The aim of this paper is to offer a political reading of Religion within the boundaries of mere reason. For this I will examine the way in which Kant’s international law is applied in the ethical-legal parallel in this work. In the first place, I will show that although Kant uses in Religion the term “republic” to refer to the association of States, however, he does not hold the model of a world republic for international law, but rather of a (...) Federation of States. In the second place, I will show that Kant does not hold a state analogy with international law, but an ethical-legal analogy between the ethical community and the international legal condition under the free Federation of States and cosmopolitan right. Finally, I will present the sense in which this analogy exposes Kant's idea of progress for existing political communities. (shrink)

Kant limits cosmopolitan right to a universal right of hospitality, condemning European imperial practices towards indigenous peoples, while allowing a right to visit foreign countries for the purpose of offering to engage in commerce. I argue that attempts by contemporary theorists such as Jeremy Waldron to expand and update Kant’s juridical category of cosmopolitan right would blunt or erase Kant’s own anti-colonial doctrine. Waldron’s use of Kant’s category of cosmopolitan right to criticize contemporary identity politics relies on premises that upset (...) Kant’s balanced right to hospitality. An over-extensive right to visit can invoke “Kantian” principles that Kant himself could not have consistently held, without weakening his condemnation of European settlement. I construct an alternative spirit of cosmopolitan right more favorable to the contemporary claims of indigenous peoples. Kant’s analysis suggests there are circumstances when indigenous peoples may choose whether to engage in extensive cultural interaction, and reasonably refuse the risks of subjecting their claims to debate in democratic politics in a unitary public. Cosmopolitan right accorded respect to peoples; any “domestic” adaptation of cosmopolitan right should respect indigenous peoples as peoples, absent a serious public explanation by a democratic state for why it has now become appropriate to treat indigenous peoples merely as individual citizens. (shrink)