The Tyranny of the Enfranchised Majority? The Accountability of States to their Non-Citizen Population
Res Publica 16 (4):397-413 (2010)
| Abstract | The debate between legal constitutionalists and critics of constitutional rights and judicial review is an old and lively one. While the protection of minorities is a pivotal aspect of this debate, the protection of disenfranchised minorities has received little attention. Policy-focused discussion—of the merits of the Human Rights Act in Britain for example—often cites protection of non-citizen migrants, but the philosophical debate does not. Non-citizen residents or ‘denizens’ therefore provide an interesting test case for the theory of rights as trumps on ordinary representative politics. Are they the ultimate success story of the human rights framework? Or was Michael Walzer correct to describe government of denizens by citizens as a modern form of ‘tyranny’? This paper argues that neither liberal rights theorists nor democratic republicans provide a coherent response to the existence of denizens. Liberal rights theorists overstate the extent to which a politically powerless status can secure individual rights, while democratic republicans idealise the political process and wrongly assume that all those affected by laws are eligible for political participation. The paper outlines an alternative model for assessing the accountability of states to their non-citizen population, informed by the republican ideal of non-domination. It identifies gaps in state accountability to denizens–such as where there is inadequate diplomatic protection—and argues that these gaps are particularly troubling if their exit costs of leaving the state are high | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,711 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesEva Erman (2006). Rethinking Accountability in the Context of Human Rights. Res Publica 12 (3).
Filiz Kartal (2006). The Rights-Bearing Citizen as a Problematic Actor of Liberal Politics. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 2:159-163.
Monique Lanoix (2007). The Citizen in Question. Hypatia 22 (4):113-129.
Cristina Lafont (2010). Accountability and Global Governance: Challenging the State-Centric Conception of Human Rights. Ethics and Global Politics 3 (3).
Joshua Castellino & Elvira Domínguez Redondo (2006). Minority Rights in Asia: A Comparative Legal Analysis. OUP Oxford.
Sivanandam Panneerselvam (2008). Human Rights in Indian Context. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 11:85-91.
Saladin Meckled-Garcia (2004). International Justice, Human Rights and Neutrality. Res Publica 10 (2).
Will Kymlicka (2009). Categorizing Groups, Categorizing States: Theorizing Minority Rights in a World of Deep Diversity. Ethics and International Affairs 23 (4):371-388.
Richard Bellamy (2012). Rights as Democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (4):449-471.
Leonard J. Waks (1996). Environmental Claims and Citizen Rights. Environmental Ethics 18 (2):133-148.
Sharon Anderson-Gold (2007). Human Rights, Cultural Identity, and Democracy. Social Philosophy Today 23:57-68.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-11-18Total downloads18 ( #67,643 of 551,007 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,007 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
