Sovereignty and freedom: Immanuel Kant's liberal internationalist 'legacy'

Review of International Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 209-228

  Franceschet, Antonio ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035635982     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210500002096     Document Type: Article

References (167)

1. On the renaissance of liberal perspectives in International Relations see: R. A. Matthew and M. W. Zacher, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in C. W. Kegley Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50; P. Wilson, 'Introduction', in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 2-14; and C.W. Kegley Jr., 'The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction', in Kegley (ed.) Controversies, pp. 1-14. It must be noted that liberals do not have a monopoly on internationalist sentiment. Although a wide variety of Marxist and socialist thought claims an 'internationalist' orientation, the main concern of this article is liberal thought. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I shall often use the term internationalism without the qualifier 'liberal'. Cf. F. Halliday, 'Three Concepts of Internationalism'. International Affairs, 64:2 (1988), pp. 187-98, and C. Lynch, 'The Promise and Problems of Internationalism', Global Governance, 5:1 (1999), pp. 83-101.
2. On the renaissance of liberal perspectives in International Relations see: R. A. Matthew and M. W. Zacher, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in C. W. Kegley Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50; P. Wilson, 'Introduction', in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 2-14; and C.W. Kegley Jr., 'The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction', in Kegley (ed.) Controversies, pp. 1-14. It must be noted that liberals do not have a monopoly on internationalist sentiment. Although a wide variety of Marxist and socialist thought claims an 'internationalist' orientation, the main concern of this article is liberal thought. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I shall often use the term internationalism without the qualifier 'liberal'. Cf. F. Halliday, 'Three Concepts of Internationalism'. International Affairs, 64:2 (1988), pp. 187-98, and C. Lynch, 'The Promise and Problems of Internationalism', Global Governance, 5:1 (1999), pp. 83-101.
3. On the renaissance of liberal perspectives in International Relations see: R. A. Matthew and M. W. Zacher, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in C. W. Kegley Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50; P. Wilson, 'Introduction', in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 2-14; and C.W. Kegley Jr., 'The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction', in Kegley (ed.) Controversies, pp. 1-14. It must be noted that liberals do not have a monopoly on internationalist sentiment. Although a wide variety of Marxist and socialist thought claims an 'internationalist' orientation, the main concern of this article is liberal thought. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I shall often use the term internationalism without the qualifier 'liberal'. Cf. F. Halliday, 'Three Concepts of Internationalism'. International Affairs, 64:2 (1988), pp. 187-98, and C. Lynch, 'The Promise and Problems of Internationalism', Global Governance, 5:1 (1999), pp. 83-101.
4. On the renaissance of liberal perspectives in International Relations see: R. A. Matthew and M. W. Zacher, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in C. W. Kegley Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50; P. Wilson, 'Introduction', in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 2-14; and C.W. Kegley Jr., 'The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction', in Kegley (ed.) Controversies, pp. 1-14. It must be noted that liberals do not have a monopoly on internationalist sentiment. Although a wide variety of Marxist and socialist thought claims an 'internationalist' orientation, the main concern of this article is liberal thought. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I shall often use the term internationalism without the qualifier 'liberal'. Cf. F. Halliday, 'Three Concepts of Internationalism'. International Affairs, 64:2 (1988), pp. 187-98, and C. Lynch, 'The Promise and Problems of Internationalism', Global Governance, 5:1 (1999), pp. 83-101.
5. On the renaissance of liberal perspectives in International Relations see: R. A. Matthew and M. W. Zacher, 'Liberal International Theory: Common Threads, Divergent Strands', in C. W. Kegley Jr. (ed.), Controversies in International Politics: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995), pp. 107-50; P. Wilson, 'Introduction', in D. Long and P. Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 2-14; and C.W. Kegley Jr., 'The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction', in Kegley (ed.) Controversies, pp. 1-14. It must be noted that liberals do not have a monopoly on internationalist sentiment. Although a wide variety of Marxist and socialist thought claims an 'internationalist' orientation, the main concern of this article is liberal thought. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, I shall often use the term internationalism without the qualifier 'liberal'. Cf. F. Halliday, 'Three Concepts of Internationalism'. International Affairs, 64:2 (1988), pp. 187-98, and C. Lynch, 'The Promise and Problems of Internationalism', Global Governance, 5:1 (1999), pp. 83-101.
6. See for example the debates in D. A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Kegley (ed.), Controversies; and M. E. Brown, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds.), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MIT Press 1996).
7. See for example the debates in D. A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Kegley (ed.), Controversies; and M. E. Brown, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds.), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MIT Press 1996).
8. See for example the debates in D. A. Baldwin (ed.), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: the Contemporary Debate (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Kegley (ed.), Controversies; and M. E. Brown, S. M. Lynn-Jones and S. E. Miller (eds.), Debating the Democratic Peace (Cambridge: MIT Press 1996).
9. See A. Franceschet, 'The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism', International Journal, 54:3 (1999), pp. 463-81.
10. See A. Hurrell, 'Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 16:3 (1990), pp. 183-205. Although Hurrell provides a useful description of Kant's uneasy commitment to both statism and cosmopolitanism, it is not rooted in a larger explanation of Kant's views on sovereignty and freedom.
11. M. Doyle's two-part article, 'Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs', was first published in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12:3/4 (1983), pp. 205-35, 323-53. In the present article I use the reprint in Brown et al., Debating the Democratic Peace, pp. 3-57. A. Linklater's early statement on Kant is in ch. 6 of his Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982).
12. M. Doyle's two-part article, 'Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs', was first published in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12:3/4 (1983), pp. 205-35, 323-53. In the present article I use the reprint in Brown et al., Debating the Democratic Peace, pp. 3-57. A. Linklater's early statement on Kant is in ch. 6 of his Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982).
13. M. Doyle's two-part article, 'Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs', was first published in Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12:3/4 (1983), pp. 205-35, 323-53. In the present article I use the reprint in Brown et al., Debating the Democratic Peace, pp. 3-57. A. Linklater's early statement on Kant is in ch. 6 of his Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982).
14. E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis (Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark, 1942).
15. See the contributions to Long and Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis.
16. Carr, Twenty Years' Crisis, pp. 54-80.
17. This is especially so in the case of Kant. See P. Laberge, 'Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations' in D. R. Mapel and T. Nardin (eds.), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 82-102; K. N. Waltz, 'Kant, Liberalism, and War', American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), p. 331; cf. S. Hoffmann, 'The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism', Foreign Policy, 98 (1995), p. 161.
18. This is especially so in the case of Kant. See P. Laberge, 'Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations' in D. R. Mapel and T. Nardin (eds.), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 82-102; K. N. Waltz, 'Kant, Liberalism, and War', American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), p. 331; cf. S. Hoffmann, 'The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism', Foreign Policy, 98 (1995), p. 161.
19. This is especially so in the case of Kant. See P. Laberge, 'Kant on Justice and the Law of Nations' in D. R. Mapel and T. Nardin (eds.), International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 82-102; K. N. Waltz, 'Kant, Liberalism, and War', American Political Science Review, 56 (1962), p. 331; cf. S. Hoffmann, 'The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism', Foreign Policy, 98 (1995), p. 161.
20. R. K. Ashley, 'Untying the Sovereign State: a Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17:2 (1988), pp. 238, 240. See also B. C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: a Disciplinary History (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998).
21. R. K. Ashley, 'Untying the Sovereign State: a Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 17:2 (1988), pp. 238, 240. See also B. C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: a Disciplinary History (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998).
22. H. Suganami, The Domestic Analogy in World Order Proposals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 6.
23. J. Bartelson, 'The Trial of Judgement: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism', International Studies Quarterly, 39:2 (1995), p. 259.
24. Hoffmann, 'The Crisis of Liberal Internationalism', p. 161.
25. See J. L. Richardson, 'Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present', European Journal of International Relations, 3:1 (1997), p. 14; cf. M. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), pp. 205-13.
26. See J. L. Richardson, 'Contending Liberalisms: Past and Present', European Journal of International Relations, 3:1 (1997), p. 14; cf. M. Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), pp. 205-13.
27. Cf. Bartelson, 'The Trial of Judgement', p. 256.
28. See C. N. Murphy, International Organization and Industrial Change: Global Governance Since 1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 13-47.
29. See D. Long, 'Conclusion: Inter-War Idealism, Liberal Internationalism, and Contemporary International Theory,' in Long and Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis, pp. 315-6; see also D. Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: the International Theory of J. A. Hobson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
30. See D. Long, 'Conclusion: Inter-War Idealism, Liberal Internationalism, and Contemporary International Theory,' in Long and Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis, pp. 315-6; see also D. Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: the International Theory of J. A. Hobson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
31. On the roles of accommodation and coercion in internationalism see K. Goldmann, The Logic of Internationalism: Coercion and Accommodation (London: Routledge, 1994).
32. See D. Long, 'J. A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 294-5; Long, 'Conclusion', pp. 314-15; Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism, p. 155.
33. See D. Long, 'J. A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 294-5; Long, 'Conclusion', pp. 314-15; Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism, p. 155.
34. See D. Long, 'J. A. Hobson and Idealism in International Relations', Review of International Studies, 17 (1991), pp. 294-5; Long, 'Conclusion', pp. 314-15; Long, Towards a New Liberal Internationalism, p. 155.
35. See D. Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1966); C. Pentland, Integration Theory and European Integration (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 70, 81; P. Taylor, 'Functionalism: The Approach of David Mitrany', in A. J. R. Groom and P. Taylor (eds.), Frameworks for International Co-operation (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990); and the contributions to L. M. Ashworth and D. Long (eds.), New Perspectives on International Functionalism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999).
36. See D. Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1966); C. Pentland, Integration Theory and European Integration (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 70, 81; P. Taylor, 'Functionalism: The Approach of David Mitrany', in A. J. R. Groom and P. Taylor (eds.), Frameworks for International Co-operation (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990); and the contributions to L. M. Ashworth and D. Long (eds.), New Perspectives on International Functionalism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999).
37. See D. Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1966); C. Pentland, Integration Theory and European Integration (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 70, 81; P. Taylor, 'Functionalism: The Approach of David Mitrany', in A. J. R. Groom and P. Taylor (eds.), Frameworks for International Co-operation (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990); and the contributions to L. M. Ashworth and D. Long (eds.), New Perspectives on International Functionalism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999).
38. See D. Mitrany, A Working Peace System (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1966); C. Pentland, Integration Theory and European Integration (London: Faber and Faber, 1973), pp. 70, 81; P. Taylor, 'Functionalism: The Approach of David Mitrany', in A. J. R. Groom and P. Taylor (eds.), Frameworks for International Co-operation (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990); and the contributions to L. M. Ashworth and D. Long (eds.), New Perspectives on International Functionalism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999).
39. Doyle, 'Kant, Liberal Legacies', pp. 5-6.
40. A. Franceschet, 'The Ethical Foundations of Liberal Internationalism', p. 481.
41. Bartelson, 'The Trial of Judgement', pp. 256-7.
42. R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 161.
43. See for example D. Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: Reflections on the 200th Anniversary of Kant's "Perpetual Peace"', Alternatives, 20 (1995), pp. 415-29; D. Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', European Journal of International Relations, 1:4 (1995), pp. 429-56; and A. Franceschet, 'Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform', European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 277-302.
44. See for example D. Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: Reflections on the 200th Anniversary of Kant's "Perpetual Peace"', Alternatives, 20 (1995), pp. 415-29; D. Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', European Journal of International Relations, 1:4 (1995), pp. 429-56; and A. Franceschet, 'Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform', European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 277-302.
45. See for example D. Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order: Reflections on the 200th Anniversary of Kant's "Perpetual Peace"', Alternatives, 20 (1995), pp. 415-29; D. Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', European Journal of International Relations, 1:4 (1995), pp. 429-56; and A. Franceschet, 'Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy? Liberalism, Kant and International Reform', European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 277-302.
46. Although both authors have published recent books in which Kant reappears, they have not deviated fundamentally from their earlier depictions of in what Kant's legacy consists. See Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, pp. 252-302; A. Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), pp. 4-6, 220.
47. Although both authors have published recent books in which Kant reappears, they have not deviated fundamentally from their earlier depictions of in what Kant's legacy consists. See Doyle, Ways of War and Peace, pp. 252-302; A. Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), pp. 4-6, 220.
48. See the work on democracy and peace in B. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); J. M. Owen, 'How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace', International Security, 19:2 (1994), pp. 87-125; and the debate in Brown, Lynn-Jones, and Miller, Debating the Democratic Peace.
49. See the work on democracy and peace in B. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); J. M. Owen, 'How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace', International Security, 19:2 (1994), pp. 87-125; and the debate in Brown, Lynn-Jones, and Miller, Debating the Democratic Peace.
50. See the work on democracy and peace in B. Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993); J. M. Owen, 'How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace', International Security, 19:2 (1994), pp. 87-125; and the debate in Brown, Lynn-Jones, and Miller, Debating the Democratic Peace.
51. J. S. Levy, 'Domestic Politics and War' in R. I. Rotberg and T. K. Rabb (eds.), The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 88.
52. Doyle, 'Kant, Liberal Legacies', p. 10.
53. Ibid., p. 30. For a critique, see J. MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24:3 (1995), pp. 549-62; and J. MacMillan, 'Democracies Don't Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research Agenda', Review of International Studies, 22:4 (1996), pp. 275-99.
54. Ibid., p. 30. For a critique, see J. MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24:3 (1995), pp. 549-62; and J. MacMillan, 'Democracies Don't Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research Agenda', Review of International Studies, 22:4 (1996), pp. 275-99.
55. Ibid., p. 30. For a critique, see J. MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest Against the Peculiar Discourse of Inter-Liberal State Peace', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 24:3 (1995), pp. 549-62; and J. MacMillan, 'Democracies Don't Fight: A Case of the Wrong Research Agenda', Review of International Studies, 22:4 (1996), pp. 275-99.
56. See C. Brown, '"Really Existing Liberalism" and International Order', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:3 (1992), pp. 313-28.
57. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for comments regarding this point.
58. A. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. 11; see also A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990); A. Linklater, 'The Problem of Community in International Relations', Alternatives, 15 (1990), pp. 135-53; and A. Linklater, 'Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, 2:1 (1996), pp. 77-103. It might be objected that Linklater's scholarly career does not support internationalism, given his use of Hegelian and Marxist-inspired critical theory. But critical theory need not be incompatible with the essential goals of liberal internationalism. We must take Linklater's own statement of intent seriously: '[t]he specific contribution that critical theory can make to the next stage of international relations theory starts from the premise that the emancipatory project ought to be more central to the field. Critical theory presents the case for recovering the old idealist programme, modernized to take account of the various intellectual developments and debates which have shaped the field over the past sixty or seventy years', 'The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: a Critical-Theoretical Point of View', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:1 (1992), p. 98, emphasis added.
59. A. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. 11; see also A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990); A. Linklater, 'The Problem of Community in International Relations', Alternatives, 15 (1990), pp. 135-53; and A. Linklater, 'Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, 2:1 (1996), pp. 77-103. It might be objected that Linklater's scholarly career does not support internationalism, given his use of Hegelian and Marxist-inspired critical theory. But critical theory need not be incompatible with the essential goals of liberal internationalism. We must take Linklater's own statement of intent seriously: '[t]he specific contribution that critical theory can make to the next stage of international relations theory starts from the premise that the emancipatory project ought to be more central to the field. Critical theory presents the case for recovering the old idealist programme, modernized to take account of the various intellectual developments and debates which have shaped the field over the past sixty or seventy years', 'The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: a Critical-Theoretical Point of View', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:1 (1992), p. 98, emphasis added.
60. A. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. 11; see also A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990); A. Linklater, 'The Problem of Community in International Relations', Alternatives, 15 (1990), pp. 135-53; and A. Linklater, 'Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, 2:1 (1996), pp. 77-103. It might be objected that Linklater's scholarly career does not support internationalism, given his use of Hegelian and Marxist-inspired critical theory. But critical theory need not be incompatible with the essential goals of liberal internationalism. We must take Linklater's own statement of intent seriously: '[t]he specific contribution that critical theory can make to the next stage of international relations theory starts from the premise that the emancipatory project ought to be more central to the field. Critical theory presents the case for recovering the old idealist programme, modernized to take account of the various intellectual developments and debates which have shaped the field over the past sixty or seventy years', 'The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: a Critical-Theoretical Point of View', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:1 (1992), p. 98, emphasis added.
61. A. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. 11; see also A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990); A. Linklater, 'The Problem of Community in International Relations', Alternatives, 15 (1990), pp. 135-53; and A. Linklater, 'Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, 2:1 (1996), pp. 77-103. It might be objected that Linklater's scholarly career does not support internationalism, given his use of Hegelian and Marxist-inspired critical theory. But critical theory need not be incompatible with the essential goals of liberal internationalism. We must take Linklater's own statement of intent seriously: '[t]he specific contribution that critical theory can make to the next stage of international relations theory starts from the premise that the emancipatory project ought to be more central to the field. Critical theory presents the case for recovering the old idealist programme, modernized to take account of the various intellectual developments and debates which have shaped the field over the past sixty or seventy years', 'The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: a Critical-Theoretical Point of View', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:1 (1992), p. 98, emphasis added.
62. A. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. 11; see also A. Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990); A. Linklater, 'The Problem of Community in International Relations', Alternatives, 15 (1990), pp. 135-53; and A. Linklater, 'Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State', European Journal of International Relations, 2:1 (1996), pp. 77-103. It might be objected that Linklater's scholarly career does not support internationalism, given his use of Hegelian and Marxist-inspired critical theory. But critical theory need not be incompatible with the essential goals of liberal internationalism. We must take Linklater's own statement of intent seriously: '[t]he specific contribution that critical theory can make to the next stage of international relations theory starts from the premise that the emancipatory project ought to be more central to the field. Critical theory presents the case for recovering the old idealist programme, modernized to take account of the various intellectual developments and debates which have shaped the field over the past sixty or seventy years', 'The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: a Critical-Theoretical Point of View', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:1 (1992), p. 98, emphasis added.
63. Linklater, Men and Citizens, p. xi.
64. Ibid., p. 11.
65. Ibid., p. 99.
66. Ibid., p. 99.
67. Ibid., p. 116.
68. Ibid., p. 114; see also p. 99.
69. Ibid., pp. 115-6; see also p. 105.
70. Linklater's view that the republican sovereign state is an insufficient mechanism of internationalist reform in Kant's thought is adopted or shared by Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', pp. 446, 448-9, 452; MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest', pp. 553-4; and Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order'.
71. Linklater's view that the republican sovereign state is an insufficient mechanism of internationalist reform in Kant's thought is adopted or shared by Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', pp. 446, 448-9, 452; MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest', pp. 553-4; and Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order'.
72. Linklater's view that the republican sovereign state is an insufficient mechanism of internationalist reform in Kant's thought is adopted or shared by Archibugi, 'Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace', pp. 446, 448-9, 452; MacMillan, 'A Kantian Protest', pp. 553-4; and Held, 'Cosmopolitan Democracy and the Global Order'.
73. Bartelson, 'The Trial of Judgement', p. 264.
74. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
75. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
76. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
77. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
78. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
79. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
80. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
81. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
82. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
83. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
84. I shall use the following abbreviations for these translations of Kant's books: C.Pur= Critique of Pure Reason, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1996); C.Pr=Critique of Practical Reason, trans. L. W. Beck (Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1993); CJ=Critique of Judgement, trans. W. S. Pluhar (Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing, 1987); GMM=Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H. J. Paton (New York: Harpertorch Books, 1964); MM=The Metaphysics of Morals, trans. M. Gregor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). (Citations from these works refer first to the Academy pagination and then the page number of the above translations.) Other essays cited are UH='Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Purpose'; TP='On the Common Saying: "This May be True in Theory, But it Does Not Apply in Practice"'; QE='An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"'; PP='Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch'; CF='The Contest of the Faculties', all of which are in H. Reiss (ed.) Kant: Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
85. See Q. Skinner, 'Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas' in J. Tully (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988), pp. 34-5.
86. MM, pp. 276/61-341/112.
87. UH, p. 46.
88. TP, p. 73.
89. UH, p. 46.
90. Ibid.
91. MM, p. 312/89; TP, pp. 71-2. See also GMM, p. 389/57.
92. MM, p. 312/89; TP, pp. 71-2. See also GMM, p. 389/57.
93. MM, p. 312/89; TP, pp. 71-2. See also GMM, p. 389/57.
94. MM, pp. 312/89-90.
95. See MM, pp. 237/30-239/31.
96. MM, p. 307/86; cf. TP, p. 73.
97. MM, p. 307/86; cf. TP, p. 73.
98. MM, pp. 320/96-7; TP, p. 81. See P. Nicholson, 'Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign', Ethics, 86 (1976), pp. 214-30.
99. MM, pp. 320/96-7; TP, p. 81. See P. Nicholson, 'Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign', Ethics, 86 (1976), pp. 214-30.
100. MM, pp. 320/96-7; TP, p. 81. See P. Nicholson, 'Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign', Ethics, 86 (1976), pp. 214-30.
101. See MM, pp. 230-1/24; TP, p. 75; HP, p. 99; UH, pp. 46-7.
102. See MM, pp. 230-1/24; TP, p. 75; HP, p. 99; UH, pp. 46-7.
103. See MM, pp. 230-1/24; TP, p. 75; HP, p. 99; UH, pp. 46-7.
104. See MM, pp. 230-1/24; TP, p. 75; HP, p. 99; UH, pp. 46-7.
105. This questioning is wrong if it undermines the sovereign, the ultimate judge of what is a threat. Of course, Kant attempts to assure his contemporary sovereigns that the public use of reason and criticism are not threats to the foundations of their political orders. See QE, pp. 54-60.
106. MM, p. 319/95.
107. See T. Pogge for the charge of 'dogmatism', 'Kant's Theory of Justice', Kant-Studien, 79:4 (1988), pp. 431-3; and T. Pogge, 'Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty', Ethics, 103 (1992), p. 59. As A.D. Rosen notes, there is a fundamental incompatibility between Kant's absolutist statements on sovereignty and his subsequent demand that states be republican (that is, divided constitutionally), Kant's Theory of Justice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 143-4.
108. See T. Pogge for the charge of 'dogmatism', 'Kant's Theory of Justice', Kant-Studien, 79:4 (1988), pp. 431-3; and T. Pogge, 'Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty', Ethics, 103 (1992), p. 59. As A.D. Rosen notes, there is a fundamental incompatibility between Kant's absolutist statements on sovereignty and his subsequent demand that states be republican (that is, divided constitutionally), Kant's Theory of Justice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 143-4.
109. See T. Pogge for the charge of 'dogmatism', 'Kant's Theory of Justice', Kant-Studien, 79:4 (1988), pp. 431-3; and T. Pogge, 'Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty', Ethics, 103 (1992), p. 59. As A.D. Rosen notes, there is a fundamental incompatibility between Kant's absolutist statements on sovereignty and his subsequent demand that states be republican (that is, divided constitutionally), Kant's Theory of Justice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), pp. 143-4.
110. MM, p. 317/94; TP, p. 75. Cf. T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 313. For an argument concerning Hobbesian ideas in Kant's philosophy, see R. Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 207-25.
111. MM, p. 317/94; TP, p. 75. Cf. T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 313. For an argument concerning Hobbesian ideas in Kant's philosophy, see R. Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 207-25.
112. MM, p. 317/94; TP, p. 75. Cf. T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 313. For an argument concerning Hobbesian ideas in Kant's philosophy, see R. Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 207-25.
113. MM, p. 317/94; TP, p. 75. Cf. T. Hobbes, Leviathan (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 313. For an argument concerning Hobbesian ideas in Kant's philosophy, see R. Tuck, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 207-25.
114. See CF, pp. 182-3.
115. MM, p. 371/136.
116. See MM, p. 216/10.
117. Nicholson, 'Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign', p. 223.
118. PP, p. 118n.
119. CF, p. 185. am using P. Riley's slightly altered translation of this paragraph, 'Elements of Kant's Practical Philosophy' in R. Beiner and W. J. Booth (eds.), Kant and Political Philosophy: The Contemporary Legacy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 20.
120. CF, p. 185. am using P. Riley's slightly altered translation of this paragraph, 'Elements of Kant's Practical Philosophy' in R. Beiner and W. J. Booth (eds.), Kant and Political Philosophy: The Contemporary Legacy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), p. 20.
121. See PP, p. 113.
122. See MM, p. 340/112; TP, p. 79; cf. CF, p. 187.
123. See MM, p. 340/112; TP, p. 79; cf. CF, p. 187.
124. See MM, p. 340/112; TP, p. 79; cf. CF, p. 187.
125. MM, p. 340/112.
126. See especially MM, p. 345/115.
127. In this definition the sovereign is the only a judge 'competent to render a verdict having rightful force', MM, p. 312/90.
128. See Nicholson, 'Kant on the Duty Never to Resist the Sovereign', p. 218.
129. MM, p. 314/91.
130. G. Cavallar argues that Kant's absolutist vision of sovereignty is displaced by a 'new' paradigm of 'popular sovereignty', Kant and the Theory and Practice of International Right (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1999), p. 58. However, I think this displacement appears incomplete - Kant does not explicitly repudiate nor alter his dogmatic statements about sovereignty that clearly undercut the popular (or democratic) foundations of legislative authority.
131. Ibid., p. 4.
132. MM, pp. 321-2/98.
133. See MM, p. 307/85.
134. See TP, p. 79.
135. C.Pr, p. 3/3.
136. As H.E. Allison writes, the 'bewildering number of ways in which Kant characterizes freedom and the variety of distinctions he draws between various kinds or senses of freedom ... [make it] is the most difficult aspect of his philosophy to interpret, let alone defend', Kant's Theory of Freedom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 1.
137. See K. Hutchings, 'The possibility of judgement: moralizing and theorizing in international relations', Review of International Studies, 18 (1992), pp. 51-62.
138. See S. Shell, The Rights of Reason: a Study of Kant's Philosophy and Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 21; G.A. Kelly, Idealism, Politics and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 99.
139. See S. Shell, The Rights of Reason: a Study of Kant's Philosophy and Politics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1980), p. 21; G.A. Kelly, Idealism, Politics and History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 99.
140. C.Pur, pp. Bxxvi/28, Bxxix-xxx/30-1; cf. C.Pur, pp. A709=B737/665.
141. C.Pur, pp. Bxxvi/28, Bxxix-xxx/30-1; cf. C.Pur, pp. A709=B737/665.
142. C.Pur, p. Bxxx/31.
143. PP, p. 125.
144. See GMM, pp. 437/105, 428/96.
145. C. Taylor, 'Kant's Theory of Freedom', in Z. Pelczynski and J. Gray (eds.), Conceptions of Liberty in Political Philosophy (London: The Althone Press, 1984), p. 119.
146. C.Pr, p. 34/34.
147. GMM, p. 389/57.
148. UH, p. 46.
149. GMM, p. 408/75.
150. N. Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 61-2.
151. See Rosen, Kant's Theory of Justice, pp. 12-13.
152. MM, pp. 218/20 and 220/21; cf. C.Pr, p. 72/75.
153. MM, pp. 218/20 and 220/21; cf. C.Pr, p. 72/75.
154. MM, p. 219/20.
155. O. Höffe, Immanuel Kant, trans. M. Farrier (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), p. 171.
156. Rosen, Kant's Theory of Justice, p. 43.
157. CPr, p. 152/158.
158. UH, p. 46.
159. Riley, 'Elements of Kant's Practical Philosophy', p. 20.
160. A. Franceschet, 'Popular Sovereignty or Cosmopolitan Democracy?'.
161. C.Pr, pp. 70-1/74.
162. Riley, 'Elements of Kant's Practical Philosophy', p. 11.
163. Pogge, 'Kant's Theory of Justice'.
164. See CJ, passim; H. Arendt, Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Bartelson, 'The Possibility of Judgement'.
165. See CJ, passim; H. Arendt, Lectures on Kant's Political Philosophy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Bartelson, 'The Possibility of Judgement'.
166. UH, pp. 44-5.
167. See Linklater, The Transformation of Community, p. 220.