Migration Crisis and the Duty of Hospitality: A Kantian Discussion (original) (raw)
Related papers
The purpose of this article is to respond to Jacques Derrida’s reading of Immanuel Kant’s laws of hospitality and to offer a deeper exploration into Kant’s separation of a cosmopolitan right to visit (Besuchsrecht) and the idea of a universal right to reside (Gastrecht). Through this discussion, the various laws of hospitality will be examined, extrapolated and outlined, particularly in response to the tensions articulated by Derrida. By doing so, this article will offer a reinterpretation of the laws of hospitality, arguing that hospitality is not meant to capture all the conditions necessary for cosmopolitan citizenship or for a thoroughgoing condition of cosmopolitan justice as Derrida assumes. This is because hospitality could be understood as the basic normative requirement necessary to establish an ethical condition for intersubjective communication at the global level, where discursive communication regarding the substance of a future condition of cosmopolitan justice is to be subjected to global public reason.
Hospitality, Coercion and Peace in Kant
Philosophy of Globalization, 2018
In this essay, Id iscuss Kant'sr ight of hospitality in TowardP erpetual Peace. In the proposed reading, the right of hospitality protects foreigners from the xenophobic practices of the locals, while protecting the locals from the colonial practices of foreigners. The main question guiding this paper is whether hospitality is for Kant am oral injunction calling for a 'humane' treatment of foreigners; or whether it is rather ar ight senso strictu-namely, one that entails full coercive authority against violations. Ia rgue that once the connections between the dilemma of coercion and the so-called 'institutionalization dilemma' are properlyu nderstood, they mayberesolvedi nf avor of the first option, namely, coercion. Additionally, by examining the notions of non-centralized coercion and transnationalp olitical participation, this paper explores a wayt om atch hospitality'sn eed of coercion with Kant'sf ederalist proposal. Hospitality,a sw ek now,i sa bout what is due to strangers. By its very nature, hospitality livesa tt he threshold of the polity;i ta ppears at the geographical and political borders,a tt he fringes, and overlaps between those who share a civil space and those who are alien to it,b etween resident communities in a givent erritory and the individuals who show up in that space. Thus, hospitality occupies the space between what is duet op ersons as members of as pecific community,a nd what is due to them independentlyo ft hat,m erelya sh uman agents. It is preciselyt his interstitial character of hospitality that opens it up to ad ecisive ambivalence. Is hospitality as ort of moral obligation that is somehow grounded in our common humanity, or is it astrict right,acoercive norm to which individuals, groups,a nd-notice-autonomous political entities are subject?T hisi nterrogation is the subject of this essay. The right to hospitality That strangers ought not to be treated with hostility is perhapsthe least one can accord to the concept of hospitality.That they should be givenrights, even political rights, is not,h owever,w hat most people in today'sn ationalistic times would grant.Although Kant said relatively little concerning the nature of hospi
Investigations of Kantian Cosmopolitanism: Evolution of the Species, Sovereignty and Hospitality
Dados
The article investigates Kantian cosmopolitanism, based on the philosopher’s works and his main commentators. The study chooses and highlights three central and specific themes: the evolution of the human species, the dilemma between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism, and the issue of hospitality. By casting light on these themes, the article attempts to fill in a gap in specialized literature from the fields of international relations and philosophy. Regarding the evolution of the human species, I emphasize the philosopher’s understanding of “unsociable sociability“ – a natural mechanism which provides the elementary basis for the advent of cosmopolitanism and perpetual peace. The dilemma between sovereignty and cosmopolitanism leads to the significant analysis of whether Kant has reflected upon or proposed transcending the paradigm of classical sovereignty. Finally, the discussion about hospitality becomes particularly relevant, and is scrutinized according to its juridical and ethi...
Human Rights Review, 2022
This article aims to highlight the theoretical and philosophical debate on hospitality underlining the normative elements of framing migrants and refugees as individual agents in the light of hospitality theory and migration governance. It argued the critiques of the neo-Kantian hospitality approach and the EU welcome culture with regard to refugees in the EU from a philosophical perspective. The "No human being is illegal" motto is proposed to be conceived as a principle of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The cosmopolitan right to visit and the universal right to reside were discussed in the context of human rights and co-responsibility. Linking the hospitality approach with migration governance enables the reconstruction of reception policies and practices, diversification of non-state actors that engage in migration governance mechanism, and polarization of political initiatives (e.g., politics of allocation and dispersal, readmission negotiations, convergence/divergence of priorities and strategic interests). The research findings highlight that the EU adopted a neo-Kantian hospitality approach that combines both "co-responsibility" and "vertical/heterarchical relations." The EU's "New Pact on Migration and Asylum" was considered proof of how the EU follows neo-Kantian hospitality that is manifested in dualism and contradictory approach. The study presents a typology that splits co-responsibility into individual/institutional actions and human rights/ migration governance.
The Dire Need for Radical Hospitality or Derrida on the Borders
In this article we examine the current political situation of migrants trying to enter Poland through the lens of two lectures on hospitality given by Jacques Derrida in 1996. We analyze Derrida’s notions of “laws of hospitality” and “absolute hospitality” as deconstruction of Kantian and Hegelian moral ideas, especially Hegel’s Sittlichkeit. The text outlines the situation of the humanitarian crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border, as well as the issue of migration of people from Ukraine after February 24, 2022. Using Derrida's terms and concepts, we try to show the impact of ethical issues on the process of helping in the context of state policy.
"What Kant would have said in the refugee crisis"
The paper outlines the systematic work that would have to be done in order to answer the title question. It starts from cosmopolitan right as natural right and asks what kinds of transformations cosmopolitan natural right would have to undergo to form a legitimate part of public international law.
Kant's Cosmopolitan Right and the Rights of Others
Kant's understanding of Cosmopolitan Right, elaborated in the Third Article of his essay on "Perpetual Peace" and The Metaphysics of Morals, enjoys considerable attention today under the current conditions of the refugee crisis and globalization. Geneva Convention's principle of "non¬refoulement" concerning the Status of Refugees mainly relies on Kant's claim that first entry should always be granted to those who are in danger. The paper will focus first on the distinction Kant makes between "the right to be a permanent visitor" and the "temporary right of sojourn." Though the Kantian hospitality "is not a question of philanthropy but of right," yet it is confined to a claim to temporary residency.
The Erasure of Race: Cosmopolitanism and the Illusion of Kantian Hospitality (2017)
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2017
This article explores three key arguments: Firstly, it seeks to demonstrate the contradictions and limits within Kantian hospitality, and its links to colonialism and practices of racialisation. The acclaimed universalism of Kant's law of hospitality forecloses a discussion of its dualism, and erases the historical, racist context in which it was conceived. The prioritisation of concept over conception allows Kant's theory on race to be obscured from official discourse and framing of policies while it still courses through inherited perceptions and theories. Secondly, in making my case, I will be applying the notion of coloniality, coined by Aníbal Quijano and later developed by Walter Mignolo, to the existing but small body of critical discourse on Kant and race. Debates initiated on the peripheries of philosophy, law and anthropology in the 1990s have led the way in this regard. However, given the time that has elapsed, it is notable that their work has received little scrutiny in political theory and International Relations theory, and thus warrants renewed attention – I argue that the notion of coloniality provides a useful lens through which to do so, and a vehicle through which to apply those excavations to a contemporary context. Finally, the article explores the extent to which Kantian thought constitutes 'modern' cosmopolitanism, and draws attention to the inadvertently complicit role of second-generation cosmopolitans in the erasure of race from the study of Kant. The relationship between the collective erasure of race and racism in academia and European practice towards refugees and immigrants is briefly considered.
Responsibility for Migrants: From Hospitality to Solidarity
Political Theory (forthcoming)
Critics of exclusionary borders might be tempted to appeal for more hospitality, but this paper argues that such an approach is misguided and develops an alternative framework called solidarity borders. The ongoing legacies of imperialism, the functioning of global capitalism, and insights from democratic theory show that we need to problematize two key presuppositions of hospitality: a clear distinction between hosts and guests, and the exclusive right of the former to impose conditions. Moreover, Derrida provides limited guidance as to how to enact necessarily conditional hospitality in the most just manner. By contrast, Young’s social connection model highlights the shared responsibility that actors bear to reduce structural injustice. Drawing out the implications of Young’s work for migration and borders, I argue that solidarity borders would build upon, expand, and modify the existing refugee regime.