Association, property, territory: What is at stake in immigration?
In: Filozofija i društvo, Band 28, Heft 1, S. 53-73
ISSN: 2334-8577
It is often claimed that states have territorial rights, and that these
rights include the right to exclude people who seek admission to their
territory. In this paper I will examine whether the most defensible account
of territorial rights can provide support to the right to exclude. I will
discuss three types of theories of territorial rights. The first account
links the right of states to exclude to the prior right of individuals to
freedom of association, which is said to include the right not to associate
and to dissociate. The second is a Lockean theory that grounds the
territorial rights of states, and hence their right to exclude, in the prior
right of individuals to private property in the land that constitutes the
territory of the state. I argue that these accounts have independently
implausible implications, regardless of their implications for the
immigration debate. The third account is a Kantian theory that bases the
territorial jurisdiction of states on individuals? duty to create, sustain
and submit themselves to a shared system of law that is a necessary condition
of guaranteeing their rights and of discharging their duties towards one
another. I will argue that the Kantian account is superior to its current
alternatives. However, I also suggest that it cannot ground a broad right to
exclude.