Abstract
Any attempt to think through the possibility and justification of a right to migration in a global perspective must begin by coming to terms with the right to inclusion and exclusion (supranational) polities claim for themselves. The aim of the paper is to scrutinize this alleged right, both conceptually and normatively. Conceptually, I aim to link the possibility of a right to inclusion and exclusion to a feature of Ulpian’s formula that has gone largely unnoticed in discussions of distributive justice: the reflexivity of suum cuique. This conceptual analysis prepares the way for the normative question to be addressed in this paper: even if no polity is imaginable that is not spatially bounded, under what conditions, if any, can it lay claim to a right to inclusion and exclusion? This indirect approach will allow us to establish what sense can be made of a “right” to migration in a global perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I appreciate the financial support of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).
Bibliography
Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Amnesty International. 2005. Italy. Temporary stay—permanent rights: the treatment of foreign nationals detained in ‘temporary stay and assistance centres’ (CPTAs). http://web.amnesty.org/library/print/ENGEUR300042005. Accessed October 26, 2005.
Benveniste, É. 1966. Le langage et l’expérience humaine. In Problèmes du langage, ed. É. Benveniste et al., 3–13. Paris: Gallimard.
Carens, J. 1987. Aliens and citizens: The case for open borders. The Review of Politics 49: 251–273.
Hailbronner, K. 2004. Asylum law in the context of a European migration policy. In Europe’s area of freedom, security and justice, ed. N. Walker, 41–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lindahl, H. 2004. Inside and outside the EU’s “area of freedom, security and justice”: Spatial unity and reflexive identity. Archif für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 90(4): 478–497.
Lindahl, H. 2006. Give and take: Arendt and the Nomos of political community. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32: 785–805.
Pettit, P. 2001. A theory of freedom. Oxford: Polity Press.
Ricœur, P. 1988. Time and narrative, vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schmitt, C. 1995. Nomos-Nahme-Name. In Staat, Großraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916–1969, 573–591. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Schmitt, C. 2003. Nehmen, Teilen, Weiden. In Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsaetze aus den Jahren 1924–1954. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Fourth edition.
Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.
Van Roermund, B. 2003. First-person plural legislature: Political reflexivity and representation. Philosophical Explorations 6: 235–252.
Waldenfels, B. 1999. Vielstimmigkeit der Rede: Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 4.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lindahl, H. (2013). To Each Their Own Place? Immigration, Justice, and Political Reflexivity. In: Merle, JC. (eds) Spheres of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5997-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5998-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)