Conceiving Cosmopolitanism and
Cosmopolitan Law: Theories, Contexts and Practice for a World Peace
Ana Luiza Silveira Nedochetko[1]∙
Federal University of
Santa Catarina, Brazil
Review
of: Consani, Cristina Foroni;
Klein, Joel T.; Nour Sckell, Soraya, Cosmopolitanism: From the Kantian Legacy to
Contemporary Approaches, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot,
2021, pp. 327. ISBN 978-3-428-58460-4.
Human interactions around the planet
have always been subject of many debates and research among philosophers and
scholars. The complexity of this topic just increases when analyzed having in
perspective humanity development in political and juridical snippets. Some
situations are importants marks for political
institutions developments, such as migrations, ecological crises, pandemic
situations etc. These topics are relevant because they have been influencing
theories about human relations that go beyond that interpersonal, reaching that
among groups of individuals.
The result of this speculation is a
vast theoretical production about ‘what’ and ‘how’ would be like a primeval
communion and its unfolding for a State constitution. The sequence of making
such questions is not just analyzing human relations in an individual
perspective, but also an analysis about its internal relations, as well that
among groups States. The problem begins when we realize that human interactions
are not circunstrated on those levels, it has a third
and not well explored one: when the person begins to play a role
internationally in a form that is independent from her original State. That is,
the person becomes an active subject when dealing with other countries. This is
the case of cosmopolitan citizens - as it’s called from its first theoretical
construction, with the stoics. This relation is clear when we talk about
international travels, but there are some complex situations that inevitably
points to this third level analysis. In the last centuries not only has
commerce increased, but refugee movements and environmental questions have been
highlighting the insufficiency of international law to find a solution. This is
the snip where theoretical constructions about cosmopolitanism have a sit, and
it is from where the book Cosmopolitanism:
From the Kantian Legacy to Contemporary Approaches lays its researching
efforts.
The urgency of the topic nowadays is
clearly observed, but it was already under the eye of many theoreticians throughout
history. Cosmopolitanism, further of being considered just a chimera, was
systematically thought of by a great number of philosophers, as Immanuel Kant.
The cosmopolitan theory, however, has two distinct concepts: cosmopolitanism
and cosmopolitan law. Starting from Kant’s construction, juridical
cosmopolitanism is an essence that should be thought within the idea of Right
as the recognition that humanity is confined in a spherical and limited globe.
For that reason, we have to learn to tolerate each other and to find ways of
getting through our disagreements with the help of public justice and juridical
procedures. Hence, cosmopolitanism can be considered as a normative exigence
intrinsic in the concept of Right and within this ideal is the concept of going
beyond sovereignty and national borders - even though this does not mean to disconsider them.
Cosmopolitan law, on the other hand,
is a third sphere of public right and it is limited by the right of
hospitality. This right is conferred to the foreigners to not be treated with
hostility when visiting other territories, as well to not be rejected if her or
his life is in danger[2]. To the
concept of cosmopolitan Law, Kant dedicated the third section in The Metaphysics of Morals. This section,
when compared to the others in the same book, can be considered very small and
thick, which makes possible a lot of interpretations and misinterpretations as
well. Going further into the various possible interpretations of cosmopolitan
law, it is possible to find a consensus about the fact that Kant was worried
about avoiding any form of validating colonialism, which becomes even more
clear when we read Perpetual Peace.
The worry about colonialism can be
noticed on some levels. In the first place, it has to be viewed having in
perspective all Kantian philosophy of right constructions. That is, we have to
consider his formulation of the universal principle of Right as “any action is right if it can coexist with everyone’s
freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of
choice of each can coexist with everyone’s freedom in accordance with a
universal law” (MS, AA 06: 231). This
principle brings to a cosmopolitan project the idea of common will and the
necessity of constructing a juridical state where rights can be safely secured.
The absence of an international juridical condition makes clear that the
international law that we have is insufficient to solve international
conflicts. To surpass the state of nature is to give up into wild freedom to
recover it in a judicial condition. Every right before the juridical condition
is merely provisory until this contract extends to all humankind[3]. Secondly,
the cosmopolitan law was carefully limited by Kant in the right of hospitality.
This conception is directly connected with the worry in avoiding colonialism.
Hospitality was theorized in Kant’s time as a positive right that could be
claimed by those who arrived foreign lands. This situation granted colonists to
be aggressive with natives that don’t collaborate with them. For this reason Kant wrote that the permission to foreign visitors is
to search for an interchange with the original inhabitants[4].
Kant was avoiding jesuitism, the sophistical maxims
and those actions where colonialists, by preaching a greater good, applied
violence to get to where they wanted to. Third and finally, it is possible to
analyze Kantian criticism in two perspectives, morally and prudentially
speaking. For the moral one, the aggressive way of colonialist expansion is
evidently against the categorical imperative as it consists in the interference
in others external liberty. The prudential aspect, on the other hand, is
observed in the sense that colonialism didn't give real profit to Europeans,
just the immediate one. That is, from a prudential point of view, they didn’t
get any gain with it. The lack of prudential reasoning, for Kant, led these
people immediately to their ruin. Prudential reasoning is a key-concept to
think cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan law as it has influence in concepts such
as public well-being. Hence, a civil society body formation toward a
cosmopolitan constitution has, in it, not only a moral perspective, but
prudential one as well.
Beyond the discussion about what
Kant really intended for cosmopolitan law to mean, there is also the discussion
about how a political international community would be to fit a cosmopolitan
constitution. In the essay Idea for a Universal History with a
Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784) it is possible to find a normative exigence
that, in order to overcome the conflict between States, supranational political
and juridical institutions should be constructed. In this first moment Kant
suggests an institution in the form of a State (Staatskörper). In the text Theory
and Practice (1793) he shows public law necessity and effectiveness when
dealing with international relations and aiming to solve war and constant
hostilities. The main problem comes in the intersection between the two works Toward Perpetual Peace and Metaphysics of Morals where Kant seems
to change his mind. It seems to abandon this international statal figure and
move to the idea of a free federation of States or a world republic. From this
point also emerges several interpretations facing the depth and difficulty of
the political and juridical topics involved. However, Kant seems to show some
crucial points that might be observed prior to making any inference about which
would be the ideal form for an international body. The starting place, as
pointed, is the universal principle of right, this is the base for the
development of any theoretic idea of right and its levels. This means that
within the cosmopolitan concept of right, there is a normative idea. So, before
choosing a better form for this international community, some actions might be
taken for States to gain trust between each other, leading them to a
spontaneous union. Beyond that, this mutual trust relationship must be built
having in perspective the individual as well. For that it is indispensable
analyzing all right spheres (national, international and cosmopolitan) as
systematically coordinated. The lack of one of them in this scenario, the
cosmopolitan perspective of right will not be achieved and even harder for an
international community to be built. If we do so, it is easy to fall into a
despotic government, a world monarchy and into a violation of basic human
rights. In this debate level, another tough topic is the national state role in
this international body. Which is the role and what is its relevance? How is it
possible to care about individual and collective freedom facing such a complex
and interconnected scenario? To solve these problems
we have many paths. The contemporary context for political and juridical
philosophy offers great contributions to this goal, with theories compromised
to find a solution to the international community issue, as we can see in
Habermas and Rawls writings.
Two main topics are found when we
deal with cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitan law: its limitative feature as a
negative right; and how would be the structure of an international community.
However, going beyond this discussion and the negative formulation of
cosmopolitan law, there are a lot of positive ramifications that are shown when
we face contemporary approaches to the subject. When they are brought having
Kant in perspective, it is possible one to object some anachronism to this
positive form of cosmopolitan right. This, of course, has to be considered,
having in mind that Kant left a short section dedicated to this topic. However,
contemporary debates based on Kant that bring this positive idea have to be
considered not only as important, but urgent.
Even though not expressly by Kant,
it is reasonable to think and to notice that Kant was worried about, when
dealing with right, have in perspective future generations. This open space for
environmental subjects to be bought for the cosmopolitan debate. In the same
way, the idea that every person has the right to be in some safe place on Earth
allows us to talk about refugee rights. The work Toward Perpetual Peace can be considered with a visionary feature
when faced with contemporary international right, geopolitics, globalization
and subsequent discussions. In this work Kant proposes a juridical scheme that
goes beyond any idea of national and international borders and that expands for
all persons and people on Earth. It is urgent, at this point, to find this
juridical spot that is adequate for all these juridical relations to happen, as
we can gradually realize how actions made in a corner of the planet can affect
the whole part of it and by generations. Kant was aware of it. Refugee
relations, sanitary and ecological crisis among other examples shows us how sui generis and intercommunitary
these relations are. That is, they are not restricted by national or
international relations, they are global. That is why Kant remains not only
relevant for nowadays issues, but to deep the analysis into his theoretical
construction is fundamental for us to be able to build a cosmopolitan idea of
right. It is extremely important to understand the normative principles that
sustain that ideal and the repercussions of them in an international community
- never forgetting how challenging and tough it is to create binding
obligations on an international level.
As an example
to show the complexity of this subject is, when we start to think about the
form of an international community, it is inevitable to start to question the
role of democracies. What can we expect from them facing an
union? That is a really expensive question for nowadays political scenarios. In
the same direction, what would be democracies’ function facing other States
that might be not yet a democracy, even though peaceful. Or, even harder,
facing an autoritary nation? How would this pacific
union be organized? Legal procedures, laws and public justice organized would
be constructed in the same way that we do nationally or would it be necessary
to think in new procedures structures? Until which point sovereignty has to be
protected and where it is better to abandon it? With these questions we can
realize how delicate are the subjects within cosmopolitan theory. We can find
reasonable arguments in any direction. But, going even deeper, we can question
how cosmopolitanism, as an essence, an ideal, would work as a guide to provide
us the best grounding to find a way out of the problematic relation between
liberalism and communitarianism perspectives. The answer to this question can
significantly change the practical effects of this theory.
Surely we have practical and emergencial problems that have to be solved by
cosmopolitanism, but are we sure that this ideal can be sufficient to create a
truly pacifical international environment? It has to
be one where we could discuss openly about nationalism, patriotism, racism,
xenophobia, minority rights, pandemic situations, migration and other problems
that reach us globally. This is why the book Cosmopolitanism makes a relevant contribution. Beyond presenting
Kantian theoretical aspects, it offers us a wider perspective from other
theoreticians. As an example, the book brings Habermas’ perspective about Schimmitt’s verdict about how a cosmopolitanism based on
human rights can lead us to a pan-interventionism. This is pertinent when we
face a global organization already functioning, as the UN. Cosmopolitan law
cannot be misunderstood as human rights, even though we can think of a lot of
human rights that would fit into cosmopolitan law. A Habermas contribution in
this direction is that a human rights fundamentalism is to be avoided not by
renouncing a politics worried about individual well-being, but done by
transforming international condition into a juridical one[5].
The complexity of this theme can
reach other levels when we face anthropological and sociological perspectives,
bringing questions about culture, religious institutions and morality. In spite
of some scholars'[6] claims about how a Kantian perspective is
worried about the figure of State and the impossibility of its dissolution,
States cannot longer be considered as a monad, a single cell. They are part of
something bigger, part of a collective system that are interconnected and
integrated. What we aim to show here is that cosmopolitan subjects reach points
much deeper from just choosing between a form for the international community.
We have steps to take before that. It is extremely necessary to think about
cosmopolitanism elements, justifications, its subjects, its conceptual
structure etc. It is also necessary to look at actual political systems and
national juridical structures and try to find out how the individual can be
considered within it as a cosmopolitan subject. Just with that perspective we
can lead right to a cosmopolitan constitution.
The essays brought by the book have
an integrative analysis not only about Kantian systematization and its
influence on cosmopolitanism; but go beyond when trying to identify current
movements that can open doors for a cosmopolitanism to emerge. With Kant and
beyond Kant, we have Hume, Smith, Habermas, Fichte, Dworkin and some
contemporary perspectives, enriching the debate. They introduce anthropological
and historical arguments about pluralism and how it can be observed facing a
peaceful constitution. It is clear, by this point, how cosmopolitanism can be
interdisciplinary and how this theoretical exercise is crucial to build a well structured cosmopolitan
theory that proposes to be applicable and effective.
Bibliography
Georg Cavallar (2020), Kant
and the Theory and Practice of International Right, University of Wales
Press, Cardiff.
Habermas, Jürgen
Habermas (1998), The Inclusion of the
Other: Studies in Political Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Immanuel Kant (1991), The Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Immanuel Kant (1917), Perpetual Peace, The Macmillan Company,
New York.
Sharon Byrd, Joachim Hruschka (2010), Kant’s
Doctrine of Right, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Susan Shell (2005), Kant on Just War and ‘Unjust Enemies’:
Reflections on a ‘Pleonasm’, Kantian Review, vol. 10, pp. 82-111.
