Home > Vol 7, No 13 (2018): 255-276 > Pinheiro Walla

Common Possession of the Earth and Cosmopolitan Right


Alice Pinheiro Walla

Abstract

Common possession of the earth was a prominent idea in seventeenth-century modern philosophy. In this paper I will argue that Kant not only provides a secularized version of common possession of the earth but also radically departs from the conception of his natural law theory predecessors. I argue that Kant’s account of cosmopolitan right seeks to address the same problem as Grotius’ right of necessity, namely the implausibility of assuming inflexible acquired rights when this would go against the rationale for introducing these rights. However, while Grotius intended to excuse violations of private property in cases of necessity, Kant restricts his discussion to the right of host peoples to reject entrants in their territory. I show that in Kant’s account, to deny life-saving occupation of space to another being who is in principle just as entitled as anyone else to any place of the earth is to contradict the very justification for the territorial rights of states. This is because the permission to control territory and the right of the involuntary visitor to be admitted are based on the same legal foundation or Rechtsgrund, namely, the original community of the earth.

Keywords

Kant; Common Possession of the Earth; Cosmopolitan Right; Right of Necessity; Territorial Rights.


Statistics

Abstract : 287 vistas. PDF (Español) : 66 vistas. HTML (Español) : 109 vistas.

References

Angeli, Oliviero (2016). From proximity to territoriality: A kantian genealogy of the State [De proximidad a territorialidad: una genealogía kantiana del Estado]. En J. C. Merle (ed.), Reading Kant’s Doctrine of Right. Gales, Reino Unido: University of Wales.

Aquino, Tomás (1960ss.). Summa theologica. Latin and english with notes and introductions [Suma teológica. Latín e inglés con notas e introducciones] 61 volúmenes (Trad. Thomas Gilby et al.). Londres, Reino Unido: Blackfriars. Eyre & Spottiswoode; y Nueva New York: McGraw-Hill. (Trabajo original publicado en 1485).

Buckle, Stephen (1991). Natural law and the theory of property. Grotius to Hume [Ley natural y la teoría de la propiedad. De Grocio a Hume]. Oxford, Reino Unido: Claredon.

Byrd, B. Sharon & Hruschka, Joachim (2010). Kant’s Doctrine of Right. A Commentary [La Doctrina del derecho de Kant. Un comentario] Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University.

Cicerón (2001). De Finibus / On moral ends [Sobre la finitud / Sobre los fines morales] (Julia Annas, Ed.; R. Woolf , Trad.). Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University.

Flikschuh, Katrin (2000). Kant and modern political philosophy [Kant y la filosofía política moderna]. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University.

Gierke, Otto (1934). Natural law and the theory of society [Ley natural y la teoría de la sociedad] Vol. 1. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University.

Grocio, Hugo (2001). De jure belli ac pacis / On the law of war and peace [Sobre la ley de la guerra y la paz] (A. Campbell, Trad.). Kitchener, Canadá: Batoche. (Trabajo original publicado en 1625).

Kant, Immanuel, (1900ss.). Gesammelte Schriften (Tomos 1-22): Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berlín; (Tomo 23) Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berlín; (a partir del tomo 24) Akademie der Wissenschaften: Göttingen, Berlín.

Kant, Immanuel (1989). Hacia la paz perpetua [Zum ewigen Frieden] (J. Muñoz, Trad.). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. (Trabajo original de 1795).

Kant, Immanuel (1994). Metafísica de las costumbres [Die Metaphysik der Sitten] (A. Cortina Orts y J. Conill Sancho, Trads.). Madrid, MD: Tecnos. (Trabajo original publicado en 1797).

Kersting, Wolfgang (2007). Wohlgeordnete freiheit. Immanuel Kants rechts- und staatsphilosophie [Libertad bien ordenada. La filosofía del derecho y del Estado de Kant]. Paderborn, Alemania: Suhrkamp.

Pinheiro Walla, Alice (2015). Kant’s moral theory and demandingness [La teoría moral de Kant y la demanda excesiva]. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 18(4), 731-743.

Pufendorf, Samuel (1729). De jure naturae et gentium. Libri octo / Of the law of nature and nations. Eighth book [Sobre la ley de la naturaleza y las naciones. Libro octavo] (Basil Kennet, Trad.). Londres, Reino Unido: Walthoe, Wilkin and Bonwicke. (Trabajo original publicado en 1672).

Risse, Mathias (2009). Common ownership of the earth as a non-parochial standpoint: A contingent derivation of human rights [Propiedad común de la tierra y punto de vista no parroquial. Una derivación contingente de los derechos humanos]. The European Journal of Philosophy, 17(2), 277-304. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2008.00302.x

Risse, Mathias (2012). On global justice [Sobre justicia global]. Princeton, Estados Unidos de América: Princenton University.

Salter, John (2005). Grotius and Pufendorf on the right of necessity [Grocio y Pufendorf sobre el derecho de necesidad]. History of Political Thought, 26(2), 284-302.

Vallentyne, Peter & Steiner, Hillel (2000). Left-libertarianism and its critics: The contemporary debate [El libertarianismo de izquierda y sus críticos. El debate contemporáneo]. Nueva York, Estados Unidos de América: Palgrave.

Westphal, Ken (1997). Do Kant’s principles justify property or usufruct? [¿Los principios de Kant justifican la propiedad o el usufructo?]. Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics, 5, 1997, pp. 41–194.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2018 Alice Pinheiro Walla

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Las Torres de Lucca. Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política © 2018.
ISSN-e 2255-3827