POL109

Republican Constitution (1st Article)

A constitution established on three principles; 1. The freedom of members (as men). 2. The dependance of all upon a single common legislation (as subjects). 3. The law of equality (as citizens).

Significance: Kant argues republics are more peaceful when compared to monarchies since the “consent of the citizens” is required to declare war. Since citizens bear the outcome of war, such as fighting, increased costs and repair, they are thus more cautious to go on such a “dangerous enterprise”.

Limitations: Kant distinguishes republicanism from democracy, which he calls a despotism. In a democracy, the “all” makes an executes laws, which violates the separation of powers and the representative principle.

State of Nature (Kant)

Kant argues that the state of nature between human and states is not a state of peace but a state of war; he does not mean active combat, but rather a constant and “unceasing threat” of hostilities. Because peace is not the natural state, it must be formally instituted through legal structures.

The Preliminary Articles/ The Prohibitive Laws

Six “Preliminary Articles” which serve as “prohibitive laws” designed to dismantle the machinery of war.

Article 1: No peace treaty is valid if there are secret plans for future war.

Article 2: No state may be acquired by a person through inheritance, exchange, purchase or gift. A state is a “society of men” with its own roots; treating it as property contradicts the original contract of a state.

Article 3: Standing armies must be gradually abolished since they treat humans as “machines and instruments” in the hands of the state, and make war inevitable.

Article 4: No national debt should be contracted for external war-making, as credit systems can easily become a military fund which exceeds the resources of the entire state.

Article 5: No state shall forcibly interfere in the constitution and government of another state (the foundation for non-intervention).

Article 6: States at war must not use “dishonorable stratagems” (assassins) which would make future trust and peace impossible.

The Definitive Articles/ The Three Pillars of Right

Three types of legal constitution which Kant believes are necessary for perpetual peace.

1. Every state should have a republican constitution

2. International law should be built upon a federation of free states

3. Cosmopolitan law shall be limited to the conditions of universal hospitality (It is the right of a stranger to NOT be treated with hostility when they arrive in a foreign land)

Moral Politician

Someone who seeks to align political prudence with morality. The moral politician strives for the republican ideal.

Limited by the fact that he must often wait for favorable conditions to implement reforms.

EX: A leader who upholds a treats even when it is strategically disadvantageous.

Political Moralist

Someone who uses morality to suit his own strategic advantage, often using deceptive maxims to serve their own needs.

Limited by the fact that he must often maintain a veneer of morality in order to make their actions harder to expose.

EX: A leader who uses special military operation terminology to evade the legal and moral consequences of an invasion.

Pacific Federation (Second Definitive Article)

A “federation of free states” which aims not to acquire state power like a monarchy, but to preserve and secure the freedom of each state within the group. Rather being a single state, the federation is a union of several states, designed to maintain peace and prevent war.

Significance: It provides a legal alternative to the “lawless freedom” of the state of nature, allowing states to resolve disputes through common law rather than force while also maintaining their sovereignty.

Limitation: The federation is not a world state; Kant rejects a universal state of mankind as a soulless despotism, because laws lose their force as the government’s range expands. An EX: The EU.

Universal Hospitality

A right limited to “conditions of universal hospitality”, which are defined as the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility when arriving on someone else’s territory.

Significance: It allows for the “communal possession of the earth’s surface”, by enabling distant continents to engage in peaceful relations. It essentially recognizes individuals as “citizens of a universal state of mankind”.

Limitation: Hospitality is a right of visit, not a right of stay. A stranger cannot be turned away if he does not cause death, and they cannot claim the status of a permanent guest without a separate agreement. EX: International human rights agreements

Standing Armies (Miles Perpetuus)

Permanent military forced maintained by states; in Kant’s third preliminary article, he calls for the gradual but complete abolition of standing armies.

Significance: Standing armies “constantly threaten other states with war” simply by being prepared for it, causing an arms race where the costs of peace eventually become more oppressive than a short war. Kant find the practice of hiring men to kill or be killed and being treated as “mere machines” as incompatible with the rights of man.

Limitations: Kant allows for voluntary military training by citizens to secured themselves and their fatherland against foreign invasion. Modern day example: Discussions over nuclear disarmament.

Democratic Peace Theory

The observation which states that democratic states almost never go to war with one another. It a dyadic theory, as democracies often fight autocracies, however they do maintain a “separate peace” with other democracies.

Significance: Closest thing in IR to an empiral law. It suggests that the spread of democracy is a viable path towards global stability, which has been the foundational belief of American and European foreign policy.

Limitation: While the theory proves correlation, it does not establish causation. Historians argue that the peace might be caused by other factors, such as shared interests during the Cold war or common economic goals. EX: Long term peace between the US and Canada.

Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID’s)

A metric used by the correlates of war (COW) to measure instances where states explicitly threaten, display or use force against one another.

Significance: Unlike war which requires 1000, battle deaths, MIDs capture the symbolic words and acts which serve as warnings. Because MIDs are more common than war, they provide a more complete dataset which could be used for analysis.

Limitation: This metric still excludes cover operations, gray zone conflicts or violence through independent guerillas not sanctioned by the government.

EX: Germany’s remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 was an example of an MID before the outbreak of WWII.

Politically Relevant Dyads

A subset of state pairs that are either contiguous (neighbors) or include at least one major power.

Significance: These dyads account of 87% of all militarized disputes despite being a small percentage of total state pairs. Focusing on them means researchers can test their theories that state have the opportunity and incentive to fight.

Limitation: It can miss contagion effects where conflict between two distant minor powers is ignored.

EX: The US and Syria, because the US is a major power, or France and Germany because they were traditionally contiguous.

Institutional Constraints

Internal structural mechanisms of Democracy, such as the separation of powers, the requirement for legislative consent for war, and a free press, which limit the leaders ability to use force.

Significance: A key causal mechanism for Kantian peace; leaders who must answer to an electorate that bears the costs of war would be more cautious to declare war.

Limitation: In times of crisis, leaders may use deceptive strategies such as “Special Military operations” to bypass legislative oversight and constraints.

EX: The US requirement for a Congressional declaration of war.

Democratic Norms and Culture

The internal culture of negotiation and non-violent conflict resolution which is found in democracies, which is then exported to the international stage when dealing with other democracies.

Significance: This mechanism explains why democracies feel a sense of mutual identity which makes war between them seem illegitimate or culturally unthinkable.

Limitation: These effects may be weaker in newly democratizing countries which have not yet internalized these habits of peaceful resolution.

EX: The habit of Western democracies to resolve territorial or trade disputes through international courts (ICJ) rather than rely on force.

Economic Interdependence

A Kantian pillar measured by trade to GDP ratios, which states that high level of bilateral trade makes war “materially impossible” or irrational because it would destroy the economic prosperity of both states.
Significance: Research shows that states with high bilateral trade are 33% less likely to fight than average pairs.

Limitation: High interdependence can result in friction and disputes over trade terms.

EX: The 1950 proposal to pool French and German coal and steel production to make war between them materially impossible.

Epidemiological Model of War

A method used by Russett and Oneal which treat the causes of war the same way as medical risks. It distinguishes between non-controllable factor like geographical distance and modifiable/ controllable factors, which are the Kantian variables: Democracy, Economic interdependence and International Organizations.

Significance: It shifts the focus of IR from non preventable conflict to identifying specific policy levers (The Kantian pillars) which states can strengthen to reduce the likelihood of military conflict.

Limitation: This model provides probabilistic predictions rather than absolute certainties.

EX: Identifying that a lack of democracy is a risk factor for war, like smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer.

The Kantian Triangle

A modern framework which has three mutually reinforcing pillars that promote peace: Democracy with republican constitutions, Economic interdependence through free trade, and International organizations like IGO’s.

Significance: While research shows each pillar reduces conflict independently, promoting all 3 leads to a 71% drop in the chance of conflict.

Limitation: Some critics argue that the third leg is redundant to first two legs, democracy and interdependence. They argue international organizations are not independent causes of peace, but byproducts of the other 2 pillars.

EX: The EU, which uses democratic membership, economic integration and supranational institutions to maintain a secure community.

Scientific Methodology (Dyad-Years and Dataset)

The quantitative approach used to test the Kantian peace using a massive dataset from 1885-1992. The unit analysis is the dyad-year, which observes the relationship and behavior of a pair of states in a single year.

Significance: Using a pooled dataset of 40,000 observations allows for logistic regression analysis which estimates the independent effect of one variable (like democracy) on peace while holding all other constant.

Limitations: This method excludes unmeasurable decision makers perceptions and may struggle to find stable relationships if data is broken down into overly small subgroups.

EX: Analyzing whether Germany and Belgium were in a dispute specifically in 1914, while controlling for their distance and alliance status.

Realist Controls

Statistical variables representing traditional Realist concerns, such as geographical distance, alliances and the ratio of military capabilities, that are held constant in liberal peace models.

Significance: These controls ensure that findings are not spurious. If democracy still correlates with peace when these factors are accounted for, the Kantian thesis is empirically strengthened against realist skepticism.

Limitations: Realist factors like major power status often skew results, as major powers have wide-ranging interests and are five times more likely to be involved in disputes regardless of regime type.

EX: Controlling for the fact that the US and Syria are a relevant dyad because one is a major power, not just because of their political systems.

Principle of Nationality

A portion of mankind is said to constitute a nationality if they are united by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others. These sympathies make them desire to be under the same government, and that it should be government by themselves or a portion of themselves exclusively.

Significance: It establishes a prima facie case for national self-determination, suggesting that the question of government should ideally be decided by the governed. It provides the foundation for the idea that states should be formed around cohesive national communities.

Limitations: This principle is often used to justify the exclusion of those who do not share the dominant national sympathies. It also informs the darker side of mills theory where he claims multinational states cannot sustain freedom.

EX: The desire for an independent Kurdish state, where a distinct people share historical linguistic and cultural ties.

Common Sympathies

The specific bonds that generate the feeling of nationality, whether it be shared race, language, religion or geographical limits. The most impactful sympathy is a shared political history and a community of recollections (national history).

Significance: These factors are the glue that facilitates social cooperation and trust. Mill argues they are necessary for the functioning of representative government, as they allow for a united public opinion.

Limitations: Sympathies based on race or religion can be illiberal and exclusionary, potentially leading to vulgar nationalism which is hostile to outsiders.

EX: The common interest shared by those living under the same government.

Mills Multinational State Impossibility Thesis

The claim that “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities”. Mill argued that without a common fellow feeling, people cannot form the united public opinion necessary for the working of representative government.

Significance: This is a central component of the darker side of Mills liberal nationalism, as it suggests that stability and democracy require national homogeneity.

Limitations: Mill is considered incorrect. Many modern liberal democracies such as Canada and Switzerland have successfully maintained free institutions despite being multinational.

EX: Mill claims that if different sections of a country read and speak different languages, they will have different leaders and no mutual trust, making democracy fail.

Cosmopolitan Patriotism

An enlightened love of country that serves as a stepping stone for a love of the world. It involves creating a sense of unity with mankind and feeling an absolute obligation toward the universal good of humanity.

Significance: It shows that patriotism and cosmopolitanism are not antagonistic; one can be a cosmopolitan patriot, who works to ensure their nation contributes to global peace and civilization.

Limitations: Requires a high level of cultivation and education.

EX: National pride derived from a country’s contribution to the common fund of humanity or international justice.

Vulgar Nationalism

A form of nationalism known for a senseless antipathy to foreigners, an indifference to the general welfare of the human race or an unjust preference for one’s own country.

Significance: Mill identifies the rude or unreflecting form of nationalism as a primary cause of international conflict and an impediment to human improvement.

Limitations: Can be used by statesmen to justify selfish policies under the cloak of national interest.

EX: A nation that refuses to adopt good practices found in other countries simply because they are foreign, or that cherishes its own bad habits because they are national.

Standard of Civilization (The Double Standard)

Mills distinction between civilized nations and barbarians. He argues that international morality and customs (like reciprocity and non-intervention) only apply between civilized nations: barbarians have no national rights except the right to treatment that will fit them for becoming a nation.

Significance: It provides a liberal justification for imperialism and conquest, claiming that backwards nations benefit from being held captive to learn the self discipline necessary for self government.

Limitations: A major ethical flaw in Mills’s liberalism, as it applies a blatant double standard to the use of force and denies self-determination to any people labeled barbarous.

EX: The Roman conquest of Gaul and Spain is cited by Mill as an example where barbarians were better off for having been conquered by a more advanced power.

Stateless Nation

A portion of mankind that has nationality by virtue of common sympathies and the desire for self-rule, but also lack its own sovereign state.

Significance: It illustrates Mill’s principality of nationality; despite being divided among four non-Kurdish states, the group maintains shared symbols and a common desire for independence.

Limitations: As a nation without a state, they are subject to the might of the sovereign nations in which they live, often resulting in national aspirations being crushed by force.

EX: The Kurds

Strong and Active Principle of Cohesion

A term used by Mill to replace nationality. It emphasizes the “principle of sympathy” and union among those who live under the same government, where no part of the community considers themselves as foreigners toward another part. It built upon his understanding of enlightened patriotism.

Significance: Shows Mill’s move towards a more inclusive, civic oriented understanding of the bonds required for a stable society, moving away from purely racial definitions of nationality.

Limitations: Despite its inclusive nature, it still requires citizens to feel that their “lot is cast together” and prohibits them from selfishly severing the connection. He believed that free institutions like democracy are impossible to maintain when there are different hostile nationalities within a country.

EX: A multicultural society which develops a shared commitment to common interests and a liberal political culture.

Consequentialist Character of Intervention (Doyle)

Micheal Doyle’s reconstruction of Mill, which states that the legitimacy of intervention must be assessed contextually on a case by case basis. The most important ethical question is whether intervention does more good than harm in light of its real world effects.

Significance: It shows that the traditional abstract formula for intervention cannot be applied blindly. Policymakers must judge each case by its specific outcome for human dignity and freedom.

Limitations: Doyle concludes that because interventions involve huge risks, a lack of local knowledge and the danger of imperialism, this usually favors a general principle of non-interference.

Ex: Deciding whether a humanitarian rescue mission will save more lives or end up in increased violence or long term foreign dependence.

Mill’s exception to Non-Intervention

While Mill defends non-intervention, he identifies 7 cases where force is permissible. They are divided into Exception that Override the principles of non-intervention, and the exceptions that disregard, where the rationale for non-intervention doesn’t apply because there is no self to determine.

(Override Cases): 1. Legitimate self defense in internationalized civil wars. 2. Removing a standing menace after a successful defensive war. 3. Mediating civil wars to stop human suffering when parties are deadlocked.

(Disregard Cases): 4. National liberation when a people are held by a foreign leader. 5. Counter-intervention to redress a balance disturbed by another foreign power. 6. Humanitarian intervention to stop “severities repugnant to humanity” like genocide. 7. Imperialism against “barbarous nations.

Significance: This framework creates a moral geography for the use of force, moving away from non-intervention to a more contextual case by case analysis, where the main question is if intervention does more harm than good.

Limitations: Critics like Doyle argue that these rules are riskier than Mill assumed, as they rely on distorted categorizations and often ignore the “dirty hands” of the intervener.

EX: The 1846 British/Spanish intervention in Portugal is cited by Mill as an example of mediating a protracted civil war that healed the country.

The Principle of Authenticity (Wrested Liberty)

Mill claims that for liberty to be “real” or “permanent” it must be wrested from domestic oppressors by the efforts of the people. He argues that freedom bestowed by “other hands than their own” will inevitably result in the people being enslaved again because they will “lack the spirit of liberty” necessary to maintain it.

Significance: It provides a direct moral argument for non intervention between civilized nations. It states that the best test of peoples ability to maintain free institutions is if they are willing to “brave labor and danger” for their own liberation.

Limitations: An overly harsh view which justifies inaction in the face of brutal domestic repression if the struggle is “native” to another nation. Michael Walzer argues that intervention is justified if a government turns “savagely” upon its own people.

EX: Arguing against intervening in a crisis where a native tyrant is causing suffering without foreign support.

Counter Intervention

A rule stating that intervention is rightful when it is used to enforce non intervention. If a foreign power helps one side in a civil war, a second power is justified in countering that nation to “redress the balance” and restore an even playing field.

Significance: It prevents the issue where “the wrong side may help the wrong, but the right must not help the right”, by framing the 2nd intervention as a defense of non intervention itself.

Limitations: It can lead to escalating proxy wars as seen during the cold war. Could lead to world war aswell.

EX: Mill argued it would not have been moral to aid Hungary against Austria, but once the Russian Tzar intervened to assist Austria, it became right for England and France to intervene on the side of the Hungarians.

Mills Rationale for Non-Intervention

Mill argues that generally one country is not justified in helping another people against a native government for free institutions. His support is based on several beliefs: The principle of Authenticity, that a domestic struggle is necessary to maintain freedom and that foreigners have no chance of understanding the internal affairs of another nation.

Significance: It establishes the presumption of non-intervention as a way to protect the arena of self-determination. It warns that dictatorial interference does more harm than good by creating dependencies and triggering protracted civil wars.

Limitations: Mills standard of civilization only applies to civilized nations, as he views barbarous nations as incapable of the reciprocity and self-discipline required for these rules to apply.

EX: A forcibility imposed liberal government with few domestic supporters would either become as repressive as the previous regime or stay in power through continuous foreign military support.

The Reciprocity Requirement (International Morality)

Mill claims that the rules of international morality, such as non-intervention and treaties, only apply between nations capable of observing those same rules in return.

Significance: It allows Mill to adopt a cosmopolitan ideology while justifying imperialism, arguing that barbarians will not reciprocate, and thus cannot be granted the same national rights as civilized nations.

Limitations: It uses a distorted European history to label the rest of the world as lawless and anarchic thereby exempting the intervening power from moral constraints.

EX: Mill justification for the annexation of Oude, where he argued normal treaty obligations did not apply because the local government was incapable of reciprocity.

Presumption of Non-Intervention (The Arena for Freedom)

Michael Walzer’s interpretation of Mill, which states that sovereign states should generally be free from external interference. Sovereignty is viewed as a right of a people to “become free by their own efforts”, establishing an arena where freedom can be fought for and won without foreign aid.

Significance: It bases international order on the vale of communal autonomy and self-determination. It assumes freedom bestowed by foreign hands is rarely permanent.

Limitations: This only exists if the arena remains a site for struggle.

EX: Mills rule that intervention is not justified when a people are struggling against a purely native government.

Walzer’s Exceptions to Non-Intervention

Three circumstances where presumption of non-intervention is overridden. 1. National Liberation and Secession. 2. Counter-Intervention. 3. Humanitarian rescue (When states commit acts that “shock the consciousness of mankind).

Significance: These rules move away from strict non intervention to a more moral framework which recognizes certain human rights violations as more important that the rules of sovereignty.

Limitations: These categories are often subject to intense disagreement, over where a conflict is a civil war or a secession.

EX: Walzer supports the NATO intervention in Kosovo 1999 as a necessary humanitarian rescue.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

A global doctrine adopted by the UN in 2005 which redefines sovereignty as conditional. If a state is unable or unwilling to protect its people for genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity, the international community has a responsibility to intervene.

Significance: It establishes a “normative minimum” for state behavior an an evolution of the world order towards humanitarian values.

Limitations: This doctrine has been criticized for uneven application. It was used in Libya in 2011 but largely ignored in Syria, leading to accusations of imperial bias.

EX: Heavily influenced by the failure to act in Rwanda and the controversial intervention in Kosovo.

Categorization of Force (Special Military Operations)

The political and legal practice of using specific labels, such as invasion, intervention or special military operations, to define the use of force.

Significance: Labels have consequences. Calling an act a special military operation may be a strategy to evade congressional authorization or to avoid legal repercussions of war crimes.

Limitations: International criticism exposes these categories as “dishonorable stratagems”, designed to maintain a “veneer of morality”

EX: Putin’s use of “Special military operation” to describe the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Substantive Justice vs Procedural Fairness

A distinction coined by Sean Richmond to explain the divineness of humanitarian intervention. Justice is doing something “morally right” from a universal standpoint, while Fairness means being impartial and consistent with established international rules, like the UN charter.

Significance: Explains why Kosovo was so polarizing; Supporters wanted justice (stopping a massacre) while critics prioritized Fairness/ Legality (the fact that it lacked UN security council authorization).

Limitations: While both values are important, it leads to deadlock and “irreconcilable disagreements”, where neither side can fully convince the other.

EX: The IICK report on Kosovo declared the intervention “illegal but legitimate” capturing the tension between procedural fairness (law) and substantive justice (morality).

Humanitarian Rescue/ Humanitarian Intervention

Military action within the borders of a sovereign state which halt the “severities repugnant to humanity” such as genocide.

Significance: The most compelling exception to non-intervention as it recognizes that when a government slaughters its own people, it forfeits the right to rule and claim territorial sovereignty.

Limitations: It is often criticized for having mixed motives, and the “dirty hands” of the intervener.

EX: The 1971 invasion of East Pakistan is cited as an example as it stopped Punjab led army from massacring the Bengali people.

The Self Help Test

A criteria for state legitimacy in civil wars; it states that a government/ rebel group only deserves international recognition if it can “win the war on its own” or demonstrates significant domestic support for its struggle in self-determination.

Significance: It prevents foreign powers from propping up illegitimate “creature” governments that have no local political base.

Limitations: It can act as a “Darwinian” standard that justifies inaction while a small legitimate movement it supported due to its better armament.

EX: Walzer argue that the Saigon regime in Vietnam failed the Self Help test as it survived solely due to US support and was unable to “impersonate” Vietnamese nationalism effectively.

The Conventional View on Immigration

The widely held view that sovereign states have a moral right to exercise discretionary control over the admission of immigrants and the granting of citizenship. It views immigration as political issues governed by state sovereignty and democratic norms rather than universal moral requirements.

Significance: Carens’s argues that even if we accept this background constraint, democratic states must still ensure their policies are consistent with the democratic principles they endorse, such as non-discrimination or the protection of basic rights.

Limitations: Carens rejects this conventional view as being deeply misled, viewing modern citizenship based on birthright as a form of “feudal privilege” which unfairly determine life chances based on a genetic lottery.

EX: A state implementing restrictive immigration laws to maintain a specific national character, while assuming it has no moral obligations to outsiders.

Principle of Social Membership

The claim that living in a society over time makes a person a member of that society regardless of their legal status. Carens argues that as people settle they form social connections and roots that are strong moral claims to legal rights and permanent status.

Significance: It provides a moral foundation for the rights of migrants. It shifts the focus from the conditions of admission, which may have been violated, to the social reality of membership that has developed over time.

Limitations: Some critics argue that social membership should not automatically grant membership in the political community.

EX: The case of Mrs Grimmond, who lived in the UK for 80 yrs but was not a citizens. Carens argues the sheer length of her residence made her a member of that society.

Firewall Protections

A policy proposal to strictly separate government agencies responsible for protecting human rights and basic welfare from those responsible for enforcing immigration law.

Significance: Without a firewall, vulnerable people may fear that reporting a crime or seeking medical care will lead to their deportation.

Limitations: This barrier requires a significant political will to be implemented, as it effectively limits the state’s ability to identify and deport unauthorized citizens.

EX: A migrant woman unable to report a sexual assault to the police as the police will report her immigration status to enforcement agencies.

Principle of Democratic Legitimacy

The core belief that those who are subject to laws of a state should have a right to participate in the political process that shape those laws.

Significance: For Carens, this entitles long term adult residents to political rights and easy access to citizenship. It challenges the idea that a state can permanently exclude a group of its people from the democratic process.

Limitations: In current practice, voting rights are almost always tied to formal citizenship. Bonberg and Rensing argue this principle should lead to the detachment of voting rights from citizenship, to ensure residents can vote while non-residents are excluded.

EX: Programs which allow residents to naturalize after a certain number of years, fulfilling the requirement for democratic consent.

Non- Discrimination Admissions

The requirement that a state must be consistent with democratic values in picking those who they admit. (No discrimination based on race, religion, gender or sex)

Significance: Even under the conventional approach, states are not free from moral constraints. While they can select based on language skill and economic prospects, selection based on race or religion is morally discredited.

Limitations: States often use pretexts to mask discriminatory intent, such as labeling bands on specific religions as security measures against “terrorist producing states”

EX: Historical policies like the Chinese Exclusion Act

Refugee Obligations (Carens)

The argument that rich democratic states have a moral duty to admit refugees due to 3 criteria. 1. A humanitarian duty to assist those in desperate need. 2. Causal responsibility if the state was involved in the conditions that led to the fight. 3. Normative presuppositions of the state system (since states divide the earth, they are responsible for those the system leaves unprotected).

Significance: Elevates the admission of refugees from an act of charity to a duty of justice. It argues states cannot return people to a place where they face persecution (non-refoulement).

Limitations: The international refugee movements is frequently undermined by rich states through visa controls that make it physically impossible for refugees to reach safety.

EX: Western states have a moral obligation to admit refugees from Middle Eastern Conflicts in which they were militarily involved.

Relational Approach to Justice (Sarah Song)

A critique of cosmopolitanism which argues that equality and justice are relational ideals. Our specific obligation of justice arise out of the specific relationships and shared institutional contexts we have without fellow members of a political community.

Significance: Song challenges Carens argument for open border, arguing that since we lack a global agent to enforce equality, obligations to compatriots are more extensive than obligations to all human beings.

Limitations: Song concedes that this does not mean rich states have no global obligations. Wealthy states must still address extreme poverty and historical injustices like colonialism through development assistance rather than just open borders.

EX: Song argues that educational inequality between two US cities is more objectionable than inequality between the US and Mozambique because the US students compete within a shared institutional scheme.

Liberal Asymmetry

The position that people have a fundamental moral right to leave any country, but states have a right to control who enters.

Significance: Song defends this asymmetry by arguing exit restrictions are coercive since they force a person to maintain an unwanted political relationship, where entry restrictions only prevents the voluntary acquisition of a new relationship.

Limitations: The right is not absolute, states can legitimately restrict the departure of those attempting to feel criminal prosecution.

EX: A citizen has the moral right to leave an oppressive regime but the right to live wherever he wants.

Social Membership vs Political Community

A distinction between being a member of civil society, like having social or economic ties, and being a member of the political community, by having the necessary logic required for democratic participation.

Significance: It challenges Caren’s belief that residence over time should lead to citizenship. Salo suggest that while all residents have a right to stay, formal voting right must be based on a person’s active role a self-governing citizen.

Limitations: This approach risk exclusionary competency tests for the franchise, which could lead to the exclusion of more vulnerable groups.

EX: A migrant who lives in a country for 20yrs but has no social or political interaction; Carens views them as a member of society while Salo questions if they truly belong in the political community.

Family Reunification

The moral claim that states have an obligation to admit the immediate family members of their current residents.

Significance: The most widely recognized limit on the state’s control over admissions. It states that the state cannot claim to respect the rights of its citizens while also forcing them to live apart from their families.

Limitations: In practice states define the immediate family very narrowly, which can lead to the exclusion of family and extended family which is crucial in other cultures.

EX: A legal resident in Canada sponsoring their spouse and children for admission, a claim which is usually prioritized over regular economic migrants.

Institutional vs Moral Cosmopolitanism

Institutional cosmopolitanism is a claim about political structures, calling for the creation of a world state or global government. Moral cosmo is a moral outlook that states all persons deserve equal consideration and respect regardless of nationality, but it does endorse a specific institutional form.

Significance: It clarifies one can a cosmopolitan and believe in universal human rights, without wanting to abolish the nation-state. Moral cosmo requires that any institution we design be justified impartially to all persons affected.

Limitations: Institutionalism is often deemed a threat to individual freedom or cultural diversity (a soulless despotism as put by Kant), while the moral version is seen as too abstract to guide actual state policy.

EX: A person who supports a global international court of human rights but not a world government is a moral cosmopolitan.

Extreme vs Moderate Cosmopolitanism

Extreme holds that cosmopolitan morality is the sole source of value, special obligations to compatriots are only justified instrumentally. Moderate acknowledges the normative independence of special obligations, treating national or local ties as having their own moral weight alongside universal duties.

Significance: This allows for the concept of rooted cosmopolitan or cosmopolitan patriot, where one can have a special love for their country while still recognizing the moral worth of foreigners.

Limitations: Extreme devalues the real world attachments that give life meaning; Moderate face the difficulty of deciding which value, local or global, should prevail.

EX: An extreme would only support national education funding if it would help global literacy; a moderate would support it because he has a special duty to his own communities children.

Weak vs Strong Cosmopolitan

Weak argues that global justice is fulfilled if every human is ensured a “minimally adequate life”. Strong have more of a concern towards global distributive equality, seeking to regulate inequalities between persons.

Significance: Mirrors the debate between Sufficientarianism (having enough) and Egalitarianism (having the same)

Limitations: Weak cosmopolitans may tolerate vast inequalities as long as the poor aren’t starving; strong lack the global institutions to enforce redistribution.

EX: Sending food ai to a famine region is weak, arguing for a global tax on wealth is strong.

Fair Priority for Residents (FPR)

A framework developed to address vaccine distribution. It states that during a pandemic, a government is allowed the retain enough vaccines for its own residents to maintain a non crisis level of morality, but it is morally obligated to share its surplus with others after that point.

Significance: Rejects Vaccine Nationalism and Vaccine Cosmopolitanism, and provides a concrete standard based on morality data.

Limitations: This requires states to continue implementing reasonable public health measures likes masks even after they reach the mortality threshold, which is politically difficult.

EX: During COVID, a country like Canada would be allowed under FPR to prioritize its residents until mortality matched flu levels, but then it would be obligated to send doses to high risk population abroad.

Brain Drain and Free Riding

Two primary threats to an egalitarian state with open borders. Brain drain is when highly productive workers leave for capitalist states in search of better pay. Free riding occurs when people from capitalist states move to egalitarian states to receive its benefits without sharing the egalitarian ethos of hard work.

Significance: It shows that an egalitarian state cannot exist in a world of unequal capitalist states unless it closes its borders or its neighbors are also egalitarian.

Limitations: The actual impact of these problems might be lower than theorists fear.

EX: A skilled surgeon leaving an egalitarian state where she makes a base salary for a capitalist state where she makes 10 times more, causing harm to her native medical system.

Utopian Thinking

The practice of articulating desirable political outcomes even if they seem impossible at the present.

Significance: Utopian thinking provides a moral compass a perspective to judge current practice. Carens arguses that just because we must accept the state system, does not mean we should forget about its fundamental injustice.

Limitations: Critics argue that utopian designs can provide misleading orientations and ignore feasibility or human nature.

EX: Comparing modern citizenship to feudal privilege is a utopian critique