The Subjects of Collectively Binding Decisions: Democratic Inclusion and Extraterritorial Law
Abstract
Citizenship and residency are basic conditions for political inclusion in a democracy. However, if democracy is premised on the inclusion of everyone subject to collectively binding decisions, the relevance of either citizenship or residency for recognition as a member of the polity is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to specify the conditions for being subject to collective decisions in the sense relevant to democratic theory. Three conceptions of what it means to be subject to collectively binding decisions are identified and examined, referring to those subject to legal duties and legal powers or to those subject to legal duties and state institutions. The contrast between them is most clearly illustrated in relation to non‐residents, those not present in the territory of the state. The extraterritorial dimension of the law thus highlights a fundamental ambiguity in the theory of democracy concerning the extension of political rights.
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?
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 Beckman, 2014
Merely hypothetical threats of coercion do not amount to autonomy-threatening subjection.
“for further reflection on why merely hypothetical threats of coercion do not amount to autonomy-threatening subjection, see Miller, 2010;Beckman, 2014”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Beckman, 2014
The subjection that gives rise to a claim for political inclusion is subjection that actually shapes a person's life by opening up and protecting options while shutting off others, thereby enabling and potentially threatening their autonomy.
“The subjection that gives rise to a claim for political inclusion is subjection that actually shapes a person's life by opening up (and protecting) options that they might choose while shutting off others, thereby both enabling and potentially threatening their autonomy”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Beckman, 2014
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
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
- Beckman, L.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Beckman, Ludvig
- ORCID
- Beckman, Ludvig
- Venue
- Ratio Juris
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-05-19
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 252-270
- ISSN
- 0952-1917 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9337
- OpenAlex
- W2168724035
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 10.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ratio Juris (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Keywords
- democratic inclusion, citizenship, residency, political rights, legal obligations, legal power, state institutions, non-residents
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
