La dimensión cosmopolita de la protección jurídica en Kantalgunas consecuencias de la "posesión común de la tierra" en la "Doctrina del Derecho"

  1. Nuria Sánchez Madrid 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

Journal:
Araucaria: Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales

ISSN: 2340-2199,  1575-6823

Year of publication: 2022

Issue Title: Monográfico I. 200 años de independencia de Brasil: balance de una historia con muchas caras. Monográfico II. Rafael Sánchez Ferlosio. Monográfico III. Edward Gibbon

Volume: 24

Issue: 51

Pages: 53-74

Type: Article

DOI: 10.12795/ARAUCARIA.2022.I51.03 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Araucaria: Revista Iberoamericana de Filosofía, Política, Humanidades y Relaciones Internacionales

Abstract

This paper inspects the notion of legal protection unfolding in Kant’s cosmopolitan right and thus aims to dissect how it is intertwined with the legal protection which state right furnishes. First, I will break down the approach to equity in Kant’s Doctrine of Right as a normative order that gets the subject acquainted with his debt towards outcast people without drawing on any legal coercion. Second, I will tackle some of Kant's texts claiming the legal respect that non-state people deserve. Kant’s reflection on legal vulnerability in both cases will allow to claim that cosmopolitan legal protection works as a regulative instance in Kant’s political right, insofar as it is intended to orientate the conduct of states and citizens when they interact with other subjects dwelling on the Earth. Thus, my account highlights the fact that cosmopolitan right appears deprived of any coercion in Kant’s political philosophy.

Bibliographic References

  • Corradetti, C., Kant, Global Politics and Cosmopolitan Law. The World Republic as a Regulative Idea of Reason, London, Routledge, 2020.
  • Cubo, Ó., “El origen de la desigualdad en la Doctrina del derecho de Kant”. Manuscrito cedido por el autor, 2021.
  • Flikschuh, K., “Enthusiastic Cosmopolitanism” [en A. Cohen (ed.), Kant on Emotion and Value, London, Palgrave McMillan, 2014], pp. 265–283].
  • Flikschuh, K., “Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma. A Contemporary Analysis”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18/4 (2010a), pp. 469-493.
  • Flikschuh, K., “Innate Right and Acquired Right in Arthur Ripstein’s Force and Freedom”, Jurisprudence, 1/2 (2010b), pp. 295-304.
  • Flikschuh, K., “Kant’s Nomads: Encountering strangers”, Con-textos Kantianos, 5 (2017), pp. 346-368.
  • Huber, J., “Cosmopolitanism for Earth Dwellers: Kant on the Right to be Somewhere”, Kantian Review, 17/1 (2017a), pp. 1-25.
  • Huber, J., “Theorising from the Global Standpoint: Kant and Grotius on Original Common Possession of the Earth”, European Journal of Philosophy, 25 (2) (2017), pp. 231-249.
  • Huber, J., What Makes Human Rights Political? A Kantian Critique, Journal for Human Rights/Zeitschrift für Menschenrechte, 7/2 (2013), pp. 127-141.
  • Kant, I., Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, (1900-).
  • Kant, I., Metafísica de las costumbres, estudio preliminar de Adela Cortina, trad. de Adela Cortina y Jesús Conill, Madrid, Tecnos. 1989.
  • Kant, I., ¿Qué es la Ilustración?, ed. de Roberto R. Aramayo, Madrid, Alianza, 2004.
  • Kant, I., La paz perpetua, ed. de Joaquín Abellán, Madrid, Alianza, 2016.
  • Kersting, W., “Kant’s Concept of the State” [en Howard Williams, ed., Kant’s Political Philosophy, Chicago, Chicago U.P., 1992], pp. 143-165.
  • Marey, M., “A Kantian Critique of Grotius”, Problemos 95 (2019), pp. 67-80.
  • Mieth, C., “Kant, soziale Menschenrechte und korrespondierende Pflichten” (con C. Bambauer) [en Reza Mosayebi, ed.: Kant und Menschenrechte, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston 2018], pp. 101-130.
  • Muthu, S., “Productive Resistance in Kant’s Political Thought: Domination, Counter-Domination, and Global Unsocial Sociability” [en K. Flikschuh/L. Ypi, eds., Kant and Colonialism. Historical and Critical Perspectives, Oxford, OUP, 2014], pp. 68–99.
  • Niesen, P., “Colonialism and Hospitality”, Politics and Ethics Review 31/1 (2007), pp. 90–108.
  • Pinheiro Walla, A., “Private Property and Territorial Rights: a Kantian Alternative to Contemporary Debates” [en Pinheiro Walla, A./Demiray, R. (eds.), Reason, Normativity and Law: New Essays in Kantian Philosophy, Cardiff, University of Wales Press, 2020], pp. 213-232.
  • Pinheiro Walla, A., “A Kantian Foundation of Welfare Rights”, Jurisprudence 11 (2019), pp. 1-16.
  • Pinheiro Walla, A., “Common Possession of the Earth and Cosmopolitan Right“, Kant-Studien 107/1 (2016), pp. 160-178 [traducido por M. Marey como “Posesión común de la tierra y derecho cosmopolita“, Las Torres de Lucca 7/13 (2018), pp. 255-276).
  • Pinheiro Walla, A., “A Commentary on Anna Stilz, Nations, States, and Territory and Lea Ypi, A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights” [en Cara Nine (ed.), Territory and Justice Symposia 2014 edition (2014), 3], pp. 1-6.
  • Pinzani, A., “Der systematische Stellenwert der pseudo-ulpianischen Regeln in Kants Rechtslehre”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 59/1 (2005), pp. 71-94.
  • Ripstein, A., “Embodied Free Beings under Public Law: A Reply” [en S. Kisilevsky/M.J. Stone (eds.), Freedom and Force. Essays on Kant’s Legal Philosophy, Nueva York, Bloomsbury, 2017], pp. 183-217.
  • Ripstein, A. “Reply to Flikschuh and Pavlakos”, Jurisprudence 1/2 (2010), pp. 317-324.
  • Ripstein, A., Force and Freedom. Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 2009.
  • Sánchez Madrid, N., “Kantian Theory of Human Rights: a Skeptical Appraisal”, Studia Philosophica Kantiana 2 (2016), pp. 3-15.
  • Sánchez Madrid, N., “Kant’s Criticism of European Colonialism: A Contemporary Account of Cosmopolitan Right”, Problemos, 94 (2018), 71-82.
  • Sánchez Madrid, N., “Kant’s Criticism of Colonialism. The Political Rights of Non-State People” [en VV.AA., Nature and Freedom/Natur und Freiheit. Proceedings of 12th Kant Congress, Berlin/Boston, W. de Gruyter, 2019], pp. 2435-2442.
  • Shklar, J., Faces of Injustice, New Haven (Conn.), Yale U.P., 1990.
  • Vaha, M., The Moral Standing of the State in International Politics. A Kantian Account, Cardiff, Wales University Press, 2021.
  • Vanhaute, L., “Colonists, Traders, or Settlers? Kant on Fair International Trade and Legitimate Settlement” [en K. Flikschuh and L. Ypi (eds.), Kant and Colonialism. Historical and Critical Perspectives. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014], pp. 127–144.
  • Waldron, J. “The Principle of Proximity”, New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 255 (2011) (acceso el 12 de agosto de 2021).
  • Ypi, L., “A Permissive Theory of Territorial Rights”, European Journal of Philosophy 22/2 (2014), pp. 288-312.
Data source: Dialnet