Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
States should stop making laws with such a wide extraterritorial extension and rely instead on reciprocal arrangements with other states to control cross-border criminal activity.
“States should simply stop making laws with such a wide extension and rely instead on making reciprocal arrangements with other states to control cross-border criminal activity”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Goodin, 2016
Goodin argues that anticosmopolitans hoping to rely on the All Subjected Principle to keep the franchise within broadly conventional bounds will be disappointed.
“According to Goodin, 'anticosmopolitans hoping to rely on the ASP to keep the franchise within broadly conventional bounds will be sorely disappointed' (Goodin, 2016, p. 368).”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Goodin, 2016
The term 'subject' is ambiguous: it could mean being legally bound to follow the laws a government issues, or being subject to institutions with the capacity to enforce the law, i.e., being coerced to obey.
“As Beckman points out, the term is ambiguous: It could mean being legally bound to follow the laws that the government issues; or it could mean being subject to institutions with the capacity to enforce the law, in other words being coerced to obey (Beckman, 2014, pp. 255-258; see also; Goodin, 2016, p. 370).”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Goodin, 2016
Cites
Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives
GOODIN, R. E. (2007) · Philosophy & Public Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x · Cited by 1,157 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem
Miller, D. (2020) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12707 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“…to follow the laws that the government issues; or it could mean being subject to institutions with the capacity to enforce the law, in other words being coerced to obey (Beckman, 2014, pp. 255–258; see also; Goodin, 2016, p. 370).4 This distinction will matter in instances where the two come apart.”
Background
- Authors
- Goodin, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Australian National University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Goodin, Robert E.
- ORCID
- Goodin, Robert E.
- Venue
- International Theory
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-09-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 365-389
- ISSN
- 1752-9719 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-9727
- OpenAlex
- W2517998746
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 21.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Theory (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- global democracy, cosmopolitanism, anti-cosmopolitanism, all-affected principle, global justice, state authority, non-nationals, franchise expansion, global interdependence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
