Suchergebnisse

Benhabib argues that the tension between universal human rights and democratic self-determination cannot be resolved. Distinguishing between the principle of rights, on the one hand, and context-specific `schedules of rights', on the other hand, helps, however, to specify the scope of both norms. I show that applying this idea to questions of citizenship requires further elaboration in three respects: (1) Benhabib's argument for porous rather than open borders, which does not fully address the challenge of global distributive justice; (2) norms for access to citizenship, which need to cover also transnational affiliations between sending states and their external populations; and (3) necessary constraints on democratic self-determination. I suggest replacing the principle of self-determination with a principle of self-government that does not include a unilateral right to determine the territorial or membership boundaries of the polity. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright 2007.]

Examines the phenomenon of extending electoral rights to expatriate citizens & to noncitizen residents. Why governments expand voting rights in this way is considered, finding a mixed bag of reasons. A nonterritorial conception of nationhood, often rooted in ethnic nationalism, is seen as a prime reason. Voting rights for noncitizen residents is less widespread but found in various forms around the world, & reasons for introducing this form of franchise are also mixed. Four contrasting ideal-typical positions for or against electoral rights beyond territory & citizenship are outlined & rejected, & an alternative principle, stakeholder citizenship, is proposed. 16 References. J. Zendejas