World State versus Federation of States. Did Kant intentionally offer a free choice to future scholars?
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.5380/sk.v18i3.90201Mots-clés :
Kant, peace, ambiguity, world republic, federationRésumé
It is well-known that Kant's short treatise Zum ewigen Frieden contains some ambiguities concerning the kind of political constellation we should strive for in order to establish perpetual peace. A first option would be to strive for an all-encompassing republican world-state. Once such a world-state has been established, the former individual states lose not only their sovereignty, but also their right of sovereignty. A second option would be to strive for a free confederation of sovereign states. In this case, the states do not abolish their sovereignty, and the confederation is the result of a contract between the states that is upheld as long as the representative power of those states decides not to withdraw from it. In this contribution, I ask whether Kant's notorious ambiguity on the question "world republic or federation of states?" can be said to be strategic.
Références
ALVESSON, M.; SVENINGSSON, S. “Good visions, bad micromanagement and ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-)leadership in a knowledge-intensive organization” in: Organization Studies 24, 2003, 961–988.
AXINN, S. “Kant on World Government”, in: Gerhard Funke & Thomas M. Seebohm (Eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Kant Congress, Vol. II. 2. Washington D.C.: University Press of America, 1989, 224-249.
BREAZEALE, D. Thinking through the Wissenschaftslehre: Themes from Fichte’s Early Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
BREAZEALE, D. “The Wissenschaftslehre of 1796-99 (nova methodo)”, in: DAVID J.; ZÖLLER G. (Eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Fichte, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, 120-123.
CESA, C. “‘… ein Doppelsinn in der Bedeutung des Wortes Setzen’” in: Erich Fuchs, Ives Radrizzani (Eds.) Der Grundansatz der ersten Wissenschaftslehre Fichtes. Der Stand der Fichte-Forschung, Neuried: ars una, 1996, 134-144.
DAVENPORT, S.; LEITCH, S. “Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority”, in: Organization Studies 26, 2005, 1603–1623.
DONNELLON, A.; GRAY, B.; BOUGON, M. G. “Communication, meaning and organized action”, in: Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 1986, 43–55.
EBBINGHAUS, J. “Kants Lehre vom ewigen Frieden und die Kriegsschuldfrage”, in: Gesammelte Aufsätze, Vorträge und Reden. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968, 24-57.
EBERL, O. Demokratie und Frieden. Kants Friedensschrift in den Kontroversen der Gegenwart. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2008.
EISENBERG, E. M. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs 51, 1984, 227–242.
EISENBERG, E. M. Strategic Ambiguities: Essays on Communication, Organization and Identity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007.
EISENBERG, E. M.; GOODALL, H. L. (1997) Organizational Communication: Balancing Creativity and Constraint. New York: St Martin’s Press.
FERRER, D. “Paradox, Incompleteness and Labyrinth in Fichte’s Wissenschaftslehre”, Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte [Online] 12 | 2016.
FRIEDRICH, C. J. Inevitable Peace, New York: Greenwood, 1969.
GALLIE, W. B. Philosophers of Peace and War: Kant, Clausewitz, Marx, Engels and Tolstoy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
HANCOCK, R. “Kant on War and Peace” in: FUNKE G. (Ed.), Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Vol. II. 2. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 1974, 668-674.
HÖFFE, O. Kategorische Rechtsprinzipien. Ein Kontrapunkt der Moderne. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1990.
KLEINGELD, P. “Kants Argumente für den Völkerbund”. in: NAGLDOCEKAL, H.; LANGTHALER R. (Eds.), Recht – Geschichte – Religion. Die Bedeutung Kants für die Gegenwart. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004, 99–111.
MARINI, G. “Kants Idee einer Weltrepublik”, in: TONGEREN, P. van; SARS P.; BREMMERS C.; BOEY, K. (Eds.), Eros and Eris, Dordrecht: Springer, 1992, 133-146.
MULHOLLAND, L. A. “Kant on War and International Justice”, in: Kant-Studien 78, 1987, 25-41.
RAPONI, S. “What’s Wrong with a World State? Kant’s Conception of State Sovereignty and His Proposal for a Voluntary Federation”. in: ROHDEN, V; TERRA, R; ALMEIDA. G. A. de; RUFFING, M. (Eds.) Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants. Akten des X. Internationalen Kant- Kongresses. Bd. 4. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008, 665-676.
RING, P. S.; PERRY, J. L. “Strategic management in public and private organizations: Implications of distinctive contexts and constraints” in: Academy of Management Review 10, 1985, 276–286.
ROBERTSON, M.; SWAN, J. “‘Control – what control?’ Culture and ambiguity within a knowledge-intensive firm.” in: Journal of Management Studies 40, 2003, 831–858.
SURBER, J. P. Language and German Idealism: Fichte’s Linguistic Philosophy, New Jersey: Humanities Press International, 1996.
VERWEYEN, H. “Fichte’s Philosophy of Religion” in: DAVID J.; ZÖLLER G. (Eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Fichte, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016, 273-305.
VORLÄNDER, K. Kant und der Gedanke des Völkerbundes. Mit einem Anhange: Kant und Wilson. Leipzig: Meiner, 1919.
WALLACE, M.; HOYLE, E. “An ironic perspective on public servisse change.” in: WALLACE, M.; FERTIG, M.; SCHELLER, E. (Eds.), Managing Change in Public Services. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, 75-94.
WILLIAMS, H. Kant’s Political Philosophy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.
WOOD, D. W. “The ‘Double Sense’ of Fichte’s Philosophical Language. Some Critical Reflections on the Cambridge Companion to Fichte”, in: Revista de Estud(i)os sobre Fichte [Online] 15 | 2017.
ZÖLLER, G. Fichte’s Transcendental Philosophy: The Original Duplicity of Intelligence and Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Autores mantém os direitos de republicação, sob condição de indicação de primeira publicação na Studia Kantiana.
Autores cedem o direito aos editores de vincular seus artigos em futuras bases de dados.
A Studia Kantiana utiliza a licença Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Você tem o direito de:
Compartilhar — copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer suporte ou formato.
De acordo com os termos seguintes:
Atribuição — Você deve dar o crédito apropriado, prover um link para a licença e indicar se mudanças foram feitas. Você deve fazê-lo em qualquer circunstância razoável, mas de nenhuma maneira que sugira que o licenciante apoia você ou o seu uso.
Não Comercial — Você não pode usar o material para fins comerciais.
Sem Derivações — Se você remixar, transformar ou criar a partir do material, você não pode distribuir o material modificado.
