Advertisement

Common Ownership of the Earth and Immigration: Human Mobility in a Kantian Perspective

  • Daniel LoeweEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Global Justice book series (JUST, volume 18)

Abstract

This chapter examines the plausibility of establishing a normative stance on immigration using cosmopolitan theories based on the notion of original common ownership of the earth. First, the Kantian cosmopolitan stance and the (qualified) right to mobility from which this idea is deduced are examined. Then, the common ownership of the earth theory recently proposed by Risse is examined. Though limited in its scope, Kant’s theory allows current legal understandings of immigration to be broadened, both in regards to refugees and certain economic immigrants. For its part, Risse’s theory proves unsuitable for addressing current migratory pressure. Lastly, a more extensive understanding of the right to immigrate is argued for based on a conception of common humanity articulated as an equal opportunity principle.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been realized within the framework of the project Fondecyt (1160982) and Derechos humanos y justicia global en el contexto de las migraciones internacionales [Human rights and global justice in the context of international migrations] (FFI2013-42521-P).

References

  1. Alvarez, David. 2010. Propiedad común de la tierra, derechos humanos y justicia global. Isegoría 43: 387–405.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, Michael, Risse, Mathias. 2006. Is there a human right to free movement? KSG Working Paper No. RWP06-012,  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.902383.
  3. Bull, Malcolm. 2013. Help yourself. London Review of Books. February.Google Scholar
  4. Caney, Simon. 2001a. Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities. Metaphilosophy 32: 113–134.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2001b. International Distributive Justice. Political Studies 49 (5): 974–997.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2005. Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Climate Change. Leiden Journal of International Law 18: 747–775.Google Scholar
  7. Carens, Joseph. 1987. Aliens and Citizens. The Case of Open Borders. Review of Politics 49 (2): 251–273.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cavallero, Eric. 2006. An Immigration-Pressure Model of Global Distributive Justice. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 5 (1): 97–127.Google Scholar
  10. Dworkin, Ronald. 1981a. What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (3): 185–246.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 1981b. What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (4): 283–345.Google Scholar
  12. El-Hinnawi. 1985. Environmental Refugees. Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Program.Google Scholar
  13. Höffe, Otfried. 1999. Demokratie im Zeitalter der Globalisierung, C.H. Beck, München.Google Scholar
  14. Hohfeld, Wesley N. 1919. In Fundamental Legal Conceptions, ed. W. Cook. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kant, Immanuel. 1991 [1797]. The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge U.P.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 2006 [1795]. Toward perpetual peace and other writings. New Haven: Yale U.P.Google Scholar
  17. Loewe, Daniel. 2007. Inmigración y el Derecho de Gentes de John Rawls. Revista de Ciencia Política 27 (2): 23–48.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2008. Inclusión de animales no-humanos en un marco de argumentación teórico contractual. Veritas 53 (1): 145–162.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2010a. Los náufragos de nuestro tiempo. Arbor 186 (744): 555–570.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2010b. Liberalismo, inmigración y justicia global. Isegoría 43: 435–458.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2012. Obligaciones de justicia: ¿open borders o justicia Distributiva? Arbor 188 (755): 475–488.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2013. El calentamiento global y la asignación de los costes de las políticas medioambientales. Dilemata 13: 69–92.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2015. Cinco dimensiones del cosmopolitismo. Civitas 15 (4): e155–e17 3.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2017. Libertad y propiedad en la fundamentación del Estado kantiano. In Forzados a ser libres, ed. Ormeño/Vatter. México: FCE.Google Scholar
  25. Milanovic, B. 2016. Global Inequaily. A new approach for the age of globalization. Cambridge, Mass./Londres: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  26. Milborn, Corinna, Gestürmte Festung Europa. 2006. Einwanderung zwischen Stacheldraht und Ghetto. Das Schwarzbuch, Verlagsgruppe Styria GmbH & Co.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2007. National Responsibility and Global Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2016. Strangers in Our Midst. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Moellendorf, Darrel. 2002. Cosmopolitan Justice. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  31. Myers, Norman. 2005. Environmental refugees: An emergent security issue. 13th Economic Forum, 2005.Google Scholar
  32. Nussbaum, Martha. 2006. Frontiers of Justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pogge, Thomas. 2002. World Poverty and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Regan, Tom. 1984. The Case for Animals Rights. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Risse, Mathias. 2008. On the Morality of Immigration. Ethics & International Affairs 22 (1): 25–33.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 2009. The Right to Relocation. Ethics & International Affairs 23 (3): 281–300.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 2012. On Global Justice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2014. Response to Arneson, de Bres, and Stilz. Ethics & International Affairs 28 (4): 511–522.Google Scholar
  41. Shachar, Ayelet. 2009. The Birthright Lottery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Singer, Peter. 2004. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stilz, Anna. 2014. On Collective Ownership of the Earth. Ethics & International Affairs 28 (4): 501–510.Google Scholar
  44. Tan, Kok-Chor. 2012. Justice, Institutions, and Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Velasco, Juan Carlos. 2016. El azar de las fronteras. México: FCE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of GovernmentUniversity Adolfo IbáñezSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations