Abstract
AbstractMatthew Lindauer, Peter Higgins, Jiewuh Song, and Ana Tanasoca have engaged thoughtfully with the work I present in Justice for People on the Move. I am very grateful for their insightful comments, critical remarks, observations about areas of agreement, useful suggestions for progressing important conversations, and invitations to elaborate on core issues. I cannot possibly discuss all the important issues they cover here, but in this response essay I address some of their most prominent concerns in the next four sections. The first section engages with Matthew Lindauer’s critique. It covers the normative grounding for my account and its relationship with the human rights practice that I support. In the second section I discuss why legitimacy has such a prominent role in my argument, thus addressing Peter Higgins’s commentary. The third section reviews some points about the human rights practice. These clarifications help address Jiewuh Song’s and Ana Tanasoca’s queries about practical implications and strengthening implementation avenues. In the final section I cover how my contribution requirements function in judging state legitimacy. Drawing on this discussion I address points from Song’s and Tanasoca’s papers, such as epistemic challenges in assessing contributions to the legitimacy of the state system.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference11 articles.
1. Beitz, C. 2011. The idea of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Brock, G. 2002. Liberal nationalism versus cosmopolitanism: Locating the disputes. Public Affairs Quarterly 16: 307–327.
3. Brock, G. 2009. Global justice: A cosmopolitan account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Brock, G. 2020. Justice for people on the move: Migration in challenging times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Higgins, P. 2022. Migration justice and legitimacy. Res Publica 28 (3): 425–433.