identity politics, rectifying historic injustice, and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Waldron uses
Kant’s category of cosmopolitan right as a starting point for his own theorizing, but diverges
from the particulars of Kant’s analysis. I believe the particulars are important because Kant’s
version of cosmopolitan right balanced facilitating interaction among peoples and condemning
imperialism and colonization. So how is it that Waldron draws from Kant to produce an approach
to cultural politics that is very unfavorable to indigenous peoples? I worry that attempts to expand
and update the category of cosmopolitan right in contemporary theorizing will blunt or erase
Kant’s own anti-colonial doctrine.
In various writings on cosmopolitan right,
Jeremy Waldron asks: What is the subject
matter of cosmopolitan right? How does it differ from the subject matter of public international
law? Waldron states that the discussion of cosmopolitan right proceeds in terms of nations and
peoples rather than states.
"The question that Kant poses has to do with contact between peoples.
He asks whether it is rightful for one people – from one part of the world – to approach another
people – from another part of the world – with a view to possible commerce."
Kant limited cosmopolitan right to conditions of universal hospitality. Waldron tells us
that in Kant’s own description of cosmopolitan right, we find that juridical principles hold that a
4
In general, I use the terms “indigenous peoples” or “Aboriginal peoples” when discussing contemporary issues. Kant
(or his translators) uses terms such as “Native peoples,” which does not have quite the same meaning. I will sometimes
follow Kant’s use when discussing him.
5
This is not a paper on Kant’s general views of race or their connection with his views on imperialism. See Muthu,
cites above, and Charles Mills, “Dark Ontologies,” in Autonomy and Community: Readings in Contemporary Kantian
Social Philosophy (Albany: State University Press of New York), p. 164 fn. 28, p. 138, and pp. 163-64 fn. 24.
6
Jeremy Waldron, "Kant's Heading 'Cosmopolitan Right'," manuscript presented at Cambridge University, October
1999 (Draft of Chapter 1 of his forthcoming book Cosmopolitan Right). Significant portions of the text in that
manuscript also appeared in Jeremy Waldron, "What is Cosmopolitan?" The Journal of Political Philosophy 8 (2000):
227-243. A version based on a draft of Chapter 2 of Waldron’s Cosmopolitan Right was published as: “Redressing
Historic Injustice,” University of Toronto Law Journal 52 (2002): 135-60. See also these works by Waldron: "Kant's
Legal Positivism," Harvard Law Review 109 (May 1996): 1535-1566; "Kant's Positivism," in The Dignity of
Legislation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), chap. 3; “Cultural Identity and Civic Responsibility,” in
Citizenship in Diverse Societies, Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000):155-174; "Teaching Cosmopolitan Right," in Citizenship and Education in Liberal-Democratic Societies:
Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and Collective Identities, Kevin McDonough and Walte Feinberg, eds. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003): 23-55; "Multiculturalism and Mélange," in Public Education in a Multicultural
Society: Policy, Theory, Critique, Robert K. Fullinwider, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 90-118;
"Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alternative" in The Rights of Minority Cultures, ed. Will Kymlicka (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1997):93-119. See also Jacob Levy's comments on Waldron's notion of cosmopolitan right in
The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 49. I also draw on Waldron’s various
writings about superseding historic injustice and property (see section VI below).
7
Seyla Benhabib seems to miss or neglect this aspect when discussing cosmopolitan right, referring to relations
between persons, on the one hand, and "states" (or "republics"), on the other (The Rights of Others, p. 25, pp. 34-5).
8
Waldron, "Kant's Heading 'Cosmopolitan Right',” p. 2.
3
Convention