Non-state peoples and indirect duties

In cosmopolitan right, Kant describes a right of the world citizen to visit foreign lands, and make offers for further dealings, without being treating with hostility by others (the locals) for having made this attempt. Kant *does not directly* say there is a right of the local people not be conquered or have their land settled on without their permission. Many authors seem to think he does, since Kant condemns such behavior by Europeans. He also describes such behavior as inhospitable, which makes it sound like the Native peoples have a right of hospitality. I am not convinced this is true. Many writers act as if Kant thought that Kant spoke about indigenous rights, and further that they did this was because of some respect owed.. You might ask: but if Europeans have a duty not to act inhospitably, doesn't this mean indigenous peoples have rights? Well, perhaps, but only in a derivative sense. The right of indigenous peoples, or any possible basis behind those rights, are not (or may not be- it's unclear) what grounds those duties. Remember, Kant talks about direct and indirect duties. For Kant, humans can have indirect duties to animals, because humans also have an animal nature, and being violent wantonly to animals would be to disrespect our animal nature. I am not saying Kant thought indigenous peoples were like animals or beasts. Quite the contrary. The form of the argument is similar however. States respect each other internationally because of their moral personality, which they have because they are civil states. This is discussed in international right. However, international right does not discuss how states and the people in them can have a good beyond being a state of civil right. They freely choose their own ends, a mark of humanity. (These ends may not be in accord with the moral law, which is what realized moral personality is about.) Even if a social group does not form a civil society (has no moral personhood as a civil society), it has formed a society with a way of life, and has done this through setting its ends freely, through concepts of happiness of how they want to live. For Kant in domestic society, I generally cannot interfere with your pursuit of happiness if you do not violate (my) rights. Cosmopolitically, I cannot interfere with another society, even if it does not accord with a state of civil right; such people do not wrong those outside of the society (at least if they are not powerful enough to invade others). So states can respect non-state peoples because of their common humanity, which consists in freedom in the way they live and reside on the earth. Even civil societies pursue material ends (such as trade) and cosmopolitan right deals with the pursuit of such non-moral (though not necessarily immoral) ends. Interestingly, cosmopolitan right can be seen as the conditions that do not make impossible people seeking happiness across the earth, but that is for another time.