To Each Their Own Place? Immigration, Justice, and Political Reflexivity

  • Hans Lindahl


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.


European Unity Distributive Justice Immigration Policy Political Community Legal Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. 2005. Italy. Temporary stay—permanent rights: the treatment of foreign nationals detained in ‘temporary stay and assistance centres’ (CPTAs). Accessed October 26, 2005.
  3. Benveniste, É. 1966. Le langage et l’expérience humaine. In Problèmes du langage, ed. É. Benveniste et al., 3–13. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  4. Carens, J. 1987. Aliens and citizens: The case for open borders. The Review of Politics 49: 251–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Lindahl, H. 2006. Give and take: Arendt and the Nomos of political community. Philosophy and Social Criticism 32: 785–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Pettit, P. 2001. A theory of freedom. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ricœur, P. 1988. Time and narrative, vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Schmitt, C. 1995. Nomos-Nahme-Name. In Staat, Großraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916–1969, 573–591. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  11. Schmitt, C. 2003. Nehmen, Teilen, Weiden. In Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsaetze aus den Jahren 1924–1954. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Fourth edition.Google Scholar
  12. Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Van Roermund, B. 2003. First-person plural legislature: Political reflexivity and representation. Philosophical Explorations 6: 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Waldenfels, B. 1999. Vielstimmigkeit der Rede: Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 4.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  15. Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universiteit van TilburgTilburgNetherlands

Personalised recommendations