• English
    • Norsk
  • English 
    • English
    • Norsk
  • Administration
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Høstingsarkiver
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

The boundaries of transnational democracy: alternatives to the all-affected principle

Karlsson Schaffer, Johan
Journal article; AcceptedVersion; Peer reviewed
View/Open
Alternatives+to+the+AAP+-+pre-print.pdf (286.2Kb)
Year
2012
Permanent link
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-51885

CRIStin
919308

Metadata
Show metadata
Appears in the following Collection
  • Norsk senter for menneskerettigheter [266]
  • CRIStin høstingsarkiv [15979]
Original version
Review of International Studies. 2012, 38 (2), 321-342, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0260210510001749
Abstract
Recently, theorists have sought to justify transnational democracy by means of the all-affected principle, which claims that people have a right to participate in political decision-making that affects them. I argue that this principle is neither logically valid nor feasible as a way of determining the boundaries of democratic communities. First, specifying what it means to be affected is itself a highly political issue, since it must rest on some disputable theory of interests; and the principle does not solve the problem of how to legitimately constitute the demos, since such acts, too, are decisions which affect people. Furthermore, applying the principle comes at too high a cost: either political boundaries must be redrawn for each issue at stake or we must ensure that democratic politics only has consequences within an enclosed community and that it affects its members equally. Secondly, I discuss three possible replacements for the all-affected principle: (a) applying the all-affected principle to second-order rules, not to decisions; (b) drawing boundaries so as to maximise everyone's autonomy; (c) including everyone who is subject to the law. I conclude by exploring whether (c) would support transnational democracy to the extent that a global legal order is emerging.
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy
 

 

For students / employeesSubmit master thesisAccess to restricted material

Browse

All of DUOCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitles

For library staff

Login
RSS Feeds
 
Responsible for this website 
University of Oslo Library


Contact Us 
duo-hjelp@ub.uio.no


Privacy policy