Ciprian Niu

Cosmopolitism i migraie. Interpretri contemporane ale ideii kantiene de ospitalitate. Kant introduce termenul de drept cosmopolit (Weltbuergerrecht) n al Treilea Articol al eseului su despre Pacea Etern (1795/6), cu referire la datoria ospitalitii. Aceast datorie este interesant deoarece atinge problema strinului care intr n contact cu o entitate politic organizat i delimitat teritorial, i anume un stat. Un aspect particular al acestui contact este surprins n dezbaterea contemporan cu privire la drepturile politice ale imigranilor (care includ problema ceteniei refugiailor, azilanilor, apatrizilor sau a persoanelor dezrdcinate). Un alt aspect important al acestui contact care apare n legtur cu problema srciei i inegalitii economice globale, este chestiunea eliminrii restriciilor cu privire la imigrare ca modalitate prin care statele bogate pot s-i ndeplineasc obligaiile fa de sracii lumii. Dac la Kant obligaia de ospitalitate rmne o obligaie sprijinit voluntar de ctre suveranul politic, gnditorii i teoreticienii contemporani ai cosmopolitismului sunt interesai n construirea unui spaiu conceptual i legal care trece dincolo de suveranitatea statelor neleas n sens westfalian i care este constrngtor att pentru actorii statali ct i pentru cei nonstatali atunci cnd acetia intr n contact cu strinii care nu aparin entitii politice organizate i delimitate teritorial. Dei regimul internaional al migraiei transnaionale stabilit prin Declaraia Universal a Drepturilor Omului din 1948 recunoate doar dreptul de emigrare, nu i dreptul de imigrare, i, aa cum observa Seila Benhabib, este prins ntre suveranitate i ospitalitate, adic ntre prerogativa de a fi de partea normelor cosmopolite actuale i obligaia de a extinde recunoaterea acestor norme, la nivel regional, european cel puin, asistm pe de alt parte la o evoluie remarcabil a normelor ospitalitii. Prin ceea ce s-ar putea numi, cu o expresie a lui Benhabib, un proces de reiterare democratic, tot mai muli oameni care nu mprtesc identitatea colectiv a rii gazd, se bucur, din ce n ce mai mult, de anumite drepturi i beneficii, att sociale ct i politice, ca i muncitori strini sau rezideni permaneni. n aceast perspectiv, ospitalitatea deschide calea transferului gradual ctre strini al drepturilor politice asociate n mod tradiionale cu cetenia. Pe de alt parte, teoreticienii cosmopolii susin deschiderea granielor, cel puin n cazul statelor liberal democratice bogate. Statele democratice liberale bogate nu pot folosi, consider acetia, resursele rii n beneficiul exclusiv al cetenilor lor. Dac pentru egalitaritii liberali oamenii sunt egali din punct de vedere moral, rezult c bunstarea fiecrei persoane conteaz la fel de mult i, astfel, n condiiile unei distribuii internaionale inegale a resurselor, egalitaritii liberali nu pot accepta un sistem al granielor care i condamn pe unii oameni s triasc n srcie n timp ce altor oameni le permite s duc o via plin de privilegii. Plecnd de la acest raionament, ospitalitatea este deschis unei interpretri din direcia justiiei economice globale.

Ciprian Niu

Cosmopolitanism and migration. Contemporary interpretations of Kantian idea of hospitality Kant introduces the concept of cosmopolitan law (Weltbuergerrecht) in the third article of his essay on Perpetual Peace (1795/6), when he refers to the duty of hospitality. This duty of hospitality is remarkable because it reaches the problem of stranger who comes into contact with an organized and territorially delimited political entity, namely a state. A particular aspect of this contact is discussed in contemporary debate on political rights of immigrants (which include the problem of citizenship for refugees, asylum seekers, stateless or displaced persons). Another important aspect of this contact that appears in relation to the problem of global poverty and economic inequality is the question of elimination of restrictions on immigration as a means through which affluent states can discharge their obligations to the global poor. If for Kant the duty of hospitality is only voluntary supported by the political sovereign, contemporary thinkers and theorists of cosmopolitanism are interested in building a conceptual and legal space which goes beyond states sovereignty (in a Westphalian sense) and which is binding both for state actors and for non-state actors when they enter into contact with strangers who are not members of that organized and territorially delimited political entity. Although the international regime of trans-national migration set by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 recognizes only the right of emigration, not also the right of immigration and, as Seila Benhabib observes, it is caught between sovereignty and hospitality, i.e. between the prerogative of being on the part of current cosmopolitan norms and the obligation to extend their recognition, on regional level on the other hand, or on European level at least, we are witnessing a remarkable evolution of hospitality norms. In what might be called, with a Benhabibs expression, a process of democratic iteration, more and more peoples who do not share the collective identity of the host country as foreign workers or permanent residents are increasingly enjoying more rights and benefits which are both social and political. From this perspective, hospitality opens the way of gradual transfer towards strangers of political rights traditionally associated with citizenship. On the other hand, the theorists of cosmopolitanism advocate the adoption of open borders at least in the case of affluent liberal states. Affluent liberal democratic states should not use the countrys resources in the exclusive benefit of their citizens. If for liberal egalitarians the human individuals are equal from a moral point of view, then the welfare of a person must matter for them as much as the welfare of any other person. So, given the unequal international distribution of resources between states, liberal egalitarians cannot accept any system of boundaries which condemns some people to poverty while permitting others to live a life full of privileges. Given this reasoning, the hospitality is open to interpretation from global economic justice perspective.