I criticize two ways of interpreting Kant's claim that property rights are merely ‘provisional’ in the state of nature.Weak provisionalityholds that in the state of nature agents can make rightful claims to property. What is lacking is the institutional context necessary to render their claims secure. By contrast,strong provisionalityholds that making property claims in the state of nature wrongs others. I argue for a third view,anticipatory provisionality, according to which state of nature property claims do not wrong others, but anticipate (...) a condition in which the authority to make such claims can no longer be unilaterally determined. (shrink)

This article explores the justification of states' territorial rights. It starts by introducing three questions that all current theories of territorial rights attempt to answer: how to justify the right to settle, the right to exclude, and the right to settle and exclude with reference to a particular territory. It proposes a ‘permissive’ theory of territorial rights, arguing that the citizens of each state are entitled to the particular territory they collectively occupy, if and only if they are also politically (...) committed to the establishment of a global political authority realizing just reciprocal relations. The article is developed by introducing some key features of the permissive theory and by explaining how such an account addresses the questions of settlement, exclusion and particularity in ways that significantly improve on existing rival accounts (most prominently: acquisition theories, legitimacy-based theories and nationalist theories). (shrink)

In this article I argue that the current readings of permissive law fall into hermeneutical difficulties and do not completely explain Kant’s complex use of the concept. I argue that the shortcomings of these interpretations can only be overcome by relating permissive law to practical teleology. That teleological thinking has a role in Kant’s moral thought by way of history is not new. Here, however, I argue that the system of rights itself is in some manner teleologically situated. This interpretation (...) allows us to understand that Kant’s Doctrine of Right plays the role of a realist utopia. (shrink)

Los primeros parágrafos de la sección “El derecho privado” de la Doctrina del derecho de Kant incluyen el conjunto de los elementos sistemáticos que conciernen a la justificación de los derechos relativos a la propiedad. El propósito central de este trabajo es analizar la función sistemática del concepto de “posesión común originaria” en la doctrina kantiana de la propiedad, con especial interés en el sentido novedoso que adquiere ese concepto —que pertenecía a la tradición del derecho natural— en su reformulación (...) como un “concepto práctico de la razón, que contiene a priori, el principio según el cual tan solo los hombres pueden hacer uso del lugar sobre la tierra siguiendo leyes jurídicas”. (shrink)

An interdisciplanary collection of essays focused on Kant's work on the concept of community.

Neste artigo fazem-se algumas considerações sobre a justificação da propriedade privada na filosofia do direito de Kant. A partir da análise do conceito de lei permissiva da razão, defende-se que na filosofia do direito opera uma perspectiva teleológico- reflexionante de caráter prático, a qual permite compreender, por um lado, que a propriedade no estado de natureza seja legítima ao mesmo tempo em que é problemática, enquanto, por outro lado, o estado civil envolve a exigência de que a propriedade seja adequada (...) segundo as condições de um sistema de justiça distributiva. (shrink)

In recent years, English-language scholars have begun to approach the daunting field of Kant's politics by way of its technical core: the deduction of private right. In this interpretive project, t...

El objetivo del trabajo es mostrar que la pobreza es, para Kant, la contracara de una distribución social de la propiedad adquirida incompatible con la igual libertad de todos según leyes universales. El problema de la pobreza no es –dejó dicho Kant– un tema de beneficencia o de deberes éticos laxos de cada cual. Tampoco es un asunto de un derecho de necesidad que habilitara al pobre a robar cuando sus necesidades elementales no están satisfechas. Es un problema estructural en (...) la constitución de un estado jurídico, una grieta fatal en el diseño de sus Instituciones públicas incapaces de configurar una vida social acorde con la reciprocidad en la libertad externa de todos. (shrink)