipothesi what is in thesi correct; then if all is not to be lost in place of the positive idea of a world republic , only the negative surrogate of a permanent and always-expanding league that averts war endures and is able to hold back the stream of hostile and unfair inclinations, under constant danger of breaking out Furor impius intus — fremit horridus ore cruento.
Kant, a This passage might be the most polemic. Kant categorically affirms that, in order to leave the state of nature, states have to submit to certain coercive public laws. On the other hand, the philosopher anticipates the inviability of a world republic: for, if the positive cannot be realized the world republic , then the negative substitute must be applied: the federation of peace.
Interpreters are divided. Most sustain that Kant does not oppose sovereignty as it was then configured, neither does he propose its relativization given cosmopolitan law Habermas, ; Arroyo, ; Nour, ; Wood, As summarized by Habermas:. In the same interpretive vein, Soraya Nour emphasizes the normative difference expressed by Kant in the words reunion Zusammentretung and union Verbindung Nour, : On the other hand, the union leads to the idea of assembling parts, as they would lose their sovereignty.
Typical examples of the latter include the founding of the United States of America and even the creation of Germany in Hence, Kant opts for the federation of states as a reunion , and not as a union Kant therefore had not proposed a world republic: his solution is rather a federation of states, thus maintaining their sovereignty.
The possibility of a new Kantian international order, in which sovereignties would become diminished — and in which the maxim s umma potestas superiorem non recognoscens would be questioned — is emphasized in a text prior to Perpetual Peace. Seyla Benhabib in her turn provides an equally interesting interpretation. Based on a reading of Perpetual Peace , the author indicates a sort of movement in Kantian thought towards a post-Westphalian world.
This issue becomes clearer by considering the terms used by the philosopher. In line with this interpretation, the concept of cosmopolitan law inaugurated by Kant gains prominence, the roots of which stretch beyond civil and international law. Consequently, if cosmopolitan law does not emerge to rearrange in the radical hypothesis or to overcome and aggregate in the milder hypothesis the law in effect until then — hypotheses of which lead to modifications or ruptures in paradigms and in the status quo — why then not merely reform the law of the peoples international law?
A Paz Perpétua e Outros Opúsculos