Re-looking Kant's Political Cosmopolitanism from the standpoint of "Hostility"

Abstract: Kant’s political cosmopolitanism attempts to secure individual freedom. A significant feature of Kant’s political cosmopolitanism is the concept of cosmopolitan right. In Perpetual Peace, Kant limits cosmopolitan right to the idea of universal hospitality. Hospitality is the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility by another upon her arrival on the other’s territory. It also includes the right to visit and seek association with others. The discussion on Kant’s cosmopolitan right prioritises hospitality as the right to visit and seek association with others, thereby advertently or inadvertently side-lining hostility in the discourse. This undue prioritisation of the right to seek and visit others is evident from the discussions of Kleingeld, Benhabib, Niesen and others in their attempt to use Kantian hospitality to address global political issues such as refugees’ rights, migrants, asylum seekers, and colonialism. Subsequently, these discussions render Kantian hospitality inadequate to address global political issues since it lacks a competent enforcing authority. This paper attempts to reinstate hostility in the cosmopolitan right discourse, arguing that it is hostility that the cosmopolitan right attempts to address. The issue of ‘hostility’ is not a standalone issue limited only to the concept of cosmopolitan right. Kant discusses hostility in his other works such as the Conjectural Beginning of Human History, Idea for Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose and in other parts of Perpetual Peace and the Metaphysics of Morals. Although neglected so far, hostility merits a discussion in Kant’s cosmopolitan political philosophy. Kant sees hostility as enmity between individuals. Hostility is an intentional transgression and it manifests by treating the other as the enemy. It signifies a lawless condition or a non-rightful condition. Hostility is also a significant feature of war, thereby acting as a threat to the achievement of perpetual peace. The paper, then, argues for the possible circumvention of the problem of enforceability of the cosmopolitan right to hospitality. For this, the interpretation of the cosmopolitan right to hospitality must include the mitigation of hostility and not limit itself to the right to seek and visit others alone.