There are two classic principles for deciding who should have a right to vote on the laws, the All Affected Principle and the All Subjected Principle. This article is devoted, firstly, to providing a sympathetic reconstruction of the All Subjected Principle, identifying the most credible account of what it is to be subject to the law. Secondly, it shows that that best account still suffers some serious difficulties, which might best be resolved by treating the All Subjected Principle as a subset of the All Affected Principle with which the All Subjected Principle must in any case be supplemented.
AbizadehA (2008) Democratic theory and border coercion: no right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political Theory36(1): 37–65.
2.
AbizadehA (2010) Democratic legitimacy and state coercion: a reply to David Miller. Political Theory38(1): 121–130.
3.
AbizadehA (2012) On the demos and its kin: nationalism, democracy and the boundary problem. American Political Science Review106(4): 867–882.
4.
AbizadehA (2022) The scope of the All-Subjected Principle: on the local structure of coercive laws. Analysis81(4): 603–610.
5.
AbrahamKJ (2022) Midcentury modern: the emergence of stakeholders in democratic practice. American Political Science Review116(2): 631–644.
6.
AlboekSSchultzC (1997) One cow, one vote?Scandinavian Journal of Economics99(4): 597–616.
7.
American Law Institute (ALI) (1965) Restatement (Second) of Torts. St Paul, MN: ALI.
8.
American Law Institute (ALI) (1985) Model Penal Code. Philadelphia: ALI.
9.
AndricV (2021) Is the All-Subjected Principle extensionally adequate?Res Publica27(3): 387–407.
10.
ArrheniusG (2005) The boundary problem in democratic theory. In: TersmanF (ed.) Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations I. Stockholm: Filosofiska Institutionen, Stockholms Universitet, 14–29.
11.
ArrheniusG (2018) The democratic boundary problem reconsidered. Ethics, Politics & Society1(1): 89–122.
12.
ArrheniusG (2019) Democracy for the 21st century: research challenges. In: ElkanaYRanderiaSWittrockB (eds) Sociology Looks at the Twenty-first Century: From Local Universalism to Global Contextualism. Leiden: Brill, 165–186.
13.
BauböckR (2011) Temporary migrants, partial citizenship and hypermigration. CRISPP14(5): 665–693.
14.
BeckmanL (2008a) Democratic inclusion, law and causes. Ratio Juris21(3): 348–364.
15.
BeckmanL (2008b) Who should vote? Conceptualizing universal suffrage in studies of democracy. Democratisation15(1): 29–48.
16.
BeckmanL (2014) The subjects of collectively binding decisions: democratic inclusion and extraterritorial law. Ratio Juris27(2): 252–270.
17.
BengtsonA (2022) Where democracy should be: on the site(s) of the All-Subjected Principle. Res Publica28(1): 59–84.
18.
BenthamJ (1786) Of subjects, or of the personal extent of the dominion of the laws. In: Principles of International Law, essay 2. Reprinted in: Bentham, Works, ed Bowring J. Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843, vol. 2, pp. 535–560.
19.
BlackstoneW (1765) Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
20.
BrighouseHFleurbaeyM (2010) Democracy and proportionality. Journal of Political Philosophy18(2): 137–155.
21.
BroomeJ (2013) Rationality through Reasoning. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
22.
BrubakerR (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
ChristianoT (2006) A democratic theory of territory and some puzzles about global democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy37(1): 81–107.
24.
CobbettW (1830) Advice to Young Men, and (Incidentally) to Young Women, in the Middle and Higher Ranks of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1980; originally published 1830.
25.
Coca-VilaIIrarrázavalC (2022) A criminal law for semicitizens. Journal of Applied Philosophy39(1): 56–72.
26.
CohenEF (2009) Semi-citizenship in Democratic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
CokeE (1644) The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England. London: Lee and Pakeman.
28.
DahlRA (1970) After the Revolution?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
DahlRA (1989) Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
Dan-CohenM (1984) Decision rules and conduct rules. Harvard Law Review97(3): 625–677.
32.
de-ShalitA (2019) Cities and Immigration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
DickinsonED, reporter. (1935) Draft convention on jurisdiction with respect to crime. American Journal of International Law29(Supplement): 439–651.
34.
DoyleC (2010) Terrorist Material Support: An Overview of 18 U.S.C. 2339A and 2339B. CRS Report for Congress R41333. Washington, DC: Congressional Reference Service.
35.
DuffRA (2010) Towards a theory of criminal law?Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplement)84: 1–28.
36.
DuffRA (2018) The Realm of Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
DworkinR (1996) Freedom's Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
FraserN (2008) Scales of Justice. Cambridge: Polity.
39.
FungA (2013) The principle of affected interests and inclusion in democratic governance. In: NagelJSmithR (eds) Representation: Elections and Beyond. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 236–268.
40.
GoodinRE (2007) Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs35(1): 40–68.
41.
GoodinRE (2016) Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide. International Theory8(3): 365–389.
42.
GoodinRE (2024) Proximity principle, adieu. In: FungAGraySWD (eds) Empowering All-affected Interests: Foundations for 21st Century Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 21–37.
43.
GreenA (2021) Three models of political membership: delineating ‘The People in Question’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies41(2): 565–586.
HaijerFRyngaertC (2021) Prosecuting foreign corrupt practices: is extraterritoriality a tool to protect community interests? In: ZyberiG (ed.) Protecting Community Interests Through International Law. Cambridge: Intersentia, 163–184.
46.
HartHLA (1961) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
47.
JacksonFSmithM (2006) Absolutist moral theories and uncertainty. Journal of Philosophy130(6): 267–283.
LafontC (2020) Democracy Without Shortcuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
LenardPT (2023) Unintentional residence and the right to vote. Journal of Applied Philosophy40(3): 396–406.
53.
López-GuerraC (2005) Should expatriates vote?Journal of Political Philosophy11(2): 216–234.
54.
MacdonaldT (2024) The All-affected Principle and global political legitimacy. In: FungAGraySWD (eds) Empowering All-affected Interests: Foundations for 21st Century Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 177–195.
55.
MacphersonCB (1977) The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
56.
MillJ (1823) Essays on government, jurisprudence, [Etc.]. Reprinted. In: BallT (ed.) James Mill: Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992,1–42.
57.
MillerD (2009) Democracy's dominion. Philosophy & Public Affairs37(3): 201–228.
58.
MillerD (2010) Why immigration controls are not coercive: a reply to Arash Abizadeh. Political Theory38(1): 111–120.
59.
MillerD (2020) Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem. Philosophy Compass15(11): e12707.
60.
MillsA (2014) Rethinking jurisdiction in international law. British Journal of International Law84(1): 187–239.
61.
NagelT (2005) The problem of global justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs33(2): 114–147.
62.
PavelCE (2018) Boundaries, subjection to laws, and affected interests. In: SchmidtzDPavelCE (eds) Oxford Handbook of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 17, 319–334.
63.
PufendorfS (1672) Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans. KennettB. Oxford: Lichfield, 1710; originally published 1672.
64.
RaeDW (1969) Decision-rules and individual values in constitutional choice. American Political Science Review63(1): 40–56.
65.
RazJ (1975) Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson.
66.
RousseauJJ (1762) On the Social Contract. In: Masters RD and JR (trans and eds) Rousseau, on the Social Contract with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy. New York: St. Martin's, 1978, p. 41–156; originally published 1762.
67.
RyngaertC (2015) Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
68.
SaundersB (2011) Immigration, rights, and democracy. Theoria58(129): 58–77.
SongS (2012) The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state. International Theory4(1): 39–68.
71.
SoysalY (1994) Limits of Citizenship. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72.
SteinhoffU (2020) Border coercion and ‘democratic legitimacy': on Abizadeh's argument against current regimes of border control. Res Publica26(2): 281–292.
73.
TaylorM (1969) Proof of a theorem on majority rule. Behavioral Science14(3): 228–231.
von WrightGH (1968) Norm and Action, trans. RossA. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
76.
WarrenME (2017) The All Affected Interests Principle in democratic theory and practice. IHS Working Paper. Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies. Available at: http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/4306/.
77.
WarrenME (2024) Equity, social justice and the All-affected Principle. In: FungAGraySWD (eds) Empowering All-affected Interests: Foundations for 21st Century Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 38–55.
78.
WhelanFG (1983) Democratic theory and the boundary problem. In: PennockJRChapmanJW (eds) Nomos XXV: Liberal Democracy. New York: New York University Press, 13–47.
79.
YaffeG (2020) Punishing non-citizens. Criminal Law & Philosophy14(3): 347–364.
