After defining Cosmopolitan Right as being limited to the conditions of “hospitality,” Kant includes “Wirtbarkeit” in brackets, a word that connotes innkeeping. Moreover, significant similarities obtain between the relevant passages of the Perpetual Peace and those of the Digest of Justinian on the obligations of ships’ masters, innkeepers, and stable keepers. Unlike for ordinary householders, hospitality for innkeepers is a legal obligation, not a matter of philanthropy: they have traditionally been deemed public officials with limited discretion to refuse travelers, and as fiduciaries of their guests strictly liable for losses to their property. This article attempts to explain Kant's concept of Cosmopolitan Right by analogy to the private law of innkeeping, and ultimately engages in the central philosophical debate about Cosmopolitan Right by accounting for Cosmopolitan Right solely from the “innate” right to freedom, rather than from “acquired” facts such as land or resource distributions or historical injustices.

中文翻译：

---

经济利益：世界性的权利和维护

在将世界主义权利定义为仅限于“好客”的条件之后，康德在括号中加入了“Wirtbarkeit”，这个词意味着旅馆经营。此外，《永久和平》的相关段落与《查士丁尼文摘》的相关段落在船长、旅店老板和马房管理员的义务方面也有很大的相似之处。与普通住户不同，招待旅店老板是一项法律义务，而不是慈善事业：传统上，他们被视为公职人员，在拒绝旅客方面拥有有限的自由裁量权，并且作为客人的受托人，对其财产损失负有严格责任。本文试图通过类比旅馆业私法来解释康德的世界权利概念，