Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders
Abstract
The question of whether a closed border entry policy under the unilateral control of a democratic state is legitimate cannot be settled until we first know to whom the justification of a regime of control is owed. According to the state sovereignty view, the control of entry policy, including of movement, immigration, and naturalization, ought to be under the unilateral discretion of the state itself: justification for entry policy is owed solely to members. This position, however, is inconsistent with the democratic theory of popular sovereignty. Anyone accepting the democratic theory of political legitimation domestically is thereby committed to rejecting the unilateral domestic right to control state boundaries. Because the demos of democratic theory is in principle unbounded, the regime of boundary control must be democratically justified to foreigners as well as to citizens, in political institutions in which both foreigners and citizens can participate.
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 democratic boundary problem arises because the units within which democratic decision procedures operate cannot themselves be constituted democratically.
“The democratic boundary problem arises because it appears that the units within which democratic decision procedures will operate cannot themselves be constituted democratically.”
From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Abizadeh, 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 18 · Cited by 661
- Authors
- Abizadeh, A.
- Affiliations
- McGill University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Abizadeh, Arash
- ORCID
- Abizadeh, Arash
- Venue
- Political Theory
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-65
- ISSN
- 0090-5917 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7476
- OpenAlex
- W2116645954
- Cited by
- 661
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 23
- FWCI
- 84.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Theory (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- 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 › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Keywords
- immigration policy, democratic legitimacy, popular sovereignty, state sovereignty, democratic theory, political legitimation, foreigners' rights, naturalization, motor control
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