Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T10:39:10.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant

The Postulate of Public Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2024

Patrick Capps  and
Julian Rivers
Patrick Capps
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Law school
Julian Rivers
Affiliation:
University of Bristol Law School

Summary

Kant's main work in the philosophy of law – the Doctrine of Right (1797) – is notoriously difficult for modern readers to understand. Kant clearly argues that rightful relations between human beings can only be achieved if we enter into a civil legal condition taking a defined constitutional form. In this Element, we emphasise that Kant considers this claim to be a postulate of practical reason, thus identifying the pure idea of the state as the culmination of his entire practical philosophy. The Doctrine of Right makes sense as an attempt to clarify the content of the postulate of public right and constructively interpret existing domestic and international legal arrangements in the light of the noumenal republic it postulates. Properly understood, Kant's postulate of public right is the epistemological foundation of a non-positivist legal theory that remains of central significance to modern legal philosophy and legal doctrinal method.
Get access

Keywords

Kantpractical postulatesrepublicanismconstitutional lawlegal philosophy

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
Online ISBN: 9781009180559
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 09 January 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Bibliography

Achenwall, G., Natural Law: A Translation of the Textbook for Kant’s Lectures on Legal and Political Philosophy (5th ed. 1763), Kleingeld, P. (ed.), Vermeulen, C. (trans.) with an Introduction by P. Guyer (London: Bloomsbury, 2020).Google Scholar
Alexy, R., The Argument from Injustice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Alexy, R., ‘Kant’s Non-Positivistic Concept of Law’ (2019) 24 Kantian Review 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H., Kant’s Theory of Freedom and Kant’s Conception of Freedom: A Developmental and Critical Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H., Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1992).Google Scholar
Austin, J., The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832), Rumble, W. (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
Bacin, S., ‘Kant’s Lectures on Ethics and Baumgarten’s Moral Philosophy’, in Denis, L. and Sensen, O. (eds.), Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgarten, I. and Kant, I., Baumgarten’s Elements of First Practical Philosophy: A Critical Translation with Kant’s Reflections on Moral Philosophy (1760), Fugate, C. and Hymes, J. (trans.) (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2020).Google Scholar
Bederman, D., International Law in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, J., ‘Nonsense upon Stilts or Pandora’s Box Opened’, in Schofield, P., Pease-Watkin, C. and Blamires, C. (eds.), The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 318–402.Google Scholar
Brown, S., ‘Has Kant a Philosophy of Law’ (1962) 71 The Philosophical Review 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlamaqui, J. J., The Principles of Natural and Politic Law (1747–8), Nugent, T. (trans.) and P. Korkman (ed.) (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2006).Google Scholar
Byrd, S. and Hruschka, J., Kant’s ‘Doctrine of Right’: A Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps, P. and Rivers, J., ‘Kant’s Concept of International Law’ (2010) 16 Legal Theory 229–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps, P. and Rivers, J., ‘Kant’s Concept of Law’ (2018) 63 American Journal of Jurisprudence 259–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capps, P. and Rivers, J., ‘Kant’s Postulate of Public Right and Contemporary Legal Theory’ (2025, forthcoming).Google Scholar
Caranti, L., The Kantian Federation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassirer, E., Rousseau, Kant, Goethe: Two Essays (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).Google Scholar
Chignell, A., ‘Belief in Kant’ (2007) 116 The Philosophical Review 323–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C., The Iron Kingdom (London: Penguin, 2006).Google Scholar
de Lolme J. L, . , The Constitution of England (4th ed. 1784), Lieberman, D. (ed.) (Carmel, IN: Liberty Fund, 2007).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Law’s Empire (London: Fontana Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Justice in Robes (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2006).Google Scholar
Fenve, P., Late Kant: Towards Another Law of the Earth (London: Routledge, 2003).Google Scholar
Flikschuh, K. and Ypi, L. (eds.), Kant and Colonialism: Historical and Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, M., ‘Kant’s Naturrecht Feyerabend, Achenwall and the Role of the State’ (2021) 13 Kant Yearbook 49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grotius, H., The Rights of War and Peace, Tuck, R. (ed.) (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006).Google Scholar
Guyer, P., ‘“Hobbes is of the opposite opinion” Kant and Hobbes on the Three Authorities in the State’ (2012) 25 Hobbes Studies 91–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guyer, P., Kant on Freedom, Law and Happiness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Guyer, P., ‘Achenwall, Kant, and the Division of Governmental Powers’, in Ruffing, M., Schlitte, A. and Bordoni, G. Sadun (eds.), Kants Naturrecht Feyerabend (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020), 201–28.Google Scholar
Haakonssen, K., ‘German Natural Law’, in Goldie, M. and Wokler, R. (eds.), Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 251–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, Rehg, W. (trans.) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1988).Google Scholar
Hall, J., ‘International Relations’, in Sabin, P., van Wees, H. and Whitby, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 87–107.Google Scholar
Hart, H., Essays on Bentham: Jurisprudence and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H., The Concept of Law (3rd ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochstrasser, T. J., Natural Law Theories in the Early Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A., Welfare in the Kantian State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kersting, W., Wohlgeordnete Freiheit (2nd ed.) (Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp, 2016).Google Scholar
Kelsen, H., Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory (1934) Paulson, B. Litschewski and Paulson, S. (trans.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M., To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth: Legal Imagination and International Power 1300–1870 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M., In Defence of Legal Positivism (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kümin, B. and Würgler, A., ‘Petitions, Gravamina and the Early Modern State: Local Influence on Central Legislation in England and Germany (Hesse)’ (1997) 17 Parliaments, Estates & Representation 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn, M., Kant: Eine Biographie (München: C. H. Beck, 2003).Google Scholar
Kuehn, M., Kant: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Kuehn, M., ‘Collins: Kant’s Proto-Critical Position’, in Denis, L. and Sensen, O. (eds.), Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, J., Metaphysical Elements of Justice (London: MacMillan, 1965).Google Scholar
Locke, J., Two Treatises on Government (1690), Laslett, P. (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
Ludwig, B., ‘“The Right of a State” in Immanuel Kant’s Doctrine of Right’ (1990) 28 Journal of the History of Philosophy 403–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, B., Kants Rechtslehre (2nd ed.) (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2005).Google Scholar
Ludwig, B., Immanuel Kant, Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (4th ed.) (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2018).Google Scholar
Madison, J., Hamilton, A. and Jay, J., The Federalist Papers (1788) (London: Penguin, 1987).Google Scholar
Maliks, R., Kant and the French Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manfred, K., Kant: Eine Biographie (München: C. H. Beck, 2003).Google Scholar
Marx, K., ‘Difference between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature’, in Cohen, Jack, Comforth, Maurice, Dobb, Maurice, et al. (eds.) and Struik, Dirk J. and Struik, Sally R. (trans.), Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works Volume 1 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975).Google Scholar
Montesquieu, C., The Spirit of the Laws, Cohler, A., Miller, B. and Stone, H. (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Murphy, M., Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, O., Constructing Authorities: Reason, Politics and Interpretation in Kant’s Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, O., ‘Kant and the Social Contract Tradition’, in Constructing Authorities: Reason, Politics and Interpretation in Kant’s Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 170–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhouser, F., Foundations of Hegel’s Social Theory: Actualizing Freedom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ossipow, W., ‘Research Note: Kant’s Perpetual Peace and Its Hidden Sources: A Textual Approach’ (2008) 14 Swiss Political Science Review 357–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkard, T., German Philosophy 1760–1860: The Legacy of Idealism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postema, G., Bentham and the Common Law Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Rauscher, F., Naturalism and Realism in Kant’s Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J., The Authority of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
Raz, J., ‘The Purity of the Pure Theory’ (1983) 37 Revue Internationale de Philosophie 442–59.Google Scholar
Ripstein, A., Force and Freedom: Kant’s Legal and Political Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, J., ‘Natural Law, Human Rights and the Separation of Powers’, in Angier, T., Benson, I. T. and Retter, M. D. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Natural Law and Human Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 308–23.Google Scholar
Rosen, A., Kant’s Theory of Justice (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Rousseau, J. J., Discourse on Political Economy (1755), Betts, C. (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Rousseau, J. J., The Social Contract (1762), Betts, C. (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Simmonds, N., Law as a Moral Idea (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Stolleis, M., Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, Bd. I (1600–1800) (München: C. H. Beck, 2012).Google Scholar
Tierney, B., Liberty & Law: The Idea of Permissive Natural Law, 1100–1800 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, J., ‘Mrongovius II: A Supplement to the Groundwork’, in Denis, L. and Sensen, O. (eds.), Kant’s Lectures on Ethics: A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014) 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, P., Die Herrschaft der Vernunft (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorländer, K., Immanuel Kant: Der Mann and das Werk (Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1924).Google Scholar
Waldron, J., ‘Kant’s Legal Positivism’ (1996) 109 Harvard Law Review 1535–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warda, A., Immanuel Kant’s Bücher (Berlin: Martin Breslauer Verlag, 1922).Google Scholar
Waxman, W., Kant’s Anatomy of the Intelligent Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Westphal, K., ‘A Kantian Justification of Possession’, in Timmons, M. (ed.), Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: Interpretive Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 89–110, ch. 4.Google Scholar
Willaschek, M., ‘Why the Doctrine of Right Does Not Belong in the Metaphysics of Morals’ (1997) 5 Jarbuch für Recht und Ethik 205–27.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

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

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this Element is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The Postulate of Public Right
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Postulate of Public Right
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Postulate of Public Right
Available formats
×