To Each Their Own Place? Immigration, Justice, and Political Reflexivity
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.
KeywordsEuropean Unity Distributive Justice Immigration Policy Political Community Legal Authority
- Agamben, G. 2005. State of exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- Pettit, P. 2001. A theory of freedom. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Ricœur, P. 1988. Time and narrative, vol. 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, C. 1995. Nomos-Nahme-Name. In Staat, Großraum, Nomos: Arbeiten aus den Jahren 1916–1969, 573–591. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
- Schmitt, C. 2003. Nehmen, Teilen, Weiden. In Verfassungsrechtliche Aufsaetze aus den Jahren 1924–1954. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Fourth edition.Google Scholar
- Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
- Waldenfels, B. 1999. Vielstimmigkeit der Rede: Studien zur Phänomenologie des Fremden 4.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
- Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar