Law and Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 291–317 | Cite as

In Defense of Kant’s League of States

Open Access
Article

Abstract

This article presents a defense of Kant’s idea of a league of states. Kant’s proposal that rightful or just international relations can be achieved within the framework of such a league is often criticized for being at odds with his overall theory. In view of the analogy he draws between an interpersonal and an international state of nature, it is often argued that he should have opted for the idea of a state of states. Agreeing with this standard criticism that a league of states cannot establish the institutional framework for international justice, others also suggest an alternative stage model interpretation. According to this interpretation, Kant’s true ideal is in fact a state of states, whereas the league is merely introduced as a temporary and second best solution. In contrast to both the standard criticism and the stage model interpretation, I argue that fundamental normative concerns count in favour of a league rather than a state of states. I also argue that Kant’s defense of such a league is consistent with his position on the institutional preconditions for just interaction in the domestic case because of crucial relevant differences between the state of nature among individuals and the external relations between states.

Notes

Acknowledgments

In addition to an anonymous referee, I would like to thank Kristian Skagen Ekeli, Ståle Finke, Øystein Lundestad, Reidar Maliks, Helga Varden and Audun Øfsti for valuable comments to earlier drafts of this article. Also, thanks to the participants at an internal seminar at the Department of Philosophy, NTNU, for comments on a very early draft, and to the participants at a colloquium at ARENA, UiO, for comments on a next to final draft.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. Berlin, Isaiah (2006) Two Concepts of Liberty, In: Henry Hardy (eds), Liberty. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Byrd, Sharon, ‘The State as a “Moral Person”’, in Hoke Robinson (ed.), Proceedings of the Eight International Kant Congress, vol. I. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  3. Byrd, Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim, ‘From the State of Nature to the juridical State of States’, Law and Philosophy 27 (2008): 599-641.Google Scholar
  4. Carson, Thomas, “Perpetual Peace: What Kant Should Have Said,” Social Theory and Practice 14 (1988): 173-214.Google Scholar
  5. Cavallar, Georg, Kant and the theory and practice of international right (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  6. Höffe, Otfried, Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  7. Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Trans. Ted Humphrey (Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983).Google Scholar
  8. Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. and ed. Mary Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; first published 1797).Google Scholar
  9. Kleingeld, Pauline, “Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and his Ideal of a World Federation,” European Journal of Philosophy 12 (2004): 304-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Locke, John, The Second Treatise on Civil Government (New York: Prometheus Books, 1986; first published 1690).Google Scholar
  11. Ludwig, Bernd, ‘Whence Public Right? The Role of Theoretical and Practical Reasoning in Kant’s Doctrine of Right’, in Mark Timmons (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  12. Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias, (1997) Kant’s Idea of Peace and the Philosophical Conception of a World Republic, In: James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann (eds), Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Maus, Ingeborg, ‘Liberties and Popular Sovereignty: On Jürgen Habermas’ Reconstruction of the System of Rights’, in René von Schomberg and Kenneth Baynes (eds.), Discourse and Democracy – Essays on Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  14. Maus, Ingeborg, “Kant’s Reasons against a Global State: Popular Sovereignty as a Principle of International Law,” Filozofski Godisnjak 17 (2004): 81-96.Google Scholar
  15. McCarthy, Thomas (2002) On Reconciling Cosmopolitan Unity and National Diversity, In: Pablo De Greiff, Ciaran Cronin (eds) Global Justice and Transnational Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pettit, Philip, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  17. Pogge, Thomas, “Kant’s Theory of Justice,” in Kant-Studien 79 (1988): 407-433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ripstein, Arthur, (2004) Authority and Coercion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 32:2-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ripstein, Arthur, Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
  20. Tesón, Fernando R., A Philosophy of International Law (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  21. Varden, Helga, “Diversity and Unity: An Attempt at Drawing a Justifiable Line,” Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 94 (2008a): 1-25.Google Scholar
  22. Varden, Helga, “Kant’s Non-Voluntarist Conception of Political Obligations: Why Justice is Impossible in the State of Nature,” Kantian Review 13 (2008b): 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams, Howard, Kant’s Critique of Hobbes (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2003).Google Scholar
  24. Wood, Allen, ‘Kant’s Project for Perpetual Peace’, in Hoke Robinson (ed.), Proceedings of the Eight International Kant Congress, vol. I (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations