733A40: History of International Relations
2012/09/15
Group 4
Egill Thorarinsson, Annika Nulle, Stefan Scholz, Claudiu Nicolae Sonda, Aleksandra
Salomachina, Vanessa Böse
4. The work of Immanuel Kant has often been viewed as a turning point in international
thought. Tuck views Kant’s work as a continuation of Hobbes. In what way? How does
Kant differ from the Grotian tradition? In what way is a Kantian outlook different and
why is it important?
1. Introduction: Traditional view of Kant

The conventional perspective of Immanuel Kant’s work has often been viewed as a turning
point in international thought. Compared with other authors at his time Kant is regarded as the
one who came up with new ideas which changed international thought.

His idea of cosmopolitan rights was regarded as being in front of his time. Cosmopolitanism is
based on the idea that all humans belong to one community with a shared morality. This
shared morality can lead to a cosmopolitan community.
2. Tuck’s view of Kant

In our opinion Richard Tuck contradicts the conventional literature. He sees Kant putting
forward the ideas which were extremely close to Hobbes.
State of Nature

Kant agrees to Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature and supports the need to leave the state of
war and enter civil society. Kant stated that before a lawful condition is established no one can
be secure against violence from another. Therefore men have the moral duty to enter civil
society.

Another common idea for Kant and Hobbes is the view on sovereignty. Kant has a republican
view on this, while Hobbes is a monarchist. However, Kant’s theory is very close to Hobbes’
one. According to Kant, the legislative sovereign is the entire body of the people agreeing
unanimously on decisions. This means it has to be represented by a figure, a supreme
legislator. Also, the same as Hobbes, Kant considers the sovereign to be legitimate and should
be thought of as the outcome of a general will (Tuck, 1999, p. 211).

Despite Hobbes, Kant says that all the laws which are released by the sovereign can be seen as
unjust and can therefore be discussed by the citizens without the necessity to leave the state
(Tuck 1999, p. 211f.).
Right of Nations

Kant agrees to Hobbes’s view on the state of nature as a state of war and considers the rights
within this kind of state to be only provisional. The difference with Hobbes is that the latter
sees rights as provisional in whatever state of nature there might exist (Tuck, 1999, p. 215).

Considering the rights as provisional, the right to pre-emptive strike is for Kant legitimate in
the state of nature, even if there is no act of aggression from another state. The increase in
power of a state is enough to be considered a threat to another lesser power, and this
legitimizes a strike from the lesser power (Tuck, 1999, p.215).

Kant is very Hobbesian also with regard to the right of acquisition. According to their
common beliefs, a land is legitimately part of a state to the extent that the state has effective
control over it. Furthermore, developing the land is not a prerequisite of legitimate occupation.
It is only a sign of it (Tuck, 1999, p.316).
2

Kant’s originality from Hobbes resides in the fact that Kant considers the discussion on preemptive strike and acquisition only in the context of the state of nature. The difference to Kant
is that Hobbes sees pre-emptive strikes to be always legitimate. For Kant this state is only a
stage in the process that will finally lead to civil society, a society of nations (Tuck, 1999, p.
217).

However, the delay of the appearance of the system where rights are cosmopolitan is not
tragical to Kant. On the contrary, he sees warfare as beneficial to culture and considers
military antagonism to be a necessity for the purpose of international cooperation (Tuck, 1999,
p. 218).
3. Difference Grotius/Kant
Colonization

Concerning colonization Kant and Grotius represent different point of views. Grotius argues
that “…one can have true, private property only in things which one can either personally
consume or personally transform in some way.” (Tuck, 1999, p. 90). Keeping in mind that
Grotius was employed by the state of Holland and his task was to justify the Dutch politics it
becomes clear that Grotius approved colonization.

In opposition to Grotius justification of colonization Kant claims that the way Europeans
acquired the lands of American Indians and other inhabitants is to be repudiated.
Right of War

Kant rejected the idea that in nature there could be such a thing as a punitive war on the
grounds that punishment occurs only in the relation of a superior to those subjects to him.
Instead he supported the idea of defensive war.

According to Grotius both individuals and states may use violence in the same way. He
explains this with the assimilation of individuals and states. Every individual has the right of
punishment which they transfer to the sovereign through their collective agreement.

Grotius argues that “Kings, and those who are invested with a Power equal to that of Kings,
have a Right to exact Punishments, not only for Injuries committed against themselves, or
their Subjects, but likewise, for those which do not peculiarly concern them” (Tuck, 1999, p.
102 f.). Therefore, Grotius outlook is more far reaching than Kant’s. He endorses for an
expanded set of rights to make war.
Sea and land

Grotius states that the sea cannot come under the control of a state, because “one can have
true, private property only in things which one can either personally consume or transform in
some way” (Tuck, 1999, p. 90). Consequently, the sea belongs to everyone.

Contradicting Grotius, Kant argues that possession of sea is possible for ‘neighboring waters’.
He says “as far as a cannon shot can reach no one may fish…” (Tuck, 1999, p. 216).
3