IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

In defence of Kants league of states


  • Kjartan Koch Mikalsen


This paper presents a defence of Kant’s idea of a voluntary league of states. Kant’s proposal that rightful, or just, international relations can be achieved within the framework of such a league is often criticized for being at odds with his overall theory. Given Kant’s view on the institutional preconditions for justice in the domestic sphere, where subjection to a public authority with coercive power is seen as constitutive of rightful interaction between persons, as well as the analogy he draws between an interpersonal and an international state of nature, it is often argued that he should have opted for the idea of a world state. Agreeing with this standard criticism that a voluntary league cannot establish the institutional framework for international justice, others also suggest an alternative stage model interpretation. According to this interpretation, Kant’s true ideal is in fact some sort of world state, whereas the league is merely introduced as a temporary and second best surrogate. In contrast to both the standard criticism and the stage model interpretation, I argue that fundamental normative concerns speak in favour of a voluntary league rather than a world state. I also argue that Kant’s defense of such a league is consistent with his position on the conditions of justice in the domestic case due to crucial differences between the state of nature among individuals and external state relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kjartan Koch Mikalsen, 2010. "In defence of Kants league of states," RECON Online Working Papers Series 7, RECON.
  • Handle: RePEc:erp:reconx:p0065

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, 2000. "The WTO Constitution and Human Rights," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 19-25, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    federalism; supranationalism; sovereignty; normative political theory;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:erp:reconx:p0065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Marit Eldholm). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.