Territorial Rights

Meisels, Tamar

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9262-6

Cited by 75 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Locke himself famously stipulated a right to own property grounded in God's command to make use of the earth in order to preserve mankind (Locke 1988, II, Ch.5). 13 A similar story could be told about nationalist accounts of territory (Meisels 2005;Miller 2012): they focus on the ways in which a nation can particularise, through entanglement with a specific piece of land, what they take to be a general right of nations to self-determine (through a territorial political entity). 14 As one reviewer helpfully points out, the Lockean strategy may thus provide the 'easier way out' only in ideal theory; in the real world it will be very hard to actually identify existing holdings as complying with the rules of original appropriation and legitimate transfer.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No right to unilaterally claim your territory: on the consistency of Kantian statism

Huber¹

2016

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The paper examines the consistency of recent Kantian justifications of state authority through reflection on the normative implications of states' territorial nature. I claim that their conceptual structure leaves these accounts unable to close the justificatory gap that emerges at the transition from legitimate authority simpliciter, to legitimate state authority. None of the strategies Kantian statists have come up with in order to solve this problem -based on the proximity, occupancy, and permissive principles -provides the needed grounds on which to carve up the earth's surface into jurisdictional domains. Yet, I conclude that this does not require Kantians to cede statist grounds altogether but to take a distinctly 'global perspective' on states.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

No right to unilaterally claim your territory: on the consistency of Kantian statism

Huber¹

2016

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On this view the efficient and productive use of land, for instance, for intensive agriculture, justifies the acquisition of property rights in that land. By analogy, nations and peoples strengthen their entitlement to their territory by improvement, for example, through economic development (e.g., Meisels 2009). This Locke-inspired theory is not included here because of its problematic implications inter alia for sustainable development and conservation of natural resources (Kolers 2000;Arneil 1992; Banai forthcoming).…”

Section: Reciprocity and Generalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Determination and Resource Rights: In Defence of Territorial Jurisdiction Over Natural Resources

Banai

2015

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is territorial jurisdiction over natural resources justified? This paper argues that a freedom-based account of self-determination coupled with 'functionalist' justifications of territorial right support territorial jurisdiction over natural resources. This justification simultaneously gives rise to limits on the permissible exercise of the right: the principles of reciprocity and generality, and of equal freedom. This 'reciprocal' view on territorial jurisdiction over natural resources, defended here, differs from two alternatives: the traditional sovereignty view on the one hand and the transnational jurisdiction view-which favours the transfer of sovereignty over natural resources from states to transnational institutions-on the other hand.

show abstract

“…Immigration and other not directly distributional aspects of the state are the focus of theories about the territorial rights of states (Meisels 2005;Nine 2008;Kolers 2009). Usually it has simply been assumed that territorial rights are an inseparable component of state sovereignty, and the nature or justification of territorial rights have generally not been addressed.…”

Section: Bringing the State Back Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Right to Exclude Immigrants?

Lægaard

2010

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is normally taken for granted that states have a right to control immigration into their territory. When immigration is raised as a normative issue two questions become salient, one about what the right to exclude is, and one about whether and how it might be justified. This paper considers the first question. The paper starts by noting that standard debates about immigration have not addressed what the right to exclude is. Standard debates about immigration furthermore tend to result either in fairly strong cases for open borders or in denials that considerations of justice apply to immigration at all, which results in state discretion positions. This state of debate is both theoretically unsatisfactory and normatively implausible. The paper therefore explores an alternative approach to the right to exclude immigrants from the perspective of recent debates about the territorial rights of states. The right to exclude claimed by states is analysed and it is shown to differ both conceptually and normatively from rights to impose political authority within a territory. The paper finally indicates how this analysis might broaden the focus of debates about immigration and suggest alternative regimes of migration regulation the possibility of which is obscured by traditional justice approaches.

show abstract

Territorial Rights

Cited by 75 publications

References 0 publications

No right to unilaterally claim your territory: on the consistency of Kantian statism

No right to unilaterally claim your territory: on the consistency of Kantian statism

Self-Determination and Resource Rights: In Defence of Territorial Jurisdiction Over Natural Resources

What is the Right to Exclude Immigrants?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About