Is the All-Subjected Principle Extensionally Adequate?

Titelangaben

Andrić, Vuko:
Is the All-Subjected Principle Extensionally Adequate?
In: Res Publica. (6 Oktober 2020) .
ISSN 1572-8692
DOI der Verlagsversion: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09479-9

Volltext

	Format: PDF Name: Andrić2020_Article_IsTheAll-SubjectedPrincipleExt.pdf Version: Veröffentlichte Version Verfügbar mit der Lizenz Creative Commons BY 4.0: Namensnennung
	Download (536kB)

Abstract

This paper critiques the All-Subjected Principle. The All-Subjected Principle is one of the most prominent answers to the Boundary Problem, which consists in determining who should be entitled to participate in which democratic decision. The All-Subjected Principle comes in many versions, but the general idea is that all people who are subjected in a relevant sense with regard to a democratic decision should be entitled to participate in that decision. One respect in which versions of the All-Subjected Principle differ concerns how to best understand ‘subjectedness’. One view spells out ‘subjectedness’ in terms of legal bindingness. Another view understands ‘subjectedness’ in terms of coercion. I argue that the All-Subjected Principle is extensionally inadequate on both views in that it yields verdicts that are at odds with our considered judgements about certain cases. These cases involve legal norms of referral or international administrative assistance.