Kant's Sovereignty Dilemma: A Contemporary Analysis

Flikschuh, Katrin

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00361.x

Cited by 104 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…El "dilema kantiano de la soberanía" (Flikschuh, 2010), esto es, la relación inversamente proporcional entre una liga de Estados no coercitiva, que preserve las soberanías estatales, y la eficacia pacificadora de esa liga, no tiene por qué arruinar el proyecto cosmopolita. En la lógica kantiana el éxito del programa cosmopolita no depende de la existencia de una autoridad coercitiva que lo implemente, sino de que los propios Estados actúen conforme a sus deberes cosmopolitas.…”

Section: Cuadernos Salmantinos De Filosofíaunclassified

El proyecto de una sociedad mundial constitucionalizada: la actualización Habermasiana del cosmopolitismo kantiano

2019

CSF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En sus últimos trabajos, Habermas ha presentado su proyecto de una sociedad mundial integrada a través de un constitucionalismo global. El objetivo principal de este artículo es exponer sistemáticamente sus ideas, incluyendo los conceptos fundamentales vinculados al cosmopolitismo kantiano y su propio diseño de una gobernanza global democrática, sin olvidar las cuestiones más problemáticas de su propuesta

show abstract

Section: Cuadernos Salmantinos De Filosofíaunclassified

El proyecto de una sociedad mundial constitucionalizada: la actualización Habermasiana del cosmopolitismo kantiano

2019

CSF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…See alsoFlikschuh (2010) andHuber (2017) for similar interpretations of the Kantian position.European Duties of Social Justice: A Kantian Framework…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

European Duties of Social Justice: A Kantian Framework

Claassen

2019

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This contribution asks how to approach the question of whether the European Union should – replacing or supplementing member states – also be a locus of social justice‐based duties to provide welfare state services. The contribution scrutinizes two important theories of global justice (cosmopolitan and relational theories) and finds that their normative assumptions hinder them from adequately addressing this question. A new theory is proposed, inspired by Immanuel Kant's political philosophy. The core idea is that social justice requires public authorities to protect citizens against private forms of coercion; and that the level (national, European, global) at which such authority needs to be exercised depends on which arrangement best protects citizens' rights to independence. The paper outlines several duties of global justice to give specificity to this general principle, and then applies them to the case of integrating European welfare states.

show abstract

“…But alleged Kantian cosmopolitans ignore central elements of Kant's own position. Among other key Kantian tenets, contemporary discussions disregard, as Flikschuh noted, “the distinction between international and cosmopolitan Right as equally necessary elements in a complete theory of global justice” (, p. 470), that they do not stand in opposition but constitute a coherent system of justice together with Staatsrecht . A central (somehow tacit) thesis of my article is that the distance between Kant and current cosmopolitanisms and liberalisms widens thanks to the Kantian thesis that international and cosmopolitan Rights are not only complementary members of a system of public Right, but also that popular sovereignty is this system's pivot .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kant's popular sovereignty and cosmopolitanism

Marey

2020

Constellations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debates between cosmopolitan liberalism 1 and statism (broadly construed) continue to proliferate and ramify. Underneath their polymorphism and the longstanding dispute about which is to be the basic normative unit of international politics, human individuals or states, they all share a critical core, which inevitably poses questions concerning the role and place of democracy in the face of globalization. What these questions principally ask is exactly how the transnationalization of capital jeopardizes the concept of democracy, if and how democracy can be enhanced by some virtuous process of internationalization, and how and whether local and interlocal democracies can counteract the negative effects of globalization. But at the same time, many of the theoretical and practical difficulties in responding in morally and politically efficacious ways to many of the unjust phenomena of today's world order (where the imbalance of power between states is radical) are due to the unjustified conflation of the normative principle of popular sovereignty and the sheer factual, empirical assertion of state power by formal constitutional democracies. There is, therefore, a normative question conceptually prior to that of the role of democracy in the face of the negative effects of globalization: the status and function that the concept of popular sovereignty has vis-à-vis democracies and the sovereign nation-state within the state, and towards other states and political and economic transnational actors. This article intends to provide some initial reflections on this status by introducing an alternative reading of the modern political theory most cited in the philosophical debates on cosmopolitanism and international law: Kant's. 2 It is possible and desirable to construct a concept of popular sovereignty whose empirical use does not collapse into the mere empirical assertion of power by modern, post-Westphalian nation-states and formal democracies, that does not necessarily clash with international, transnational, and cosmopolitan political-juridical realms, and that is able to play normative roles in the context of globalization. A Kantian theory offers us the possibility of developing a normative notion of popular sovereignty 3 that satisfies these requisites for two basic reasons. First, it functions as a normative principle to regulate those practical contexts. For example, it would serve to distinguish critically intromissions against political autonomy, even when states formally agree to the terms of their international relations and of their dealings with international financial institutions. Second, it is not conceptually jeopardized by the desirable transformation of international and transnational practices into ambits of fairer interactions with norms neutralizing power asymmetries, or by the protection of the rights of refugees and migrants, insofar as it does not coincide with the declarative and territorial power of nation-states. [Correction added on 22 January 2020, after first online publication: removed "a...

show abstract

Kant's Sovereignty Dilemma: A Contemporary Analysis

Cited by 104 publications

References 0 publications

El proyecto de una sociedad mundial constitucionalizada: la actualización Habermasiana del cosmopolitismo kantiano

El proyecto de una sociedad mundial constitucionalizada: la actualización Habermasiana del cosmopolitismo kantiano

European Duties of Social Justice: A Kantian Framework

Kant's popular sovereignty and cosmopolitanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About