Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Antonio Franceschet

Abstract

In this book I have undertaken to explain two related things: first, the nature and serious limitations of Kant’s commitment to international political reform; and second, the reasons why conflicting understandings of his reform project He at the heart of contemporary divisions within liberal internationalism. In this conclusion, I make explicit the relationship between these two problems and draw together the explanations that have been developed above. In so doing, I want to emphasize the peculiar limits and possibilities of Kant’s thought within the context of the crisis of liberal internationalism noted above, and the divisions among its contemporary exponents that are likely to become much more salient in the years ahead.

Keywords

Political Reform Categorical Imperative Sovereign State State Sovereignty Reform Project 
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.
    Thomas W. Pogge, “Kant’s Theory of Justice,” Kant-Studien 79, 4 (1988): 412.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    On the contractarian elements of Kant’s international thought, see Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982), chap. 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 6.
    Nicholas Greenwood Onuf, The Republican Legacy in International Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Antonio Franceschet 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Franceschet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations