Open Access (free)
Governing Precarity through Adaptive Design

). While NGOs lay claim to a ‘non-governmental’ status, direct action thrived when donor sovereignty was, paradoxically, still able to cast a shadow. Given the refugee crisis, few can today contemplate the wretched state of ‘official’ humanitarianism without some disquiet. Despite what we may wish or demand, however, it is unlikely that significant improvement will occur any time soon. But to then conclude that humanitarianism is dead would be a mistake. While autonomous international direct action lies buried in the rubble of the West’s urbicidal wars

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
Editor’s Introduction

multinational military task force into Somalia, with the stated aim of protecting relief operations. These humanitarian wars, and others that followed during the 1990s, were waged not only to respond to a perceived evil but also to define good and evil and the limits of acceptable behaviour ( Fiori, 2018 ). Other Western governments also now looked to humanitarian agencies as allies in the liberal transformation of the developing world. During the Cold War, humanitarian NGOs had generally been limited to operating in countries under Western tutelage, but

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
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.

Open Access (free)
A pluralist theory of citizenship

inclusion. Before this, I consider the general “circumstances of democracy” that consist in normative background assumptions and general empirical conditions under which democratic self-government is both necessary and possible. Section 4 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. I distinguish state

in Democratic inclusion

5 Non-​state actors and the quest for authority in Arctic governance The modern state, as discussed in Chapter 1, can be considered a relative newcomer to the cross-​border politics of the Arctic region. However, states have featured prominently in the preceding two chapters. We have come to see how advantageous positions earned by/​granted to states vis-​à-​vis other states matter for shaping the rules of the road in Arctic cooperative governance –​and ultimately shape outcomes. In this chapter, I seek to broaden the net to explore the positions of key non-​state

in Arctic governance

integration – that is, the range of things that states decide to do together – had by then seriously expanded, whereas its level had become all the more difficult to dissociate from the control of state executives. Indeed, the component states were equally anxious to preserve the integrity of their respective polities, and hence to continue their existence as distinct sovereign entities and even reinforce their own autonomy, rather than be drawn into a system of uncontrolled institutional centralisation followed by advanced schemes of federalism and, as some may have it

in Theory and reform in the European Union
Some questions for Rainer Bauböck

with respect to who is entitled to citizenship and why are very close. Let me add that I applaud the fact that, unlike many political theorists, Bauböck does not view the political world solely through the lens of the modern state. He explicitly regards municipalities and other entities exercising extensive jurisdictional authority over a territorial space as “polities” or “political communities” whose members should be seen as citizens

in Democratic inclusion
Open Access (free)

others. It is not, however, a consequence of the fact that states have boundaries demarcating their territorial jurisdiction and special responsibilities for their citizens. The horizontal pluralism of polities is, in my view, a normatively desirable feature of the state system in the sense that it would be wrong to try to overcome it. This may not be obvious from a perspective of global justice, but it seems to me compelling from a perspective

in Democratic inclusion

legitimately subject only to (a) the basic constraint that such inclusion does not threaten the stability of the state (i.e. its capacity to reproduce itself as a self-governing polity over time); and (b) feasibility constraints. Bauböck does not adopt this stance, remaining content with the view that expatriate voting is permissible but not required (although acknowledging the normative salience of existing state practices of expatriate

in Democratic inclusion

as a member in a particular polity,” Bauböck writes, “but also on that polity being governed democratically” (p. 41). Those who have a shared interest in self-government will also have a shared interest in the “flourishing” of that polity. Does that suffice to build the social solidarity necessary to sustain a state? (Words like “solidarity” and “bonds” go missing in describing stakeholder citizenship, where “collective

in Democratic inclusion