Skip to main content

Who Counts? Dilemmas of Justice in a Postwestphalian World

Buy Article:

$43.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)


Who counts as a subject of justice? Not so long ago, it was widely assumed that those “who counted” were simply the citizens of a bounded territorial state. Today, however, as activists target injustices that cut across borders, that “Westphalian” view is contested and the “who” of justice is an object of hot dispute. This new situation calls for a new kind of justice theorizing, whose contours I sketch in this essay. Arguing, first, for a reflexive mode of theorizing, I introduce the concept of “misframing”, which can subject the Westphalian “who” to critical scrutiny. Arguing, second, for the necessity of a substantive normative principle to evaluate competing “who’s”, I introduce the “all-subjected principle” as superior to three better known alternatives: namely, membership, humanism, and the all-affected principle.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Westphalian frame; all-affected principle; all-subjected principle; global justice; transnational injustice

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: Department of Political Science, The New School for Social Research, New York, NY, USA;, Email: [email protected]

Publication date: 2010-01-01

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more