7 found
  1.  64
    In Defense of Kant’s League of States.Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):291-317.
    This article presents a defense of Kant’s idea of a 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. In view of 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 state of states. Agreeing with this standard criticism that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  19
    No cosmopolitan morality without state sovereignty.Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2017 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 43 (10):1072-1094.
    This article takes issue with the common view that cosmopolitan normative commitments are incompatible with recognition of state sovereignty as a basic principle of international law. Against influential cosmopolitans, who at best ascribe a derivative significance to the sovereignty of states, the article argues that state sovereignty is not only compatible with, but also essential to the recognition of individuals as units of ultimate concern. The argument challenges a problematic distributive conception of justice underlying many cosmopolitans’ support for reforms of (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  45
    Kant and Habermas on International Law.Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2013 - Ratio Juris 26 (2):302-324.
    The purpose of this article is to present a critical assessment of Jürgen Habermas' reformulation of Kant's philosophical project Toward Perpetual Peace. Special attention is paid to how well Habermas' proposed multi-level institutional model fares in comparison with Kant's proposal—a league of states. I argue that Habermas' critique of the league fails in important respects, and that his proposal faces at least two problems. The first is that it implies a problematic asymmetry between powerful and less powerful states. The second (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  26
    The Institutionalisation of International Law: On Habermas' Reformulation of the Kantian Project.Øystein Lundestad & Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2011 - Journal of International Political Theory 7 (1):40-62.
    The article sets out to explore the international legal dimension in Jürgen Habermas' latest publications on philosophy of law. It is our view that Habermas deals with the examination of just relations beyond the nation-state first and foremost from a legal perspective, and that the key to a Habermasian reading of international justice is not through an application of discourse-theoretical models of communicative or moral action as such, but primarily through proper legal institutionalisation of the rule of law. In asserting (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  5. Leo Strauss – en rasjonalistisk irrasjonalist?Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2003 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 38 (3):206-225.
  6.  9
    Med Kant mot ulikhet.Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2021 - Norsk Filosofisk Tidsskrift 56 (1):31-45.
    Taking Kant’s philosophy of right as my starting point, I defend the view that just exercise of political power requires economic redistribution. Against the common view that Kant’s political thinking has no economic implications, I argue that republican interpretations of his philosophy of right succeed in reconstructing a cogent argument in favor of public poverty relief. I also argue that the economic implications of Kant’s theory extend beyond public support of the poor. As freedom-enabling institutional structures, states are obliged to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
  7. Testimony and Kant’s Idea of Public Reason.Kjartan Koch Mikalsen - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):23-40.
    It is common to interpret Kant’s idea of public reason and the Enlightenment motto to ‘think for oneself’ as incompatible with the view that testimony and judgement of credibility is essential to rational public deliberation. Such interpretations have led to criticism of contemporary Kantian approaches to deliberative democracy for being intellectualistic, and for not considering our epistemic dependence on other people adequately. In this article, I argue that such criticism is insufficiently substantiated, and that Kant’s idea of public reason is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation