By what right do sovereign states prohibit migrants from entering their territories? It cannot be assumed that they do, certainly not as a matter of the way we define “sovereignty.” Can the sovereign right to exclude immigrants be derived from the sovereign’s status as owner of the territory it controls? This Article shows that the idea of the sovereign as owner is too problematic to be the basis of any argument for the right to exclude. It also argues against the (...) proposition that communities, considered as informal sovereigns, have a right to exclude based on their communal property in the land they inhabit. In both cases, an “ownership conception” is distinguished from a more attractive “responsibility conception” of sovereignty. The former remains unclear, while the latter leaves open the question of who the sovereign is responsible for. (shrink)

In this article I discuss the conditions under which sovereign debts are not morally binding for a state. Following an old legal doctrine, I call non-binding debts ‘odious'. I proceed as follows. First, I argue that alternative accounts on the morality of debts are unsatisfactory. The problem these accounts have are that they do not clearly identify the philosophical issues that underlie the notion of odious debts, or that they fail to specify what exactly the immorality of odious debts consists (...) in. Second, I defend the view that a debt is odious when two conditions are satisfied: borrowed funds were used by public officials for purposes for which they were not authorised lenders knew, or should have known, about possible unauthorised uses of those funds. If these two conditions are both satisfied, debts should not be considered debts of the state, but rather personal debts of rulers. Third, I discuss the feasibility of my approach by exploring how it would work in the current world. Finally, I d.. (shrink)

"The Moral Standing of States" is the title of an essay Michael Walzer wrote in response to four critics of the theory of nonintervention defended in "Just and Unjust Wars." It states a theme to which he has returned in subsequent work. Beitz offers four sets of comments.

Characterizations of Kant's legal and political philosophy with regard to its affinity toward basic socio-political positions generally range between the two extremes of a social welfare state, on the one hand, and a libertarian laissez-faire state, on the other. The purpose of this article is to provide a three-tiered analysis showing that the issue of "social justice" is not raised at all within the narrower framework of Kant's legal philosophy, that instead Kant's legal philosophy is mainly neutral in the socio-political (...) sense and that Kant makes a move toward imposing an obligation on the state to attain social equality only as an issue of ethics sensu stricto. Kant's indifference toward matters of social justice are considered in relation to his concept of human nature. Finally, the author discusses the need for adopting a theory of social justice, if necessary independently from Kantian premises. Die Einordnung der Kantischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie hinsichtlich ihrer Affinität zu sozialphilosophischen Grundpositionen schwankt gemeinhin zwischen der Zuordnung zu den extremen Positionen des Wohlfahrtsstaats einerseits und des liberalen Nachtwächterstaates andererseits. In einer dreistufigen Analyse wird herausgarbeitet, daß sich die Frage 'sozialer Gerechtigkeit' im engeren Rahmen der Kantischen Rechts-Philosophie gar nicht stellt, daß letztere vielmehr sozialpolitisch weitestgehend neutral ist und daß sich bei Kant überhaupt nur in der Ethik sensu stricto Ansätze einer staatlichen Verpflichtung zum sozialen Ausgleich zeigen. Die Kantische Indifferenz gegenüber Fragen sozialer Gerechtigkeit wird in Bezug gesetzt zu Kants Auffassung von der menschlichen Natur; und es wird zuletzt verwiesen auf die Notwendigkeit, eine Theorie sozialer Gerechtigkeit ggf. unabhängig von Kantischen Vorgaben zu entwickeln. (shrink)