Any discussion on cosmopolitanism as part of the study of People, nations and cultures, should start with a close critical examination of Kant’ s Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. (1795). In his essay, Kant introduced the idea of a loose confederation of nations, or what he calls ‘a league of nations’, which would be united by the same universal law of ‘hospitality’. However, he strongly rejected the idea of a global federation of states subjected to one single governing body, legislating in the name of humanity at large. Kant regarded the abolition of standing armies as essential to his project of perpetual peace. At the same time, he regarded the republican form of government as the political prerequisite to equality between citizens.
So why did Kant refrain from advocating a republican form of governance for all nations? The answer lies in the self-perpetuating ‘myth’ of state sovereignty which, replacing the traditional ‘divine right of kings’, still holds sway among many contemporary political and constitutional theorists. To this day, nation-states have refused to concede too much of a sovereignty embedded and guaranteed in their constitutions and considered as the cornerstone of modern political associations. Ironically, this very state sovereignty is, in all cases, the direct creation of the ’sovereign’ people, themselves! Kant’s blind spot with regard to political sovereignty can be partly explained, if not excused, by his conception of freedom and moral autonomy. It is as if the artificial autonomy, that is, the sovereignty of each nation-state was the indispensable political counterpart of the moral freedom unreservedly conferred by the philosopher, on all its individual members.
