Advertisement

Kant, State Sovereignty, and International Reform

  • Antonio Franceschet

Abstract

For Kant, sovereignty is the key mechanism of political reform. It is the way in which politics can be domesticated to approximate the formal principles of morality. However, state sovereignty also presents Kant with a profound set of moral difficulties that ultimately threatens the realization of justice too. For, although sovereignly is a necessary cause of justice, it is also, paradoxically, a major cause of injustice both domestically and internationally. In this chapter I demonstrate that Kant’s advocacy of international reform is consistent with, and a crucial part of, his general attempt to articulate the conditions of justice as a means by which individuals are empowered to eliminate if not reduce the large discrepancy between morality and politics.

Keywords

Sovereign State Definitive Article State Sovereignty Formal Principle International Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Patrick Riley, Kant’s Political Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield, 1983), 117.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jens Bartelson, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    See Laberge, “Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations,” in International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed. David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 82.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 158.Google Scholar
  5. Cf. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cf. Quentin Skinner, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” in Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. James Tully (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1988), 34–35.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    See Peter Nicholson, “Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign,” Ethics 86, 3 (1976): 214–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 20.
    See Pogge for the charge of “dogmatism,” in “Kant’s Theory of Justice,” Kant-Studien 79, 4 (1988): 431–433Google Scholar
  9. Pogge, “Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty,” Ethics 103, 1 (1992): 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 21.
    Cf. Hobbes, Leviathan (Toronto: Penguin Books, 1986), 313.Google Scholar
  11. For an argument concerning Hobbesian ideas in Kant’s philosophy, see Richard Tuck, The Rights of Reason: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 207–225.Google Scholar
  12. 27.
    I am using Riley’s slightly altered translation of this paragraph, in “Elements of Kant’s Political Philosophy,” in Kant and Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner and William James Booth (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 20.Google Scholar
  13. 36.
    See Williams, Kant’s Political Philosophy (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1993), ix.Google Scholar
  14. 39.
    Thomas W. Pogge, “Is Kant’s Rechtslehre Comprehensive?” The Southern Journal of Philosophy 36, Supplement (1997): 177.Google Scholar
  15. 42.
    Martin Wight, “Why Is There No International Theory?” in Diplomatic Investigations, ed. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1966), 21–28.Google Scholar
  16. Cf. F. H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Among States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 6.Google Scholar
  17. 47.
    The idea of the “domestic analogy” is analyzed with care in Hidemi Suganami, “Reflections on the Domestic Analogy: The Case of Bull, Beitz and Linklater,” Review of International Studies 12, 2 (1986): 145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy in World Order Proposals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 54.
    See for example Carl Joachim Friedrich, Inevitable Peace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948), 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 57.
    Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The Republican Legacy in International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar
  21. 58.
    See Michael W. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1997), 205–206.Google Scholar
  22. 80.
    Hannah Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. Ronald Beiner (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 14.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Antonio Franceschet 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franceschet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations