Kant and the Cosmopolitanism of the Excluded

Abstract

Papers in this panel raise a puzzling question for Kant's account of global justice. Specifically, the question is whether Kant's consmopolitanism is able to avoid or contribute to avoiding exclusionary forms of political arrangements. For instance, Kant's Perpetual Peace includes claims often interpreted as a rejection of the attempts by European settlers to occupy territory used by non-European, non-sedentary groups. Yet, Kant mentions that the regulation of the interaction between settlers and "nomamds" should be governed by contract. Yet, various types of contract (sexual, racial) have been used in political theory and society to justify exclusionary institutions. Moreover, concrete examples in history could be used to examine Kant's project of cosmopolitan global order, a strategy which could be seen as a form of politics of remembering. In particular, remembering the ways empires have throughout history justified their existence as beneficial to the interests of those colonised is a good standpoint for the examination of Kant's own project. Relatedly, we can ask whether there is space within the framework of Kant's philosophy for an account of redress for historical cosmopolitan wrongs. Even more generally, we can ask whether Kant would regard as accurate the Schmittian assumption that the unity of members of a group can only be formed against members of another group, regarded as enemies; and, if he did regard it as accurate, whether he would have had a way of addressing it.

Title	Details
A Kantian Global Order?	View Paper Details
Private Property and the Postulate of Public Right in Kant's Rechtslehre	View Paper Details
Cosmopolitan Right and Non-Intervention: On the Conflictual Interplay of Philosophical Ideas and Legal Principles	View Paper Details