Refine
Year of publication
- 2016 (1) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (1)
Language
- English (1) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (1)
Keywords
- relational sovereignty (1) (remove)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (1) (remove)
The article aims to sharpen the neo-republican contribution to international political thought by challenging Pettit’s view that only representative states may raise a valid claim to non-domination in their external relations. The argument proceeds in two steps: First I show that, conceptually speaking, the domination of states, whether representative or not, implies dominating the collective people at least in its fundamental, constitutive power. Secondly, the domination of states – and thus of their peoples – cannot be justified normatively in the name of promoting individual non-domination because such a compensatory rationale misconceives the notion of domination in terms of a discrete exercise of power instead of as an ongoing power relation. This speaks in favour of a more inclusive law of peoples than Pettit (just as his liberal counterpart Rawls) envisages: In order to accommodate the claim of collective peoples to non-domination it has to recognize every state as a member of the international order.