Third definitive article
Original German
Dritter Definitivartikel zum ewigen Frieden.
„Das Weltbürgerrecht soll auf Bedingungen der allgemeinen Hospitalität eingeschränkt seyn.“
Es ist hier, wie in den vorigen Artikeln, nicht von Philanthrophie, sondern vom Recht die Rede, und da bedeutet Hospitalität (Wirthbarkeit) das Recht eines Fremdlings, seiner Ankunft auf dem Boden eines andern wegen, von diesem nicht feindselig behandelt zu werden. Dieser kann ihn abweisen, wenn es ohne seinen Untergang geschehen kann; so lange er aber auf seinem Platz sich friedlich verhält, ihm nicht feindlich begegnen. Es ist kein Gastrecht, worauf dieser Anspruch machen kann (wozu ein besonderer wohlthätiger Vertrag erfordert werden würde, ihn auf eine gewisse Zeit zum Hausgenossen zu machen), sondern ein Besuchsrecht, welches allen Menschen zusteht, sich zur Gesellschaft anzubieten, vermöge des Rechts des gemeinschaftlichen Besitzes der Oberfläche der Erde, auf der, als Kugelfläche, sie sich nicht ins Unendliche zerstreuen können, sondern endlich sich doch neben einander dulden zu müssen, ursprünglich aber niemand an einem Orte der Erde zu seyn, mehr Recht hat, als der Andere. — Unbewohnbare Theile dieser Oberfläche, das Meer und die Sandwüsten, trennen diese Gemeinschaft, doch so, daß das Schiff, oder das Kameel (das Schiff der Wüste) es möglich machen, über diese herrenlose Gegenden sich einander zu nähern, und das Recht der Oberfläche, welches der Menschengattung gemeinschaftlich zukommt, zu einem möglichen Verkehr zu benutzen. Die Unwirthbarkeit der Seeküsten (z. B. der Barbaresken), Schiffe in nahen Meeren zu rauben, oder gestrandete Schiffsleute zu Sklaven zu machen, oder die der Sandwüsten (der arabischen Beduinen), die Annäherung zu den nomadischen Stämmen als ein Recht anzusehen, sie zu plündern, ist also dem Naturrecht zuwider, welches Hospitalitätsrecht aber, d. i. die Befugnis der fremden Ankömmlinge, sich nicht weiter erstreckt, als auf die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit, einen Verkehr mit den alten Einwohnern zu versuchen. — Auf diese Art können entfernte Welttheile mit einander friedlich in Verhältnisse kommen, die zuletzt öffentlich gesetzlich werden, und so das menschliche Geschlecht endlich einer weltbürgerlichen Verfassung immer näher bringen können.
Vergleicht man hiemit das inhospitale Betragen der gesitteten, vornehmlich handeltreibenden Staaten unseres Welttheils, so geht die Ungerechtigkeit, die sie in dem Besuche fremder Länder und Völker (welches ihnen mit dem Erobern derselben für einerley gilt) beweisen, bis zum Erschrecken weit. Amerika, die Negerländer, die Gewürzinseln, das Kap ꝛc. waren, bey ihrer Entdeckung, für sie Länder, die keinem angehörten; denn die Einwohner rechneten sie für nichts. In Ostindien (Hindustan) brachten sie, unter dem Vorwande blos beabsichtigter Handelsniederlagen, fremde Kriegesvölker hinein, mit ihnen aber Unterdrückung der Eingebohrnen, Aufwiegelung der verschiedenen Staaten desselben zu weit ausgebreiteten Kriegen, Hungersnoth, Aufruhr, Treulosigkeit, und wie die Litaney aller Uebel, die das menschliche Geschlecht drücken, weiter lauten mag.
China9 und Japan (Nipon), die den Versuch mit solchen Gästen gemacht hatten, haben daher weislich, jenes zwar den Zugang, aber nicht den Eingang, dieses auch den ersteren nur einem einzigen europäischen Volk, den Holländern, erlaubt, die sie aber doch dabey, wie Gefangene, von der Gemeinschaft mit den Eingebohrnen ausschließen. Das Aergste hiebey (oder, aus dem Standpunkte eines moralischen Richters betrachtet, das Beste) ist, daß sie dieser Gewaltthätigkeit nicht einmal froh werden, daß alle diese Handlungsgesellschaften auf dem Punkte des nahen Umsturzes stehen, daß die Zuckerinseln, dieser Sitz der allergrausamsten und ausgedachtesten Sklaverey, keinen wahren Ertrag abwerfen, sondern nur mittelbar, und zwar zu einer nicht sehr löblichen Absicht, nämlich zu Bildung der Matrosen für Kriegsflotten, und also wieder zu Führung der Kriege in Europa dienen, und dieses möchten, die von der Frömmigkeit viel Werks machen, und, indem sie Unrecht wie Wasser trinken, sich in der Rechtgläubigkeit für Auserwählte gehalten wissen wollen.
Da es nun mit der unter den Völkern der Erde einmal durchgängig überhand genommenen (engeren oder weiteren) Gemeinschaft so weit gekommen ist, daß die Rechtsverletzung an einem Platz der Erde an allen gefühlt wird: so ist die Idee eines Weltbürgerrechts keine phantastische und überspannte Vorstellungsart des Rechts, sondern eine nothwendige Ergänzung des ungeschriebenen Codex, sowohl des Staats- als Völkerrechts zum öffentlichen Menschenrechte überhaupt, und so zum ewigen Frieden, zu dem man sich in der continuirlichen Annäherung zu befinden, nur unter dieser Bedingung schmeicheln darf.
9 Um dieses große Reich mit dem Namen, womit es sich selbst benennt, zu schreiben (nämlich China, nicht Sina, oder einen diesem ähnlichen Laut), darf man nur Georgii Alphab. Tibet. pag. 651 - 654. vornehmlich Nota b unten, nachsehen. — Eigentlich führt es, nach des Petersb. Prof. Fischer Bemerkung, keinen bestimmten Namen, womit es sich selbst benennt; der gewöhnlichste ist noch der des Worts Kin, nämlich Gold (welches die Tibetaner mit Ser ausdrücken), daher der Kayser König des Goldes (des herrlichsten Landes von der Welt) genannt wird, welches Wort wohl im Reiche selbst wie Chin lauten, aber von den italiänischen Missionarien (des Gutturalbuchstabens wegen), wie Kin ausgesprochen seyn mag. — Hieraus ersieht man dann, daß das von den Römern sogenannte Land der Serer China war, die Seide aber über Groß-Tibet (vermuthlich durch Klein-Tibet und die Bucharey über Persien, so weiter) nach Europa gefördert worden, welches zu manchen Betrachtungen über das Alterthum dieses erstaunlichen Staats, in Vergleichung mit dem von Hindustan, bey der Verknüpfung mit Tibet, und, durch dieses, mit Japan, hinleitet; indessen daß der Name Sina, oder Tschina, den die Nachbarn diesem Lande geben sollen, zu nichts hinführt. — — Vielleicht läßt sich auch die uralte, ob zwar nie recht bekannt gewordene Gemeinschaft Europens mit Tibet aus dem, was uns Hesychius hievon aufbehalten hat, nämlich dem Zuruf Κονξ Ομπαξ (Konx Ompax) des Hierophanten in den Eleusinischen Geheimnissen erklären. (S. Reise des jüngern Anacharsis, 5ter Theil, S. 447 u. f.) — Denn nach Georgii Alph. Tibet. bedeutet das Wort Concioa Gott, welches eine auffallende Aehnlichkeit mit Konx hat. Pah-cio. (ib. p. 520), welches von den Griechen leicht wie pax ausgesprochen werden konnte, promulgator legis, die durch die ganze Natur vertheilte Gottheit (auch Cencresi genannt, p. 177.) — Om aber, welches La Croze durch benedictus, gesegnet, übersetzt, kann, auf die Gottheit angewandt, wohl nichts anders als den Seliggepriesenen bedeuten, p. 507. Da nun P. Franz. Horatius von den Tibetanischen Lhama's, die er oft befrug, was sie unter Gott (Concioa) verständen, jederzeit die Antwort bekam: „es ist die Versammlung aller Heiligen“ (d. i. der seligen durch die Lamaische Wiedergeburt, nach vielen Wanderungen durch allerley Körper, endlich in die Gottheit zurückgekehrten, in Burchane, d. i. anbetungswürdige Wesen, verwandelten Seelen (p. 223), so wird jenes geheimnisvolle Wort, Konx Ompax, wohl das heilige (Konx) selige (Om) und weise (Pax), durch die Welt überall verbreitete höchste Wesen (die personificirte Natur) bedeuten sollen, und in den griechischen Mysterien gebraucht, wohl den Monotheism für die Epopten, im Gegensatz mit dem Polytheism des Volks angedeutet haben; obwohl P. Horatius (a. a. O.) hierunter einen Atheism witterte. — Wie aber jenes geheimnisvolle Wort über Tibet zu den Griechen gekommen, läßt sich auf obige Art erklären und umgekehrt dadurch auch das frühe Verkehr Europens mit China über Tibet (vielleicht eher noch als mit Hindustan) wahrscheinlich machen.
Musean translation
Machine-assisted translation directly from Kant's complete German text of the expanded 1796 edition, including both supplements, both appendices and his notes. Source: Internet Archive, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek copy.
Third definitive article for perpetual peace.
“Cosmopolitan right shall be limited to the conditions of universal hospitality.”
Here, as in the preceding articles, the concern is not philanthropy but right. In this sense, hospitality, or hospitable conduct, means the right of a stranger not to be treated with hostility because he has arrived on another's soil. The other may turn him away if this can be done without bringing about his destruction; but so long as he conducts himself peacefully where he is, he must not be treated as an enemy. He can claim no right to be a guest, which would require a special agreement granting him the favor of membership in the household for a certain time. He has only a right of visitation: the right of all human beings to offer to associate with others, by virtue of their right to common possession of the earth's surface. Since that surface is spherical, they cannot disperse over it without limit but must eventually tolerate one another's presence; originally, no one has more right than another to be in any particular place on earth. Uninhabitable parts of this surface—the sea and sandy deserts—divide this community, yet the ship and the camel, the ship of the desert, make it possible to approach one another across these unowned regions and use the right to the surface, which belongs to humanity in common, for possible intercourse. The inhospitable conduct of coastal peoples, such as the Barbary corsairs, who plunder ships in neighboring seas or enslave shipwrecked sailors, and that of desert peoples, the Arabian Bedouins, who regard an approach to their nomadic tribes as entitling them to plunder those who come, is therefore contrary to natural right. Yet this right of hospitality, the authorization of foreign arrivals, extends only to the conditions that make it possible to attempt intercourse with the established inhabitants. In this way, distant parts of the world can enter peacefully into relations that eventually become publicly lawful, and thus bring the human race ever closer to a cosmopolitan constitution.
Compare this with the inhospitable behavior of the civilized states of our part of the world, especially the commercial ones. The injustice they display in visiting foreign lands and peoples, which they consider equivalent to conquering them, reaches terrifying proportions. America, the lands of Black peoples, the Spice Islands, the Cape, and so forth were, upon their discovery, lands that in their eyes belonged to no one; for they counted the inhabitants as nothing. In the East Indies, Hindustan, they brought foreign troops under the pretext of merely intending to establish trading posts. With them came oppression of the inhabitants, the incitement of its different states to extensive wars, famine, rebellion, treachery, and whatever else belongs to the litany of evils that oppress the human race.
China9 and Japan, Nipon, having tried the experiment with such guests, have therefore acted wisely: China has allowed approach but not entry, while Japan has allowed even the former to only one European people, the Dutch, whom it nevertheless excludes, like prisoners, from contact with the inhabitants. The worst of it—or the best, from the standpoint of a moral judge—is that the perpetrators do not even enjoy the fruits of this violence. All these trading companies stand on the brink of collapse. The sugar islands, that seat of the cruelest and most calculated slavery, yield no genuine return; they serve only indirectly, for a purpose that is not very praiseworthy: training sailors for war fleets, and thus once again for wars in Europe. This is what is wanted by those who make much of their piety and, while drinking injustice like water, wish to be counted among the elect in orthodox belief.
The narrower or wider community that has now everywhere taken hold among the peoples of the earth has developed so far that a violation of right in one place is felt in all. The idea of cosmopolitan right is therefore no fanciful, extravagant conception of right. It is a necessary supplement to the unwritten code of civil right and of the right of nations, completing public right for humanity as a whole and thus serving perpetual peace. Only under this condition may we flatter ourselves that we are continually approaching it.
9 To write this great empire's name as it calls itself—China, not Sina or a similar sound—one need only consult Georgii Alphab. Tibet. pag. 651 - 654., especially Nota b at the foot of the page. According to the observation of the St. Petersburg professor Fischer, it actually has no fixed name by which it calls itself. The most usual is still the word Kin, meaning gold, which the Tibetans express by Ser; hence the emperor is called King of Gold, of the most splendid country in the world. Within the empire itself this word may well sound like Chin, though the Italian missionaries may have pronounced it Kin because of the guttural letter. This shows that the land the Romans called that of the Seres was China, but that silk was conveyed to Europe through Greater Tibet, presumably through Lesser Tibet and Bukharia, through Persia, and onward. This leads to various reflections on the antiquity of this astonishing state in comparison with Hindustan, given its connection with Tibet and, through Tibet, with Japan; whereas the name Sina or Tschina, supposedly given to the country by its neighbors, leads nowhere. Perhaps the ancient, though never properly known, connection between Europe and Tibet can also be explained by what Hesychius has preserved for us: the hierophant's cry Κονξ Ομπαξ, Konx Ompax, in the Eleusinian mysteries. (S. Reise des jüngern Anacharsis, 5ter Theil, S. 447 u. f.) For according to Georgii Alph. Tibet., Concioa means God, a striking resemblance to Konx. Pah-cio. (ib. p. 520), which the Greeks could easily have pronounced pax, means promulgator legis, proclaimer of the law: the deity diffused throughout nature, also called Cencresi, p. 177. But Om, which La Croze translates as benedictus, blessed, can, when applied to the deity, surely mean nothing other than the one proclaimed blessed, p. 507. Now P. Franz. Horatius, who often asked the Tibetan lamas what they understood by God, Concioa, always received the answer: “It is the assembly of all saints.” These are the souls of the blessed who, through Lamaist rebirth, after many wanderings through bodies of every kind, have finally returned to the deity and been transformed into Burchane, that is, beings worthy of worship (p. 223). That mysterious expression, Konx Ompax, would therefore presumably signify the holy (Konx), blessed (Om), and wise (Pax) supreme being diffused everywhere throughout the world—personified nature. Used in the Greek mysteries, it would presumably have indicated monotheism to the fully initiated, in contrast to the people's polytheism, although P. Horatius (a. a. O.) scented atheism in it. The way this mysterious expression reached the Greeks through Tibet can be explained as above; conversely, this also makes an early connection between Europe and China through Tibet, perhaps earlier even than with Hindustan, probable.
Plain English translation
Independent machine-assisted translation directly from the complete German 1796 edition, including its supplements, appendices and author's notes.
Third definitive article for perpetual peace.
“The right of world citizenship must be limited to the conditions of universal hospitality.”
Here, as in the earlier articles, the subject is not charity but right. In this context, hospitality means a stranger's right not to be treated as an enemy because of arriving on someone else's land. The person whose land it is can turn the stranger away, if this can be done without causing the stranger's destruction. But as long as the stranger behaves peacefully where they are, that person must not treat them as an enemy. A stranger cannot claim a right to stay as a guest. That would require a special agreement granting the benefit of becoming a member of the household for a certain time. The stranger has only a right to visit: a right belonging to all human beings to offer to associate with others. This follows from their right to shared possession of the earth's surface. Since that surface is spherical, they cannot spread out endlessly. In the end they must tolerate one another's presence. Originally, no one has more right than anyone else to be in any particular place on earth. Uninhabitable parts of this surface—the sea and sandy deserts—divide this community. Yet the ship and the camel, the ship of the desert, make it possible for people to approach one another across these ownerless regions. They can use their shared right to the earth's surface to make contact possible. So the inhospitable behavior found on some coasts, such as the Barbary coast—robbing ships in nearby seas or enslaving shipwrecked sailors—is contrary to natural law. So is the behavior found in sandy deserts, among the Arab Bedouins, who take the approach of people to their nomadic tribes as a right to plunder them. But this right of hospitality, the right of arriving strangers, extends only to the conditions that make it possible to try to enter into relations with the existing inhabitants. In this way, distant parts of the world can enter into peaceful relations with one another. These relations can eventually be governed by public law and so bring the human race ever closer to a constitution for world citizenship.
Compare this with the inhospitable conduct of the civilized states in our part of the world, especially the trading states. The injustice they display in visiting foreign lands and peoples, which they treat as the same thing as conquering them, goes to horrifying lengths. When they discovered America, the lands of Black peoples, the Spice Islands, the Cape, and so on, they regarded them as lands belonging to no one. They counted the inhabitants as nothing. In the East Indies, Hindustan, they brought in foreign troops on the pretext that they only intended to set up trading posts. With the troops came oppression of the native inhabitants, incitement of the various states there to widespread wars, famine, rebellion, treachery, and the rest of the litany of evils that afflict the human race.
China9 and Japan (Nipon) had tried admitting guests of this kind. Wisely, China has therefore allowed access but not entry. Japan has allowed even access only to a single European people, the Dutch. Even then, it keeps them like prisoners, cut off from contact with the native inhabitants. The worst of it—or the best, from the standpoint of a moral judge—is that those committing this violence do not even benefit from it. All these trading companies are on the verge of collapse. The sugar islands, the home of the cruelest and most elaborate slavery, produce no real return. They serve only indirectly, and for a purpose that is not very praiseworthy: training sailors for war fleets, and so, once again, waging wars in Europe. And this is what those who make a great show of piety want. They drink injustice like water, yet want to be regarded as the chosen ones because of their orthodox beliefs.
The closer or looser community that has now developed among all the earth's peoples has reached a point where a violation of rights in one place on earth is felt in all places. So the idea of a right of world citizenship is not a fanciful or exaggerated way of thinking about right. It is a necessary addition to the unwritten code of both the law within states and the right of nations, completing them as public human rights in general, and so leading to perpetual peace. Only on this condition can we flatter ourselves that we are continually approaching that peace.
9 To write the name of this great empire as it calls itself—namely, China, not Sina or anything that sounds like it—we need only consult Georgii Alphab. Tibet. pag. 651 - 654., especially Nota b at the bottom. According to Professor Fischer of St. Petersburg, it actually has no definite name by which it calls itself. The most common is still the word Kin, meaning gold, which the Tibetans express by Ser. Hence the emperor is called king of gold, of the most splendid country in the world. This word may well sound like Chin in the empire itself, but the Italian missionaries may have pronounced it Kin because of the guttural letter. This shows that the country the Romans called the land of the Seres was China. Silk was carried to Europe through Greater Tibet, presumably through Lesser Tibet and Bukharia, across Persia, and onward. This leads to various reflections on the antiquity of this remarkable state compared with Hindustan, through its connection with Tibet and, through Tibet, with Japan. By contrast, the name Sina or Tschina, which its neighbors are said to give the country, leads nowhere. Perhaps Europe's very ancient contact with Tibet, though never properly understood, can also be explained from what Hesychius preserved for us: the cry Κονξ Ομπαξ (Konx Ompax) of the hierophant in the Eleusinian mysteries. (S. Reise des jüngern Anacharsis, 5ter Theil, S. 447 u. f.) According to Georgii Alph. Tibet., the word Concioa means God, and it bears a striking resemblance to Konx. Pah-cio. (ib. p. 520), which the Greeks could easily have pronounced pax, means proclaimer of the law, the deity spread throughout nature, also called Cencresi, p. 177. But Om, which La Croze translates as benedictus, blessed, can surely mean nothing other than the one praised as blessed when applied to the deity, p. 507. Now, whenever P. Franz. Horatius asked the Tibetan lamas what they understood by God (Concioa), they answered: “It is the assembly of all the saints.” He asked them often. These saints are the souls of the blessed who, through Lamaist rebirth, have wandered through all kinds of bodies and finally returned to the deity, transformed into Burchane, that is, beings worthy of worship (p. 223). So that mysterious expression, Konx Ompax, was probably meant to signify the holy (Konx), blessed (Om), and wise (Pax) supreme being spread everywhere throughout the world: nature personified. Used in the Greek mysteries, it probably indicated monotheism for the fully initiated, as opposed to the people's polytheism, although P. Horatius (a. a. O.) suspected atheism in it. How that mysterious expression reached the Greeks through Tibet can be explained in the way described above. Conversely, this can also make it probable that Europe had early contact with China through Tibet, perhaps even earlier than with Hindustan.
About this section
Third definitive article is part of Toward Perpetual Peace by Immanuel Kant. This page sets the German original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is part 6 of 10 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.