There exists a longstanding debate over the global institutional implications of Immanuel Kant's political philosophy: does such a philosophy entail a federal world government, or instead only a confederal ‘league of nations’? However, while the systematic nature of Kant's tripartite ‘doctrine of right' is well recognised, this debate has been conducted with all but exclusive focus on ‘international right' in particular. This article, by contrast, brings ‘cosmopolitan right' firmly into view. It proceeds by way of engagement with the two Kantian (...) arguments made in defence of a ‘league of nations’ in discussion of international right, each of which appeals to aspects of states’ supposed ‘personhood’: the first appeals to states’ distinctive moral personality; the second to states’ physical manifestation. The article considers what happens when we assess these arguments not just in light of the demands of international right, but also in light of cosmopolitan right, and thus in light of public right more comprehensively. The answer is that such arguments cannot succeed as full defences of a league of nations. Indeed, when we assess such arguments with cosmopolitan right in view, they point instead – either tentatively or definitively – in the direction of world government. (shrink)

Journal of International Political Theory, Ahead of Print. The contemporary international regime of law and politics regarding human migration largely follows Immanuel Kant’s contradictory approach, supporting the cosmopolitical rights of humans to move and expect hospitality while privileging the rights of sovereign states to assert territorial security against movement. International Relations scholars informed by Jacques Derrida’s ethical theory argue that one may press this tension to positive dynamics through affirmation of the aporia that a secured home is a requirement for (...) the possibility of the hospitality that might undo conflict between migrants and emplaced citizens. Yet, the attraction of Derrida’s critical Kantianism and this revival of hospitality depends on asserting the primacy of habitation to how citizen subjects stand with respect to foreigners who move. It depends on neglecting how any assumption of home is not based on a given home but, rather, on movements to impose the boundaries and bounty of a home. No one faces the movement of others who seek to make home from the position of home but only also in movements of homemaking. Both the citizen and the migrant move in forms of imposition. And it is only in a politics of imposition that rights to move can be affirmed and gain respect. (shrink)

The contemporary international regime of law and politics regarding human migration largely follows Immanuel Kant’s contradictory approach, supporting the cosmopolitical rights of humans to move and expect hospitality while privileging the rights of sovereign states to assert territorial security against movement. International Relations scholars informed by Jacques Derrida’s ethical theory argue that one may press this tension to positive dynamics through affirmation of the aporia that a secured home is a requirement for the possibility of the hospitality that might undo (...) conflict between migrants and emplaced citizens. Yet, the attraction of Derrida’s critical Kantianism and this revival of hospitality depends on asserting the primacy of habitation to how citizen subjects stand with respect to foreigners who move. It depends on neglecting how any assumption of home is not based on a given home but, rather, on movements to impose the boundaries and bounty of a home. No one faces the movement of others who seek to make home from the position of home but only also in movements of homemaking. Both the citizen and the migrant move in forms of imposition. And it is only in a politics of imposition that rights to move can be affirmed and gain respect. (shrink)

An influential interpretation of Kant’s Doctrine of Right suggests that the relationship between public right and freedom is constitutive rather than instrumental. The focus has been on domestic right and members’ relations to their own state. This has resulted in a statist bias which has not adequately dealt with the fact that Kant regards public right as a system composed of three levels – domestic, international and cosmopolitan right. This article suggests that the constitutive relationship is between all levels of (...) right, on the one hand, and ‘freedom in the external relation’ of all human beings, on the other hand. (shrink)