The Tyranny of the Enfranchised Majority? The Accountability of States to their Non-Citizen Population

Res Publica 16 (4):397-413 (2010)
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 Immigration  Refugees  Citizenship  Domination  Republicanism
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11158-010-9133-z
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 21,357
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
R. M. Dworkin (1988). Law's Empire. Harvard University Press.

View all 26 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Iseult Honohan (2014). Domination and Migration: An Alternative Approach to the Legitimacy of Migration Controls. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (1):31-48.
Meghan Benton (2014). The Problem of Denizenship: A Non-Domination Framework. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (1):49-69.
M. Victoria Costa (2016). Republican Liberty and Border Controls. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 19 (4):400-415.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles
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.
Sivanandam Panneerselvam (2008). Human Rights in Indian Context. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 11:85-91.
Richard Bellamy (2012). Rights as Democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (4):449-471.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

42 ( #101,404 of 1,911,315 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

8 ( #79,848 of 1,911,315 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.