Cosmopolitanism and Nationhood in the
Political Thought of Thomas Paine
Robert Lamb
University of Exeter
The project
- Reconstruction of Paine’s political philosophy,
focusing on key themes (political obligation,
democracy and representation, property and
welfare, international relations)
- To present it as a coherent theory of liberal
rights
- To show that it is philosophically and
historically distinct
Cosmopolitanism
• Cosmopolitanism construed historically as
intellectual tradition, not as singular political theory
with set of core principles
• Defined (thinly) as belief in global reach of some
normative truths/values
• Does not necessarily imply rejection of local
sovereignty
‘Citizen of the World’:
Paine’s Cosmopolitanism
• ‘the cause of America is…the cause of all mankind’
• American Revolution/War not just a matter of a
nation’s independence
• Matter of global justice – British waging a ‘war
against the natural rights of mankind’
‘Citizen of the World’:
Paine’s Cosmopolitanism
• ‘the cause of America is…the cause of all mankind’
• American Revolution/War not just a matter of a
nation’s independence
• Matter of global justice – British waging a ‘war
against the natural rights of mankind’
• ‘the cause of France is the cause of all mankind’
• French Revolution part of progress towards ‘universal
civilization’
• Heralded end of European ‘despotism’ and the
emergence of the ‘Great Republic of Man’
Paine on Individual Rights
• Consistent commitment to individual rights
throughout Paine’s writing: rights to freedom of
thought and speech, democratic representation,
welfare, property ownership and (latent) rebellion.
• Commitment to rights stems from axiomatic belief in
human moral equality
• Universalistic understanding of rights
Paine on National Sovereignty
• Dominant interpretation of Paine as radical
cosmopolitan (e.g. Dyck, Claeys, Walker)
• Suggested contrast with Kant’s state-centric
international theory
• Yet Rights of Man does contain account of national
sovereignty: ‘that which a whole nation chooses to
do, it has a right to do’
• The ‘nation’ described as ‘the source of all
sovereignty’ – 3rd article of French Declaration of
Rights, which Paine describes as ‘the basis of liberty’
Rights of Nations
• If nations have the sovereignty Paine claims, then
they would seem to have rights of selfdetermination.
• These rights of self-determination imply (1) a
localised form of political membership that excludes
non-nationals and (2) duties of non-interference on
the part of other nations, both of which stand in
tension with the cosmopolitan sentiments identified.
• Can nations deny individual rights (like freedom of
speech or religious worship)?
Universal Rights and National Sovereignty:
a reconciliation
• Paine’s position can be rendered coherent - to do so
involves subsuming the claim about national
sovereignty within the theory of individual rights:
national rights to self-determination and noninterference are conditional upon the recognition
and protection of individual rights.
• First 3 articles of the French Declaration only make
sense if this understanding is accepted and individual
rights trump national sovereignty.
Paine on Liberal Intervention
• If nations that are not liberal do not have rights of selfdetermination, do liberal nations therefore have rights
(or even duties) to intervene in their affairs?
• Paine seems committed to pacifism as a normative ideal
but also expressed personal approval (1) for French
military aggression against Germany in 1792 and (2) a
French invasion of Britain in 1798
• According to Walker, these examples reveal his
revolutionary liberalism that differs from Kant’s
evolutionary liberalism: ‘Paine was a strong advocate of
military intervention to spread democracy’ and aimed ‘to
foster or force democratic governance the world around’
Revolutionary Liberalism?
• Both of Walker’s examples of Paine calling for
military aggression are best interpreted as
defensive campaigns.
• No evidence that Paine thinks that liberal nations
hold any right to interfere in the affairs of nonliberal ones.
• Paine’s position is ambiguous but looks similar to
that outlined in John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples
(1999), which only permits international
intervention during times of emergency, which
are defined by violations of human rights.
Conclusions
• Paine is cosmopolitan but he nevertheless defends
national sovereignty
• His account of national sovereignty only makes sense
within his overall liberal individualist framework
• Paine distinct within cosmopolitan tradition in his
rejection of the impossibility of a world state: his
consent-based theory enables the possibility of
global governance while withholding its
endorsement
• ‘Where liberty is not, that is mine…’