Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-f9nfp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-20T10:44:53.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Robert E. Goodin
Robert E. Goodin*
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
*
E-mail: Bob.Goodin@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For cosmopolitans, global democracy is valuable both in itself and as a means to global justice. Their preferred principle of political enfranchisement is the All Affected Principle which, given global interdependencies, means that virtually everyone should have a vote virtually everywhere. Anti-cosmopolitans want to resist that conclusion. They try to do so by appealing instead to the All Subjected Principle. But you are subject to a law whenever it claims to apply to you, and in contemporary practice states typically claim authority to make many laws that apply even to non-nationals abroad. On the All Subjected Principle, they too should have a vote over those laws. The All Subjected Principle would thus have similarly expansionary implications for the franchise as the All Affected Principle, contrary to the fondest hopes of anti-cosmopolitans.

Keywords

global democracyenfranchisementAll Affected PrincipleAll Subjected Principleextraterritoriality
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 365 - 389
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abizadeh, Arash. 2007. “Cooperation, Pervasive Impact and Coercion: On the Scope (Not Site) of Distributive Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35:318–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders.” Political Theory 36:37–65.Google Scholar
Abizadeh, Arash. 2010. “Democratic Legitimacy and State Coercion: A Reply to David Miller.” Political Theory 28:121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abizadeh, Arash. 2012. “On the Demos and its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy and the Boundary Problem.” American Political Science Review 106:867–882.Google Scholar
Adelsberg, Sam, Pitts, Freya, and Shebaya, Sirine. 2013. “The Chilling Effect of the ‘Material Support’ Law on Humanitarian Aid: Causes, Consequences and Proposed Reforms.” Harvard National Security Review 4:282–319.Google Scholar
American Law Institute (ALI). 1986. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. St. Paul, MN: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2011. “Developments in the Law: Extraterritoriality.” Harvard Law Review 124:1226–1304.Google Scholar
Archibugi, Daniele. 2008. The Global Commonwealth of Citizens: Toward Cosmopolitan Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf. 2005. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory.” In Democracy Unbound, edited by Folke Tersman, 14–29. Stockholm: Filosofiska Institutionen, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, Gustaf. Forthcoming. “Democracy for the 21st Century: Research Challenges.” In Sociology Looks at the Twenty-First Century, edited by Y. Elkana, S. Randeria, and B. Wittrock. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Baade, Hans W. 1961. “The Eichmann Trial: Some Legal Aspects.” Duke Law Journal 1961:400–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2009. The Frontiers of Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2014. “The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law.” Ratio Juris 27:252–270.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1786. “Of Subjects, or of the Personal Extent of the Dominion of the Laws.” In Principles of International Law, essay 2; reprinted in Bentham, Works, vol. 2, edited by J. Bowring, 535–60. Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843.Google Scholar
Blake, Michael. 2001. “Distributive Justice, State Coercion and Autonomy.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 30:257–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Francis A. 1982. “The Entebbe Hostages Crisis.” Netherlands International Law Review 29:32–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, George W. 2001. “Executive Order 13224.” http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Carfritz, Eric, and Tene, Omar. 2003. “Article 113-7 of the French Penal Code: The Passive Personality Principle.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 41:585–599.Google Scholar
Chehtman, Alejandro. 2010. The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2006. “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles About Global Democracy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37:81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1970. After the Revolution? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1979. “Procedural Democracy.” In Philosophy, Politics & Society, 5th series, edited by Peter Laslett, and James S. Fishkin, 97–133. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dickinson, Edwin D., reporter. 1935. “Research in International Law Under the Auspices of the Faculty of the Harvard Law School: Jurisdiction With Respect to Crime.” American Journal of International Law 29(Supplement):439–651.Google Scholar
Doyle, Charles. 2010. Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B, CRS Report for Congress R41333. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Doyle, Charles. 2012. Extraterritorial Application of American Criminal Law, CRS Report for Congress 94-116. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1985. Politics Against Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2009. Scales of Justice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35:40–68.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2010. “Global Democracy: In the Beginning.” International Theory 2:175–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2013. “World Government is Here!” In Varieties of Sovereignty and Citizenship, edited by Sigal R. Ben-Porath, and Rogers M. Smith, 149–165, 293–300. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Melissa. 2010. “Brief Amicus Curiae of the Carter Center [et al.] in Support of Humanitarian Law Project, et al., in nos. 08-1498 and 09-89 in the Supreme Court of the United States, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.” https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/2009-11-23-AmicusBriefinSupportofHumanitarianLawProject.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
Kamminga, M.T. 2012. “Extraterritoriality.” In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by R. Wolfrum. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.mpepil.com. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Kontorovich, Eugene. 2004. “The Piracy Analogy: Modern Universal Jurisdiction’s Hollow Foundation.” Harvard International Law Journal 45:184–237.Google Scholar
Lamond, Grant. 2001. “Coercion and the Nature of Law.” Legal Theory 7:35–57.Google Scholar
Lau, Joanne C. 2014. “Voting in Bad Faith.” Res Publica 20:281–294.Google Scholar
Lepora, Chiara, and Goodin, Robert E.. 2013. On Complicity and Compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Guerra, Claudio. 2005. “Should Expatriates Vote?” Journal of Political Philosophy 11:216–234.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John G. 1989. “The Passive Personality Principle and its Use in Combating International Terrorism.” Fordham International Law Journal 13:297–327.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2009. “Democracy’s Dominion.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 37:201–228.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 2010. “Why Immigration Controls are Not Coercive: A Reply to Arash Abizadeh.” Political Theory 38:111–120.Google Scholar
Molto, José Elias Esteve. 2012. “Causes and Initial Effects of the Spanish Organic Law 1/2009 Reforming the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction in Spain.” Spanish Yearbook of International Law 16:19–53.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 2005. “The Problem of Global Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 33:114–147.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Owen, David. 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem.” Ethics & Global Politics 5:129–152.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1978 [1762]. On the Social Contract, in Rousseau, On the Social Contract with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy. Edited by Roger D. Masters and Translated By Judith R. Masters, 41–156. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Song, Jiewuh. 2015. “Pirates and Torturers: Universal Jurisdiction as Enforcement Gap-Filling.” Journal of Political Philosophy 23:471–490.Google Scholar
Stigall, Dan E. 2012. “International Law and Limitations on the Exercise of Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in U.S. Domestic Law.” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 35:323–382.Google Scholar
US State Department. 2011. “Background Briefing on Somalia and Delivery of Humanitarian Assistance (August 2).” http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/spbr/2011/169479.htm. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Whelan, Frederick G. 1983. “Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.” In Nomos XXV: Liberal Democracy, edited by J. Roland Pennock, and John W. Chapman, 13–47. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Zerk, Jennifer A. 2010. “Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere From Six Regulatory Areas.” Corporate Social Responsibility initiative Working Paper No. 59, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_59_zerk.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2016.Google Scholar