Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

Kant’s 1795 essay on perpetual peace has been lauded as one of his most important and influential political texts as well as one of the most important (modern) texts on peace. Kant’s text was largely forgotten until the 1980s and 1990s, with numerous commentaries appearing around the time of its 200 years existence. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s interest in Kant’s text appears to have arisen around the same time, and his analyses of this text continued after the turn of the century. The references to Kant’s essay in Derrida’s texts appear mostly in the context of a discussion of the concept of hospitality. The latter concept is understood by Derrida as including both (1) a demand for absolute hospitality, that is, hospitality without the imposition of any limitations, as well as (2) a demand, in the interests of survival, for such limitations or conditions. A negotiation between these dimensions of hospitality is ultimately required. The aim of this article is to elucidate Derrida’s analysis of Kant’s essay, specifically his recasting of the concept of peace as absolute hospitality, as well as to briefly outline its implications for international and cosmopolitan law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The manuscript was submitted by Kant on 13 August 1795 and publication followed on 29 September 1795; see Kant [47: 276], Hackel [39: 17].

  2. See Bohman and Lutz-Bachmann [2: 5], Saner [70: 43].

  3. See e.g. Klenner [56: 16], Saner [70: 43], Patzig [67: 14]. As Gerhardt [34: 70], points out, this was the first treaty signed between the German monarchy and the revolutionary French republic, recognising thereby the latter’s legal form and boundaries. The world-historical event of the French revolution was thereby recognised by one of the great monarchical powers of Europe. According to Gerhardt, Kant’s essay links the historical event of this peace treaty with the liberal-republican impulse of the French revolution and gives it a global political perspective. Human rights were thereby recognised as at the foundation of any future politics. The influence of these events on Kant’s essay is contested by inter alia Hackel [39: 20].

  4. See Krause [59: 11], Eberl and Niesen [29: 98].

  5. Saner [70: 44] points out that in peace treaties of the 17th and 18th centuries a preliminary treaty would first be signed between the parties so as to reach consensus about the conditions of the termination of the state of war and for the conclusion of a final peace treaty. Kant’s preliminary articles are analogous to such a preliminary treaty (containing the negative conditions for peace) and the definitive articles with the supplements and appendixes are analogous to a final treaty (containing the positive conditions for future peace, and dealing with the dangers and safeguards of such peace).

  6. The second supplement (secret article of a perpetual peace) which deals with the relation between philosophy and politics/law was added in the second edition (1796); see Klemme [55: XXXIX]. Derrida [8: 84–86 n10] briefly comments on this secret article, pointing to its alignment with Kant’s The Conflict of the Faculties [46], and noting that the secret and the philosopher are both granted a place that precedes the oppositions (public/private and law/savagery) which are at stake here.

  7. See Krause [59], on how each of these can be read as responding to conditions at the time. The prohibition on states being inherited, exchanged, purchased or offered as gifts, was e.g. presumably at least partially in response to the partition of Poland in 1795 between Prussia, Russia and Habsburg Austria.

  8. In Kant’s Toward Perpetual Peace this separation of powers is between the legislature and the executive, whereas in The Metaphysics of Morals this separation is between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary.

  9. See Bohman and Lutz-Bachmann [2: 20n2] on the terminology to be used here (law/right).

  10. Bischof [1: 434] points out that Kant is the first modern political thinker to speak of hospitality as a right and thus as falling within the legal sphere, i.e. not to treat it simply as a matter of custom, morality or ethics.

  11. See e.g. Caputo [6: 109–113], Mansfield [65], Still [74], Westmoreland [78: 1].

  12. The words Zum ewigen Frieden appear both on the title page and just before the preface.

  13. See similarly Levinas [62: 150–152] who is critical of those who would suggest that there is no alternative between ‘Realpolitik and the irritating rhetoric of a careless idealism, lost in utopian dreams but crumbling into dust on contact with reality or turning into a dangerous, impudent and facile frenzy which professes to be taking up the prophetic discourse’.

  14. Derrida also refers in his texts to other examples in the literature of the host becoming a guest, such as in Camus’s The Guest in Exile and the Kingdom [13: 117–122], Oedipus at Colonus [24: 107], Lot in Sodom who invites angels to visit his home [24: 151–153], and the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19 [24: 153–155], as well as Abraham, when God changes his name from Abram [15: 372].

  15. See nevertheless the First Supplement where Kant contends that nature has a hand in securing peace. Nature uses men’s hostile inclinations to first disperse them around the globe, and then to bind them together again in law-like and peaceful relations, both as a protection against war and due to mutual self-interest (commercial trade).

  16. See also Derrida [20: 213] where he notes that peace is not to be understood as a utopian concept projected into infinity.

  17. Saner [70: 50] points out that Kant is here expressing a judgment on the whole of human history, which thus far has indeed been one of either war or armistice, thus a history without peace in the strict sense.

  18. For Levinas, ethics as first philosophy begins with the encounter of the face of the other, which places an unconditional demand on me and which he also refers to as hospitality. ‘Allergy’ here would entail a refusal or forgetting of the face.

  19. As Derrida [12: 82] points out, peace beyond the political is to be understood as neither simply political in the traditional sense nor as simply apolitical.

  20. Ethics is not here to be understood as a domain distinguishable from the domains of law and politics, but as ‘preceding’ these domains in the sense of a pre-origin.

  21. This ties in closely with Levinas’s notion of hospitality (as well as goodness and friendship) as the essence of language; see Levinas [61: 305], Derrida [12: 10, 51, 91, 133].

  22. Derrida [12: 68] nonetheless remains ambivalent about this.

  23. As Derrida points out here, war for Levinas is always against a face, but such war would nonetheless retain a trace of the pacific welcoming of a face.

  24. Derrida [12: 87–88] seems to allude to another difference between Kant and Levinas when he notes that for Levinas peace is not something to be postponed indefinitely or which should be continuously approached, but which must happen ‘now’. Yet it would also be possible to refer to passages in Kant where peace is spoken of as an ‘an immediate duty’ [45: 104] and as an irresistible veto being pronounced in us by morally practicable reason: ‘there is to be no war’ [49: 123].

  25. In ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’, Freud [31: vol. XVIII, 1], distinguishes between these drives.

  26. See Derrida [7: 257] for a detailed analysis of Freud’s ‘Beyond the Pleasure Principle’.

  27. See Derrida and Stiegler [25: 81] on the relation between negotiation and invention. See similarly Shryock [73: 418].

  28. See also Levinas [60: xv: ‘A responsibility without concern for reciprocity: I have to respond for an other without attending to an other’s responsibility in regard to me.’

  29. An analysis of Derrida’s reading of Kant’s exposition of constitutional law will be undertaken elsewhere.

  30. Kant uses this phrase in a footnote in the second section of Toward Perpetual Peace.

  31. See Sect. 4.2.

  32. Kleingeld [54: 53] understands Kant’s position here to be that such enforcement would contradict the autonomy of individuals within a republican state, i.e. to decide on their own laws for themselves, both in respect of internal and external laws. See also Rimoux [69: 107–108] for whom it is rather a question of respecting the sovereignty of states. Perpetual peace can be achieved only through voluntary actions.

  33. ‘Furor impius intus—fremit horridus ore cruento: And godless Furor will sit/Inside on his frightful weapons, hands bound with a hundred/Brass knots behind him, and roar with bloody mouth.’

  34. See likewise Kant’s ‘On the Common Saying: “This may be true in theory, but it does not apply in practice”’ in Kant [47: 90], and Kant [49: 119 (par 61)].

  35. See e.g. Kant’s ‘Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose’ [47: 41] where Kant proposes a league of peoples [einen Völkerbund] which he seems to understand as a union of states, with member states abandoning their own sovereignty, rather than a (looser) federation of states.

  36. There are of course internal differences between these readings, and the analysis undertaken here is not exhaustive. It merely seeks to sketch the background to Derrida’s reading.

  37. See e.g. Brandt [4: 138–141], Gerhardt [35: 94, 104], Huggler [44: 133–134], Koller [58: 220–222], and Scheid [71: 838].

  38. See e.g. Holland [40: 614], Tesón [75: 87]. Krause [59: 16] e.g. contends that Kant was in favour of the idea of a world state before the French revolution because it could limit the power of monarchies. After the revolution a federation between republican states became a real possibility coupled with a right to hospitality.

  39. See e.g. Habermas [37: 114–119], Höffe [42: 193], Lutz-Bachmann [64: 60, 69–74], Pogge [68], Wood [79].

  40. See Lutz-Bachmann [64: 73], Hackel [39: 76–82].

  41. See e.g. Kleingeld [53; 54: 44, 58], Habermas [38: 227], Rimoux [69: 103–114], Geismann [32; 33].

  42. See Rimoux [69: 113], and Geismann [32]. Höffe [42: 197, 203] sees such a world republic (which he believes Kant did not consider) as having a minimal state form and as requiring only a marginal renunciation of sovereignty from national states, i.e. it would involve a multi-layered sovereignty.

  43. Derrida [18: 81], does mention, apart from what is noted in the text above, the distinction which Kant draws between a peace treaty (Friedensvertrag, pactum pacis) and a league of peace (Friedensbund, foedus pacificum) and he notes that only the latter is ‘capable of assuring a perpetual peace in a federation of free, which is to say, sovereign, states’. Derrida also states that according to Kant ‘[a] league of peoples (Völkerbund) cannot become a state of peoples (Völkerstaat) or be joined into a single state’ (18: 81). Derrida’s reading seems to correspond with the first reading as identified above, though this is not necessarily the case. He simply repeats here what Kant said, without an attempt to align or relate the world state and/to the federation of states, or to explore the tensions to be found in the text(s) in this regard.

  44. See also Derrida [22: 230–231], noting the equation of majesty and sovereignty.

  45. See Derrida [18: 81], Kant [47: 103].

  46. For example, in Kant’s Vorarbeiten zu Zum Ewigen Frieden [45].

  47. See Rimoux [69: 94–95], Ebert [30: 189–190], Scheid [71: 838].

  48. See Rimoux [69: 96–99], Tesón [75: 61], Ebert [30: 189–191], Kant [47: 25].

  49. See Kant [47: 24–25 (Introduction by Hans Reiss); 49: 91 (par 46)], Rimoux [69: 97], Ebert [30: 189]. Höffe [42: 181] sees in Kant’s republican constitution elements of a participatory democracy. For a critical view of this ‘democratic reading of Kant’ see Zenkert [80: 100–101].

  50. See De Ville [27: 13–37].

  51. Derrida seems to be alluding here to Kant’s notion of a ‘kingdom of ends’ in Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals [52: 233–235] and the ‘ethical community’ at stake in Kant’s Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason [51: 105–110]; see Höffe [42: 15] who points to the connection between Kant’s kingdom of ends and (moral) cosmopolitanism; contra Geismann [32: 7], who sees a clear distinction between these notions.

  52. This ‘alliance’ is perhaps to be understood with reference to Derrida’s analysis of the without-world, i.e. a lack of world, of cosmos, Weltlosigkeit, an abyss of the without-world. We are without world (weltlos) in at least two senses of the term: (1) as singular beings we do not and cannot really share a joint world with others (Derrida [23: 265–268]); and (2) because of the extension of ‘war’ to the whole ‘world’ (see Sect. 3 above), this world is constantly being threatened by self-destruction, i.e. the logic of autoimmunity [3: 98–99; 18: 155–156). In the words of Celan, whose texts are analysed in Derrida [19; 22: ‘Die Welt ist fort, ich muss dich tragen’. This ‘lack of world’ can also be expressed through the notion of khōra, which Derrida [18: xiv] refers to as ‘a spacing from “before” the world, the cosmos, or the globe’. See also Derrida [26: 11: ‘Khora opens up a universality beyond cosmopolitanism….An empty mutual space that is not the cosmos, not the created world, not the nation, not the state, not the global dimension, but just that: khora’.

  53. See Derrida [9: 106; 18: 86; 21: 86].

  54. See e.g. Habermas [36], Douzinas [28].

  55. See also Derrida [16: 251] on Einstein.

  56. Kant’s text in this regard is at times read as referring (primarily) to a right to engage in trade relations with the members of another state; see e.g. Hoffe [42: 140–141; 43: 293–294, 306–307].

  57. For such a Gastrecht to be established, a generous treaty to become a temporary member of the household (Hausgenossen) would according to Kant be required. The surface of the earth is thus to be distinguished from what is constructed on it (e.g. a state, see further below), which does not belong to everyone.

  58. See Rimoux [69: 120], Höffe [42: 140, 201].

  59. See also Ossipow [66].

  60. To be noted is that in Levinas’s reading, in the ‘thou shalt not kill’, the entire Torah is concentrated; e.g. Levinas [63: 111: ‘The life of others, the being of others, falls to me as a duty. In the thou of this commandment, the me is only begun: it is for the other in its innermost nucleus’.

  61. See also Derrida [21: 85–86].

  62. Levinas [63: 98] similarly speaks of a messianic order where a people accepts foreigners who come to settle among them. This acceptance can be spoken of in terms of tolerance, only if tolerance is understood in terms of love [63: 98] or as Derrida [12: 72] puts it, ‘a “love” without measure’. This can be compared with Kant’s association of hospitality with tolerance in Toward Perpetual Peace and his restriction of hospitality to a right to visit.

  63. See further Sect. 2 above.

  64. This relation can also be described in other terms such as being placed in question, or being ‘contested, interpellated, implicated, persecuted, under accusation’; see Derrida [12: 56].

  65. It is to be noted that Derrida’s comments on the limitations imposed by Kant are not to be understood as criticism of the imposition of limitations per se. Derrida fully recognises the need for certain limitations; see e.g. Derrida [12: 89–90]. In its legal form, hospitality is also necessarily conditional. Something similar applies to the detection of so-called tensions’ or ‘contradictions’ in Kant’s concept of hospitality. Derrida is again not being critical of Kant in pointing to these. As he does in many of his texts, he actively looks for such tensions, to bring out the unconditional as well as conditional elements of Kant’s text; compare Brown [5: 309]; and Huggler [44: 135–136].

  66. This ties in closely with the analysis of ‘woman’ above, as conditioning hospitality; Derrida [12: 93].

  67. See Kant [47: 106].

  68. Another limitation in respect of hospitality is to be found in Kant’s insistence on speaking the truth, even if this would expose the guest to danger. This issue will be explored in more detail elsewhere.

  69. The notion of unconditional hospitality clearly resonates with Levinas’s statements about Jerusalem in Beyond the Verse referred to above.

  70. See Schmitt [72: 54–55], Derrida [22: 71–74].

References

  1. Bischof, Sacha. 2004. Gerechtigkeit—Verantwortung—Gastfreundschaft: Ethik-Ansätze nach Jacques Derrida. Fribourg: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bohman James and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann. 1997. Introduction. In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 1–22. Baskerville: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Borradori, Giovanna. 2003. Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues with Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brandt, Reinhard. 2010. Vom Weltbürgerrecht. In Immanuel Kant: Zum ewigen Frieden, ed. Otfried Höffe, 133–148. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brown, Garrett W. 2010. The Laws of Hospitality, Asylum Seekers and Cosmopolitan Right: A Kantian Response to Jacques Derrida. European Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 308–327.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Caputo, John D. 1997. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Derrida, Jacques. 1987. The Post Card: From Socrates to Freud and Beyond, trans. Alan Bass. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

  8. Derrida, Jacques. 1993. Aporias, trans. Thomas Dutoit. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  9. Derrida, Jacques 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International, trans. P. Kamuf. New York/London: Routledge.

  10. Derrida, Jacques. 1997. Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins, London/New York: Verso.

  11. Derrida, Jacques. 1997. Politics and Friendship: A Discussion with Jacques Derrida, at http://hydra.humanities.uci.edu/derrida/pol+fr.html. Accessed 7 November 2018.

  12. Derrida, Jacques. 1999. Adieu: To Emmanuel Levinas, trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  13. Derrida, Jacques. 1999. Manifeste pour l’hospitalité. Venissieux: Éditions Paroles d’aube.

  14. Derrida, Jacques. 2001. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Acts of Religion. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Without Alibi, trans. Peggy Kamuf, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  17. Derrida, Jacques. 2005. Paper Machine, trans. R Bowlby, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  18. Derrida, Jacques. 2005. Rogues: Two Essays on Reason, trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael Naas, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  19. Derrida, Jacques. 2005. Sovereignties in Question: The Poetics of Paul Celan, ed. Thomas Dutoit and Outi Pasanen. New York: Fordham University Press.

  20. Derrida, Jacques. 2006. Hostipitality. In The Derrida-Habermas Reader, ed. Lasse Thomassen, 208–230. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  21. Derrida, Jacques. 2008. The Gift of Death 2nd ed., and Literature in Secret, trans. David Wills. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  22. Derrida, Jacques. 2009. The Beast & the Sovereign vol. I, trans. Geoffrey Bennington. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

  23. Derrida, Jacques. 2011. The Beast & the Sovereign vol. II, trans. Geoffrey Bennington, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  24. Derrida, Jacques and Anne Dufourmantelle. 2000. Of Hospitality, trans. Rachel Bowlby, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  25. Derrida, Jacques and Bernard Stiegler. 2002. Echographies of Television, trans. Jennifer Bajorek. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  26. Derrida, Jacques, and Richard Kearney. 2004. A Dialogue with Jacques Derrida. Philosophy Today 48(1): 4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. De Ville, Jacques. 2011. Jacques Derrida: Law as Absolute Hospitality. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Douzinas, Costas. 2007. Human Rights and Empire: The Political Philosophy of Cosmopolitanism. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eberl, Oliver, and Peter Niesen. 2011. Immanuel Kant Zum ewigen Frieden: Kommentar. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ebert, Thomas. 2015. Soziale Gerechtigkeit: IdeenGeschichteKontroversen. Frankfurt am Main: Druck- und Verlagshaus Zarbock.

  31. Freud, Sigmund. 2001. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. I–XXIV, ed. James Strachey. London: Vintage.

  32. Geismann, George. 1996. World Peace: Rational Idea and Reality—On the Principles of Kant’s Political Philosophy World Peace. In Kant. AnalysenProblemeKritik Bd. II, ed. Hariolf Oberer, 265–319. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. http://www.georggeismann.de/. Accessed 7 November 2018.

  33. Geismann, George. 1997. Kants Weg zum Frieden: Spätlese von Seels „Neulesung“des Definitivartikels zum Völkerrecht. In Kant. AnalysenProblemeKritik, Bd. III, ed. Hariolf Oberer, 333–362. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. http://www.georggeismann.de/24kantsweg.pdf. Accessed 7 November 2018.

  34. Gerhardt, Volker. 1995. Eine kritische Theorie der Politik. Über Kants Entwurf Zum ewigen Frieden. WeltTrends 9:68–83.

  35. Gerhardt, Volker. 1995. Immanuel Kants Entwurf „Zum ewigen Frieden“. Eine Theorie der Politik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

  36. Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory, ed. Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

  37. Habermas, Jürgen. 1997. Kant’s Idea of Perpetual Peace, with the Benefit of Two Hundred Years’ Hindsight. In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 113–154. Baskerille: The MIT Press.

  38. Habermas, Jürgen. 2014. A Political Constitution for the Pluralist World Society? Journal of Chinese Philosophy 40: 226–238.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hackel, Volker Marcus. 2000. Kants Friedensschrift und das Völkerrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Holland, Ben. 2017. The Perpetual Peace Puzzle: Kant on persons and states. Philosophy and Social Criticism 43(6): 599–620.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Höffe, Otfried, 1995. Völkerbund oder Weltrepublik? In Immanue Kant: Zum ewigen Frieden, ed. Otfried Höffe, 109–132. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

  42. Höffe, Otfried. 2006. Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace, trans. Alexandra Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  43. Höffe, Otfried. 2012. Kants Kritik der praktischen Vernunft: Eine Philosophie der Freiheit. München: CH Beck.

  44. Huggler, Jørgen. 2010. Cosmopolitanism and Peace in Kant’s Essay on ‘Perpetual Peace’. Studies in Philosophy and Education 29: 129–140.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kant, Immanuel. 1795. Vorarbeiten zu Zum Ewigen Frieden, 159. https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/kant/aa23/159.html. Accessed 8 November 2018.

  46. Kant, Immanuel. 1979. The Conflict of the Faculties, trans. Mary McGregor. New York: Abaris Books.

  47. Kant, Immanuel. 1991. Political Writings, ed. Hans Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  48. Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Practical Philosophy, trans. Mary McGregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  49. Kant, Immanuel. 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals, ed. Mary McGregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  50. Kant, Immanuel. 1997. Critique of Practical Reason, trans. Mary McGregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  51. Kant, Immanuel. 1998. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings, ed. Allen Wood and George di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  52. Kant, Immanuel. 2002. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Arnulf Zweig. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  53. Kleingeld, Pauline. 2004. Approaching Perpetual Peace: Kant’s Defence of a League of States and his Ideal of a World Federation. European Journal of Philosophy 12(3): 304.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kleingeld, Pauline. 2012. Kant and Cosmopolitanism: The Philosophical Ideal of World Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Klemme, Heiner F. 1992. Einleitung. In Über den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis/Zum ewigen Frieden, ed. Heiner F. Klemme, VII-LIII. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.

  56. Klenner, Hermann. 1996. Kants Entwurf “Zum ewigen Frieden”: Illusion oder Utopie?’ In 200 Jahre Kants Entwurf „Zum ewigen Frieden“: Idee einer globalen Friedensordnung, ed. Volker Bialas and Hans-Jürgen Häβler, 15–25. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

  57. Klossowski, Pierre. 2002. Roberte Ce Soir and The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, trans. Austryn Wainhouse. Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press.

  58. Koller, Peter. 1996. Frieden und Gerechtigkeit in einer geteilten Welt. In „Zum ewigen Frieden”: Grundlagen, Aktualität und Aussichten einer Idee von Immanuel Kant, ed. Reinhard Merkel & Robert Wittmann, 213–238. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  59. Krause, Joachim. 2013. Kant und seine Zeit—die Schrift „Zum ewigen Frieden “vor der Hintergrund der Französischen Revolution und der nachfolgenden Kriege. In Kant’s Project of Perpetual Peace in the Context of Contemporary Politics: Proceedings of International Seminar, eds. Andrey Zilber and Alexei Salikov, 9–23. Kaliningrad: Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University Press.

  60. Levinas, Emannuel. 1998. Of God who comes to Mind, trans. Bettina Bergo. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

  61. Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Haugue: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

  62. Levinas, Emmanuel. 2007. Beyond the Verse: Talmudic Readings and Lectures, trans. Gary D. Mole. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

  63. Levinas, Emmanuel. 2007. In the Time of the Nations, trans. Michael B. Smith. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

  64. Lutz-Bachmann, Matthias. 1997. Kant’s Idea of Peace and the Philosophical Conception of a World Republic. In Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal, ed. James Bohman and Matthias Lutz-Bachmann, 59–77. Baskerille: The MIT Press.

  65. Mansfield, Nick. 2018. Hospitality and Sovereign Violence: Derrida on Lot. Derrida Today 11(1): 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ossipow, William. 2008. Kant’s Perpetual Peace and Its Hidden Sources: A Textual Approach. Swiss Political Science Review 14(2): 357–389.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Patzig, Günther. 1996. Kants Schift „Zum ewigen Frieden“. In „Zum ewigen Frieden”: Grundlagen, Aktualität und Aussichten einer Idee von Immanuel Kant Kant, ed. Reinhard Merkel & Robert Wittmann, 12–30. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  68. Pogge, Thomas W. 1988. Kant’s theory of Justice. Kant-Studien 79(1–4): 407–433.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Rimoux, Frédéric. 2015. Kants Rechtstheorie vom Weltfrieden. Zwischen apriorischen Rechtsprinzipien und politischer Praxis, Doctoral Dissertation. Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek Tübingen.

  70. Saner, Hans. 1995. Die negativen Bedingungen des Friedens. In Immanuel Kant: Zum ewigen Frieden, ed. Otfried Höffe, 43–67. Berlin: Akadademie Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Scheid, Don. E. 2011. Perpetual Peace: Kant. In Encyclopedia of Global Justice, ed. Deen. K. Chatterjee, 836–841. Dordrecht: Springer.

  72. Schmitt, Carl. 2007. The Concept of the Political, trans. George Schwab. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

  73. Shryock, Andrew. 2008. Thinking about Hospitality, with Derrida, Kant, and the Balga Bedouin. Anthropos 103(2): 405–421.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Still, Judith. 2010. Derrida and Hospitality: Theory and Practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Tesón, Fernando R. 1992. The Kantian Theory of International Law. Columbia Law Review 92: 53–102.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Vergil. 1963. Vergil’s Aeneid, trans. L.R. Lind. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  77. Walters, Mark D. 2004. The Common Law Constitution and Legal Cosmopolitanism. In The Unity of Public Law, ed. David Dyzenhaus, 431–454. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

  78. Westmoreland, Mark W. 2008. Interruptions: Derrida and Hospitality. Kritike 2(1): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Wood, Allen W. 1995. Kant’s Project for Perpetual Peace. In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and Feeling Beyond the Nation, ed. Pheng Cheah and Bruce Robbins, 59–76. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Zenkert, Georg. 1999. Politik als Friedensstrategie: Kants Entwurf zum ewigen Frieden in der Diskussion. Philosophische Rundschau 46(2): 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The financial contributions of the National Research Foundation and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation are gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques de Ville.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Ville, J. Perpetual Peace: Derrida Reading Kant. Int J Semiot Law 32, 335–357 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09605-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09605-8

Keywords

Navigation