- 著者
-
木原 淳
- 出版者
- 日本法哲学会
- 雑誌
- 法哲学年報 (ISSN:03872890)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- no.2005, pp.156-164,194, 2006
Following Rousseau's theory of people's sovereignty and his concept of law, Immanuel Kant described his ideal state as “Gemeinwesen”. He consciously and intentionally denied world republic in his book “Zum ewigen Frieden”. According to Rousseau, the virtue can become fruitful only within the context of “l'amour de la patrie” (patriotism). Rousseau's patriotism and republic theory is to be expected in a small city state, not in a large state. As such, anti-world republic dogma by Kant reflects the significance of patriotism in small state posited by Rousseau. Unlike Rousseau, however, Kant interpreted “patriotism” as directed at “Land”, and “Volk” as being a group with single ethnic identity, not as an universal “Volk”. Such distinctive characteristic of Kant's state theory has generally been assumed to have derived from his pre-modern character and historic circumstances.<br> In this paper, I suppose that the source of difference in the concepts held by the two distinct philosophers can be found in the difference of the size of states they presupposed. Rousseau considered his “republic” as a small sized city state, so the object of his patriotism could be pure and abstract fatherland, ignoring the traditional framework of property system (societas civilis). To the contrary, Kant struggled to form his state theory as a middle-sized territorial state, which aimed to destroy traditional and privileged property system and to separate territorial sovereignty from economical private land property rights. Therefore Kant's concepts of “Land” and “Volk” played an important role to build a theory of modern and republican territorial states. This indicates that it was logically natural for Kant to deny the concepts of the world republic.