the science of right- 第9部分

existence　upon　the　earth。　Now　that　possession　proper　to　all　men　upon

the　earth；　which　is　prior　to　all　their　particular　juridical　acts；

constitutes　an　original　possession　in　common　（communio　possessionis

originaria）。　The　conception　of　such　an　original；　common　possession

of　things　is　not　derived　from　experience；　nor　is　it　dependent　on

conditions　of　time；　as　is　the　case　with　the　imaginary　and

indemonstrable　fiction　of　a　primaeval　community　of　possession　in

actual　history。　Hence　it　is　a　practical　conception　of　reason；

involving　in　itself　the　only　principle　according　to　which　men　may

use　the　place　they　happen　to　occupy　on　the　surface　of　the　earth；　in

accordance　with　laws　of　right。



　　　　　　　　　　　14。　The　Juridical　Act　of　this　Original

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Acquisition　is　Occupancy。



　　The　act　of　taking　possession　（apprehensio）；　being　at　its　beginning

the　physical　appropriation　of　a　corporeal　thing　in　space　（possessionis

physicae）；　can　accord　with　the　law　of　the　external　freedom　of　all；

under　no　other　condition　than　that　of　its　priority　in　respect　of　time。

In　this　relation　it　must　have　the　characteristic　of　a　first　act　in　the

way　of　taking　possession；　as　a　free　exercise　of　will。　The　activity

of　will；　however；　as　determining　that　the　thing…　in　this　case　a

definite　separate　place　on　the　surface　of　the　earth…　shall　be　mine；

being　an　act　of　appropriation；　cannot　be　otherwise　in　the　case　of

original　acquisition　than　individual　or　unilateral　（voluntas

unilateralis　s。　propria）。　Now；　occupancy　is　the　acquisition　of　an

external　object　by　an　individual　act　of　will。　The　original　acquisition

of　such　an　object　as　a　limited　portion　of　the　soil　can　therefore

only　be　accomplished　by　an　act　of　occupation。

　　The　possibility　of　this　mode　of　acquisition　cannot　be　intuitively

apprehended　by　pure　reason　in　any　way；　nor　established　by　its

principles；　but　is　an　immediate　consequence　from　the　postulate　of

the　practical　reason。　The　will　as　practical　reason；　however；　cannot

justify　external　acquisition　otherwise　than　only　in　so　far　as　it　is

itself　included　in　an　absolutely　authoritative　will；　with　which　it

is　united　by　implication；　or；　in　other　words；　only　in　so　far　as　it

is　contained　within　a　union　of　the　wills　of　all　who　come　into

practical　relation　with　each　other。　For　an　individual；　unilateral

will…　and　the　same　applies　to　a　dual　or　other　particular　will…

cannot　impose　on　all　an　obligation　which　is　contingent　in　itself。　This

requires　an　omnilateral　or　universal　will；　which　is　not　contingent；

but　a　priori；　and　which　is　therefore　necessarily　united　and

legislative。　Only　in　accordance　with　such　a　principle　can　there　be

agreement　of　the　active　free…will　of　each　individual　with　the

freedom　of　all；　and　consequently　rights　in　general；　or　even　the

possibility　of　an　external　mine　and　thine。



　　　　　15。　It　is　Only　within　a　Civil　Constitution　that　Anything　can

　　　　　　　　　be　Acquired　Peremptorily；　whereas　in　the　State　of　Nature

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Acquisition　can　only　be　Provisory。



　　A　civil　constitution　is　objectively　necessary　as　a　duty；　although

subjectively　its　reality　is　contingent。　Hence；　there　is　connected　with

it　a　real　natural　law　of　right；　to　which　all　external　acquisition　is

subjected。

　　The　empirical　title　of　acquisition　has　been　shown　to　be

constituted　by　the　taking　physical　possession　（apprehensio　physica）　as

founded　upon　an　original　community　of　right　in　all　to　the　soil。　And

because　a　possession　in　the　phenomenal　sphere　of　sense　can　only　be

subordinated　to　that　possession　which　is　in　accordance　with　rational

conceptions　of　right；　there　must　correspond　to　this　physical　act　of

possession　a　rational　mode　of　taking　possession　by　elimination　of

all　the　empirical　conditions　in　space　and　time。　This　rational　form

of　possession　establishes　the　proposition　that　〃whatever　I　bring　under

my　power　in　accordance　with　laws　of　external　freedom；　and　will　that　it

shall　be　mine；　becomes　mine。〃

　　The　rational　title　of　acquisition　can　therefore　only　lie

originally　in　the　idea　of　the　will　of　all　united　implicitly；　or

necessarily　to　be　united；　which　is　here　tacitly　assumed　as　an

indispensable　condition　（conditio　sine　qua　non）。　For　by　a　single

will　there　cannot　be　imposed　upon　others　an　obligation　by　which　they

would　not　have　been　otherwise　bound。　But　the　fact　formed　by　wills

actually　and　universally　united　in　a　legislation　constitutes　the　civil

state　of　society。　Hence；　it　is　only　in　conformity　with　the　idea　of　a

civil　state　of　society；　or　in　reference　to　it　and　its　realization；

that　anything　external　can　be　acquired。　Before　such　a　state　is

realized；　and　in　anticipation　of　it；　acquisition；　which　would

otherwise　be　derived；　is　consequently　only　provisory。　The

acquisition　which　is　peremptory　finds　place　only　in　the　civil　state。

　　Nevertheless；　such　provisory　acquisition　is　real　acquisition。　For；

according　to　the　postulate　of　the　juridically　practical　reason；　the

possibility　of　acquisition　in　whatever　state　men　may　happen　to　be

living　beside　one　another；　and　therefore　in　the　state　of　nature　as

well；　is　a　principle　of　private　right。　And　in　accordance　with　this

principle；　every　one　is　justified　or　entitled　to　exercise　that

compulsion　by　which　it　alone　becomes　possible　to　pass　out　of　the　state

of　nature　and　to　enter　into　that　state　of　civil　society　which　alone

can　make　all　acquisition　peremptory。



　　It　is　a　question　as　to　how　far　the　right　of　taking　possession　of　the

soil　extends。　The　answer　is；　So　far　as　the　capability　of　having　it

under　one's　power　extends；　that　is；　just　as　far　as　he　who　wills　to

appropriate　it　can　defend　it；　as　if　the　soil　were　to　say：　〃If　you

cannot　protect　me；　neither　can　you　command　me。〃　In　this　way　the

controversy　about　what　constitutes　a　free　or　closed　sea　must　be

decided。　Thus；　within　the　range　of　a　cannon…shot　no　one　has　a　right　to

intrude　on　the　coast　of　a　country　that　already　belongs　to　a　certain

state；　in　order　to　fish　or　gather　amber　on　the　shore；　or　such　like。

Further；　the　question　is　put；　〃Is　cultivation　of　the　soil；　by

building；　agriculture；　drainage；　etc。；　necessary　in　order　to　its

acquisition？〃　No。　For；　as　these　processes　as　forms　of　specification

are　only　accidents；　they　do　not　constitute　objects　of　immediate

possession　and　can　only　belong　to　the　subject　in　so　far　as　the

substance　of　them　has　been　already　recognized　as　his。　When　it　is　a

question　of　the　first　acquisition　of　a　thing；　the　cultivation　or

modification　of　it　by　labour　forms　nothing　more　than　an　external

sign　of　the　fact　that　it　has　been　taken　into　possession；　and　this

can　be　indicated　by　many　other　signs　that　cost　less　trouble。　Again：

〃May　any　one　be　hindered　in　the　act　of　taking　possession；　so　that

neither　one　nor　other　of　two　competitors　shall　acquire　the　right　of

priority；　and　the　soil　in　consequence　may　remain　for　all　time　free

as　belonging　to　no　one？〃　Not　at　all。　Such　a　hindrance　cannot　be

allowed　to　take　place；　because　the　second　of　the　two；　in　order　to　be

enabled　to　do　this；　would　himself　have　to　be　upon　some　neighbouring

soil；　where　he　also；　in　this　manner；　could　be　hindered　from　being；　and

such　absolute　hindering　would　involve　a　contradiction。　It　would；

however；　be　quite　consistent　with　the　right　of　occupation；　in　the　case

of　a　certain　intervening　piece　of　the　soil；　to　let　it　lie　unused　as

a　neutral　ground　for　the　separation　of　two　neighbouring　states；　but

under　such　a　condition；　that　ground　would　actually　belong　to　them　both

in　common；　and　would　not　be　without　an　owner　（res　nullius）；　just

because　it　would　be　used　by　both　in　order　to　form　a　separation　between

them。　Again：　〃May　one　have　a　thing　as　his；　on　a　soil　of　which　no　one

has　appropriated　any　part　as　his　own？〃　Yes。　In　Mongolia；　for

example；　any　one　may　let　lie　whatever　baggage　he　has；　or　bring　back

the　horse　that　has　run　away　from　him　into　his　possession　as　his　own；

because　the　whole　soil　belongs　to　the　people　generally；　and　the　use　of

it　accordingly　belongs　to　every　individual。　But　that　any　one　can

have　a　moveable　thing　on　the　soil　of　another　as　his　own　is　only

possible　by　contract。　Finally；　there　is　the　question：　〃May　one　of

two　neighbouring　nations　or　tribes　resist　another　when　attempting　to

impose　upon　them　a　certain　mode　of　using　a　particular　soil；　as；　for

instance；　a　tribe　of　hunters　making　such　an　attempt　in　relation　to　a

pastoral　people；　or　the　latter　to　agriculturists　and　such　like？〃

Certainly。　For　the　mode　in　which　such　peoples　or　tribes　may　settle

themselves　upon　the　surface　of　the　earth；　provided　they　keep　within

their　own　boundaries；　is　a　matter　of　mere　pleasure　and　choice　on　their

own　part　（res　merae　facultatis）。

　　As　a　further　question；　it　may　be　asked　whether；　when　neither

nature　nor　chance；　but　merely　our　own　will；　brings　us　into　the

neighbourhood　of　a　people　that　gives　no　promise　of　a　prospect　of

entering　into　civil　union　with　us；　we　are　to　be　considered　entitled　in

any　case　to　proceed　with　force　in　the　inten