Element contents
Kant on Property Rights and International Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2026
Summary
This Element argues that property rights and the territorial rights of states in Kant's legal theory provide a strong justification for the expansion of international law. Central to the argument is Kant's theory of legal obligation, according to which a right to external things is only possible if it can genuinely bind all those on whom it must impose an external duty. Given the global scope of this legal obligation in Kant's account, it can only be achieved through the implementation of a shared international legal order regulated by a principle of reciprocity in external relations. Kant's conception of legal obligation thus requires us to leave the state of nature beyond domestic legal systems towards an international legal order. The author also examines how the international legal order differs from a world state, and how it can be consistent with national legal systems.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009402552Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 26 February 2026
References
Achenwall, Gottfried. 2020 (1763). Natural Law: A Translation of the Textbook for Kant’s Lectures on Legal and Political Philosophy (Translation of Gottfried Achenwall, Ius naturae. 5th ed. Göttingen), edited by Pauline Kleingeld, translated by Corinna Vermeulen, with an introduction of Paul Guyer. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Åhrén, Mattias. 2016. Indigenous Peoples’ Status in the International Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexy, Robert. 2019. “Kant’s Non-Positivistic Concept of Law.” Kantian Review 24, no. 4: 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baiasu, Sorin 2016. “Right’s Complex Relation to Ethics in Kant: The Limits of Independentism.” Kant-Studien 107, no. 1: 2–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Been, Vicki and Beauvais, Joel C.. 2003. “The Global Fifth Amendment? NAFTA’s Investment Protections and the Misguided Quest for an International ‘Regulatory Takings’ Doctrine.” NYU Law Review 78, no. 30: 30–143.Google Scholar
Bonilla Maldonado, Daniel. 2009. “Extralegal Property, Legal Monism, and Pluralism.” University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 40, no. 2(2): 213–238.Google Scholar
Brandt, Reinhard. 1982. “Das Erlaubnisgesetz, oder: Vernunft und Geschichte in Kants Rechtslehre.” In Rechtsphilosophie der Aufklärung, edited by Brandt, Reinhard, 233–285. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Martin. 2026. “Kant on Permissive Law.” In Law and Morality in Kant, edited by Brecher, Martin and Philipp-Alexander, . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brudner, Alan. 2011. “Private Law and Kantian Right.” University of Toronto Law Journal 61, no. 2: 279–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, Eugen. 2007. “Der von den Juristen verkannte apagogische Beweis – Dazu auch Kant und Kelsen.” In Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Heldrich, Andreas, Koller, Ingo, Prölss, Jürgen, et al., 991–1016. München: C.H. Beck Verlag.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon. 2006. “The State as a ‘Moral Person.’” In Kant and Law, 1st ed., 379–398. Routledge, 2016.Google Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim. 2010. Kant’s Doctrine of Right: A Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, B. Sharon and Hruschka, Joachim 2006. “The Natural Law Duty to Recognize Private Property Ownership: Kant’s Theory of Property in His Doctrine of Right.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 56, no. 2: 217–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps, Patrick and Rivers, Julian. 2010. “Kant’s Concept of International Law.” Legal Theory 16, no. 4: 229–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio. 2017. “Constructivism in Cosmopolitan Law: Kant’s Right to Visit.” Global Constitutionalism 6, no. 3: 412–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio 2021. Kant, Global Politics and Cosmopolitan Law: The World Republic as a Regulative Idea of Reason. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Soto, Hernando. 2000. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagan, Hanoch. 2021. A Liberal Theory of Property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyzenhaus, David. 2018. “A Monistic Approach to the Internationalization of Constitutional Law.” In New Developments in Constitutional Law: Essays in Honour of Andras Sajo, edited by Motoc, Iulia, de Albuquerque, Paulo Pinto & Wojtyezek, Krzysztof: 97–117. The Hague: Eleven.Google Scholar
Dedek, Helge. 2021. “Private Law Rights as Democratic Participation: Kelsen on Private Law and (Economic) Democracy.” University of Toronto Law Journal 71, no. 3: 376–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberl, Oliver and Niesen, Peter. 2011. Zum ewigen Frieden: Kommentar. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin. 2010a. “Justice without Virtue.” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, edited by Denis, Lara: 51–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Flikschuh, Katrin 2010b. “Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma: A Contemporary Analysis.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 18, no. 4: 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuesser, Klaus. 1996. “Farewell to ‘Legal Positivism’: The Separation Thesis Unravelling.” In The Autonomy of Law, edited by George, Robert P.: 119–162. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Çömez, Çağlar. 2025. “Kant’s Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory.” Kantian Review: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, Paul. 2002. “Kant’s Deductions of the Principles of Right.” In Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays, edited by Timmons, Mark: 23–64. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guyer, Paul 2024. The Moral Foundation of Right. Elements in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joachim, Hruschka. 2004. “The Permissive Law of Practical Reason in Kant’s “Metaphysics of Morals. Law and Philosophy, 23(1), 45–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4150563Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. 2012 (1961). The Concept of Law. 3rd ed., edited by Green, Leslie, Raz, Joseph and Bulloch, Penelope A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. 1958. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4: 593–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasan, Rafeeq. 2018. “The Provisionality of Property Rights in Kant’s Doctrine of Right,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 48: 850–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1964 (1642). De Cive or the Citizen. Edited by Lamprecht, Sterling P. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Höffe, Ottfried. 2006. Kant’s Cosmopolitan Theory of Law and Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb. 1917. “Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning.” The Yale Law Journal 26: 710–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holtman, Sarah Williams. 2018 Kant on Civil Society and Welfare. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Christoph. 2014. Nichtideale Normativität: Ein neuer Blick auf Kants politische Philosophie. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Horn, Christoph 2004. “The Permissive Law of Practical Reason in Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals.” Law and Philosophy 23: 45–72.Google Scholar
Huber, Jakob. 2022. Kant’s Grounded Cosmopolitanism: Original Common Possession and the Right to Visit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakab, András. 2004. “Kelsen’s Doctrine of International Law: Between Epistemology and Politics.” Austrian Review of International and European Law (ARIEL), 9(1): 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1992. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant in Translation. General editors Paul Guyer and Wood, Allen W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1902. Gesammelte Schriften. Herausgegeben von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 1997 (1934). Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory: A Translation of the First Edition of the Reine Rechtslehre or Pure Theory of Law. Translated by Bonnie Litschewski Paulson and Stanley L. Paulson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, Hans 1967 (1960). Pure Theory of Law. Translated from Reine Rechtslehre (2nd revised ed.) by Max Knight. Berkeley: University of California PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Christina M., Fariss, Brandie, Oakleaf, James R. et al. 2023. “Indigenous Peoples’ Lands are Threatened by Industrial Development; Conversion Risk Assessment Reveals Need to Support Indigenous Stewardship.” One Earth 6, no. 8: 1032–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleingeld, Pauline. 2012. Kant and Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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: 304–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti. 2007. “Constitutionalism as Mindset: Reflections on Kantian Themes about International Law and Globalization.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law 8, no. 1: 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriebaum, Ursula and Reinisch, August. 2019. “Property, Right to, International Protection.” In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by Peters, Anne: 522–533. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kumm, Mattias. 2013. “The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: An Integrated Conception of Public Law.” Indiana Journal of Legal Studies 20: 605–628.Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch. 1977 (1945). “Sovereignty and Federation in International Law.” In International Law: Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht, Volume 3 The Law of Peace Parts II-VI, edited by Lauterpacht, Elihu: 5–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson-Remer, Terra. 2012. “The Paradox of Property Rights and Economic Development.” Council on Foreign Relations, November 12. www.cfr.org/blog/paradox-property-rights-and-economic-development (Accessed July 29, 2024).Google Scholar
Leben, Charles. 1998. “Hans Kelsen and the Advancement of International Law.” European Journal of International Law 9: 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. 2003 (1689). “Second Treatise of Government.” In Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration, edited by Shapiro, Ian: 100–209. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Loriaux, Sylvie. 2020. Kant and Global Distributive Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukashuk, Igor I. 1989. “The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation Under International Law.” The American Journal of International Law 83, no. 3: 513–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1994. “The Concept of Law and ‘The Concept of Law.’” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 14, no. 1: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2006. “Legal Positivism: Still Descriptive and Morally Neutral.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26: 683–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, Karl, and Engels, Friedrich. 1963 (1848). The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Edited by Riazanov, D. B.. New York: Russell & Russell.Google Scholar
McPherson, Crawford Brough. (ed.). 1978. Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Messina, James P. 2019. “Kant’s Provisionality Thesis.” Kantian Review 24: 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, Robert A. 1943. “Rousseau and Totalitarianism.” The Journal of Politics 5, no. 2: 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlakos, George. 2026. “The Kantian Legal Relation as Radical Non-positivism.” In Law and Morality in Kant, edited by Brecher, Martin and Hirsch, Philipp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice. 2024. “Property Rights and the International Law System.” In The Palgrave Handbook of International Political Theory Volume II, edited by Williams, Howard, Boucher, David, Sutch, Peter, Reidy, David, and Koutsoukis, Alexandros: 209–228. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2022. “Honeste Vive: Dignity in Kant’s Rechtslehre.” In Human Dignity and the Kingdom of Ends: Kantian Perspectives and Practical Applications, edited by Cureton, Adam and van der Rijt, Jan-Willem: 109–131. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2020a. “Kant and Climate Change: A Territorial Rights Approach.” In Moral Theory and Climate Change: Ethical Perspectives on a Warming Planet, edited by Eggleston, Ben and Miller, Dale E.: 99–115. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2020b. “Private Property and Territorial Rights: A Kantian Alternative to Contemporary Debates.” In Reason, Normativity and Law: New Essays in Kantian Philosophy. Walla, Alice Pinheiro, Demiray, Mehmet Ruhi (Eds.) Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2019. “A Kantian Foundation for Welfare Rights.” Jurisprudence 11, no. 1: 76–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2026. “Bridging the Juridical Gap: Ethical and Juridical Duties in the Absence of Political Institutions.” In Law and Morality in Kant, edited by Brecher, Martin and Hirsch, Philipp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2017. “Global Government or Global Governance? Realism and Idealism in Kant’s Legal Theory.” Journal of Global Ethics 13, no. 3: 312–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2014. “Human Nature and the Right to Coerce in Kant’s Doctrine of Right.” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 96, no. 1: 126–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro Walla, Alice 2013. “Virtue and Prudence in a Footnote of the Metaphysics of Morals (MS VI: 433n).” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 21: 307–323.Google Scholar
Radbruch, Gustav. 2006 (1946). “Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law.” Translated by Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski and Paulson, Stanley L.. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26, no. 1: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 2007. “The Argument from Justice, or How Not to Reply to Legal Positivism.” In Law, Rights and Discourse. The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy, edited by Pavlakos, George: 17–36. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur. 2021. Kant and the Law of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques. 2022 (1762). “Of the Social Contract.” In Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts, 4th ed., edited by Cahn, Steven M.: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 323–348.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques 2019. “Political Independence, Territorial Integrity and Private Law Analogies.” Kantian Review 24, no. 4: 573–604.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques 2009. Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rühl, Ulli F. H. 2010. “Der intelligible Besitz – und nicht Eigentum – als rechtsmetaphysischer Fundamentalbegriff in Kants ‚Privatrecht.” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik / Annual Review of Law and Ethics 18: 563–80.Google Scholar
Sprankling, John G. 2012. “The Emergence of International Property Law.” North Carolina Law Review 90, no. 2: 461–509.Google Scholar
Sweet, Kristi. 2024. “Kant on Free Speech: Criticism, Enlightenment, and the Exercise of Judgement in the Public Sphere.” Kantian Review 29, no. 1: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, Brian. 2001a. “Kant on Property: The Problem of the Permissive Law.” Journal of the History of Ideas 62: 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, Brian 2001b. “Permissive Natural Law and Property: Gratian to Kant.” Journal of the History of Ideas 62: 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Daniels, Detlef. 2019. “Kant and Kelsen on International Law.” In Natur und Freiheit: Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, edited by Waibel, Violetta L., Ruffing, Margit and Wagner, David: 2623–2632. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1996. “Kant’s Legal Positivism.” Harvard Law Review 109, no. 7: 1535–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob. 2008. “The Juridical Significance of Kant’s ‘Supposed Right to Lie.’” Kantian Review 13, no. 1: 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willaschek, Marcus. 1997. “Why the Doctrine of Right Does Not Belong in the Metaphysics of Morals: On Some Basic Distinctions in Kant’s Moral Philosophy.” Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 5: 471–476.Google Scholar
Williams, Howard 2001. “Metamorphosis or Palingenesis? Political Change in Kant.” The Review of Politics 63, no. 4: 693–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeomans, Christopher. 2021. “Kant and the Provisionality of Property.” In Kant on Morality, Humanity, and Legality: Practical Dimensions of Normativity, edited by Lyssy, Ansgar and Yeomans, Christopher: 253–277. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ypi, Lea. 2014. “A Permissive Theory of Territory Rights.” European Journal of Philosophy 22, no. 2: 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ypi, Lea 2010. “Natura Daedala Rerum? On the Justification of Historical Progress in Kant’s Guarantee of Perpetual Peace.” Kantian Review 14, no. 2: 118–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The PDF of this Element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.