.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Members Only? Why Associational Autonomy Cannot Justify Closing State Borders
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
D
DOI：10.1086/730751.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
It is usually assumed that states have a right to exclude immigrants. Defenders of the Associational View argue that states are justified in closing their borders to immigrants because having the right to exclude is necessary for members to be able to control the character of their association. It is necessary to protect associational autonomy. Unlike in a domestic setting, however, individuals lack several other key components of associational autonomy internationally. On this background, therefore, it is not clear that the right to exclude better protects associational autonomy than its absence. I explore three potential solutions to this problem, drawn from contemporary versions of the Associational View. The three solutions fall short since, ultimately, they do not provide sound justifications for the unilateral right to exclude migrants. Building on this discussion, I set out some institutional elements that should be present in a well-conceived instantiation of associational autonomy.
Keywords:
migration
associational autonomy
open borders
freedom of association
global justice
Journal
IF:
3.8
Papers:
5.8K
Citations:
1.3W
Organization
Cited Papers