Search results

Open Access (free)
Rainer Bauböck in dialogue
Series: Critical Powers
Editor: Rainer Bauböck

This book addresses the major theoretical and practical issues of the forms of citizenship and access to citizenship in different types of polity, and the specification and justification of rights of non-citizen immigrants as well as non-resident citizens. It also addresses the conditions under which norms governing citizenship can legitimately vary. The book discusses the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic inclusion. The book proposes that democratic inclusion principles specify a relation between an individual or group that has an inclusion claim and a political community that aims to achieve democratic legitimacy for its political decisions and institutions. It contextualizes the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which provides the best answer to the question of democratic boundaries of membership, by applying it to polities of different types. The book distinguishes state, local and regional polities and argues that they differ in their membership character. It examines how a principle of stakeholder inclusion applies to polities of different types. The book illustrates the difference between consensual and automatic modes of inclusion by considering the contrast between birthright acquisition of citizenship, which is generally automatic, and naturalization, which requires an application.

's argument that the all citizenship stakeholders (ACS) principle is the best available principle for determining the composition of the citizenry but, in a particular and specific sense, reject the claim that it thereby also demarcates the demos. Demos principles and citizenship It is an important strength of Bauböck's argument that his account articulates complementary relations of the all affected interests (AAI) principle, the

in Democratic inclusion
Open Access (free)

democratically illegitimate about this system. In my essay I suggest that the current principles of international law allow states to broadly ignore the interests of outsiders who are negatively affected by their decisions. Under my interpretation of the all affected interests (AAI) principle, this provides not only cover for possible injustices , which states may or may not commit towards outsiders, but also tarnishes the legitimacy of decisions taken

in Democratic inclusion
Open Access (free)
A pluralist theory of citizenship

allow for identifying contexts where mixed principles apply or where polities are of mixed types. The core normative argument of this essay is developed in section 3 , where I discuss the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). I claim that these principles are not rivals but friends. They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic

in Democratic inclusion
Some questions for Rainer Bauböck

, empirical researchers and policy-makers alike. Those gifts are clearly on display here as Bauböck explores the virtues and limitations of three different principles of democratic inclusion: all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). Bauböck argues that the three principles complement one another, with each providing legitimation for a different set of democratic institutions and practices

in Democratic inclusion

Rainer Bauböck's essay argues persuasively that our account of democratic inclusion needs to be more complex than is usually recognized. Whereas most authors attempt to identify a single fundamental principle of democratic inclusion – whether it is the all affected interests principle or the all subjected to coercion principle or some social membership/stakeholder principle – Bauböck shows that there are different types

in Democratic inclusion

democracy will place some constraints on the possible answers one might give to the impact question. Solutions to the latter question that are incompatible with the thesis stated in the paragraph above ought to be summarily rejected. Despite this, Bauböck begins by considering sympathetically the all affected interests (AAI) principle, according to which “all those whose interests are affected by any possible decision arising out of any

in Democratic inclusion

combines arguments associated with membership of the demos with others concerning the grounds for citizenship. Bauböck proposes that ACS is better able than two other principles advanced in democratic theory – the all affected interests (AAI) and all subject to coercion (ASC) principles – to subsume a range of justified claims to membership. Those norms are depicted not so much as wrong but as incomplete to cover all claims for

in Democratic inclusion

, involving relevant national agencies, local governments, as well as environmental NGOs. Furthermore, all affected interests with a legal standing must be involved, i.e., those with property rights or with ongoing economic activities in the area where the applicant wants to locate the project. In terms of content, the EID must now cover all aspects of relevance, including alternative locations and – where possible – alternative technologies (Cabinet Bill 1997/98:145, pp. 286 ff.). Seen in combination with the general rules of public access to governmental information, the

in Sweden and ecological governance