Envíe este artículo por correo electrónico El desafío de la igualdad domestica a la apertura de las fronteras: el argumento de la singularidad de la coacción estatal | The challenge of domestic equality to the opening of borders: the argument of the singularity of state coercion
Resumen
Resumen: Este trabajo examina uno de los argumentos más relevantes empleado para justificar que los integrantes de una misma comunidad política se deban mutuamente deberes de justicia distributiva más exigentes y fuertes que lo que tienen respecto al resto de seres humanos, hasta el punto de justificar un sistema de fronteras cerradas similar al actual. Se trata del que cabría denominar como “argumento de la singularidad de la coacción estatal”. El mismo asume como premisa empírica que dicha coacción es estructural y funcionalmente diferente a la que podamos encontrar en el ámbito internacional, incluida la que se ejerce a través de la prevención y represión directa de la entrada de personas a una determinada comunidad política por medio de los controles fronterizos.
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine one of the most relevant arguments among those used to justify that the members of the same political community owe each other more demanding and strong distribu- tive justice duties than they have with respect to other human beings, to the point of justify a system of closed borders similar to the current one. It is the one that could be denominated like "argument of the singularity of the state coercion". It assumes as an empirical premise that such coercion is structurally and functionally different from what we can find in the international arena, including that which is exercised through the direct prevention and repression of the entry of persons into a given political community by means of border controls.
Texto completo:
PDFReferencias
ABIZADEH, A, “The Special-Obligations Challenge to More Open Borders” en YPI, L. and FINE, S, (eds), Migra- tion in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Mem- bership, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015, pp. 105- 124.
ABIZADEH, A, PANDEY, M. AND ABIZADEH, S. “Wage competition and the special-obligations challenge to more open borders”, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14, 3, 2015, pp. 255-269.
ABIZADEH, A. “Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coer- cion: On the scope (not site) of Distributive Justice”, Phi- losophy and Public Affairs, 35, 4, 2007, pp. 319-358.
ABIZADEH, A., “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion. No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Polit- ical Theory, 36, 1, 2008, pp. 37-65.
ANDERSON, S, “The enforcement approach to coercion”, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, 5, 1, 2010, pp. 1-31.
ARNOLD, D. G., & BOWIE, N. E. “Sweatshops and re- spect for persons”, Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 2, 2003, pp. 221–242.
BAYLES, M. “A Concept of Coercion” en PENNOCK, R. and CHAPMAN, J., Nomos XIV: Coercion, Aldine- Atherton, Inc., Chicago, 1972, pp. 16-29.
BLAKE, M., “Distributive justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30, 3, 2002, pp. 257-296.
BLAKE, M., “Immigration, Jurisdiction and Exclusion”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41, 2, 2013, pp. 103-130.
Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho
BLOOM, T & RISSE, V., “Examining hidden coercion at state borders: why carrier sanctions cannot be justified”, Ethics & Global Politics, 7, 2, 2014, pp. 65-82.
BORJAS, G. y KATZ, L., “The evolution of the Mexican- born workforce in the United State” In BORJAS, G. (ed), Mexican Immigration in the United States, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2007, pp. 15-36.
ENTZINGER, H., “Open borders and the Welfare State” en PÉCOUD, A. and DE GUCHTENEIRE, P. (eds), Migration Without Borders: Essays on the Free Movement of People. Bergham Booksm N. York-Oxford, 2007, pp.119-138.
GOODIN, R., “If people were money...” en BARRY, B. and GOODIN, R. (eds), Free Movement: Ethical Issues in Transnational Migration Of People and of Money, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Penn- sylvania, 1992, pp. 6-22.
HAYEK, A. The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago, Universi- ty of Chicago Press, 1960.
HOWARD, M., “Basic income and Migration Policy: a moral dilemma” Basic Income Studies. An International Journal of Basic Income Research, 1, 1, 2006, pp. 1-22.
IBISTER, J., “A Liberal Argument for Border Controls: Reply to Carens”, International Migrations Review 34, 2, 2000, pp. 629-635.
KUKATHAS, Ch., “The Case for Open Immigration” en COHEN, A and WELLMAN, C. (eds). Contemporary De- bates in Applied Ethics, Willey-Blackwell, Chichester: 2014, pp. 376-388.
LUCAS, J.R, The Principles of Politics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1966.
MACEDO, S., “When and Why Should Liberal Democra- cies Restrict Immigration?” en SMITH, R (ed), Citizenship, Borders and Human Needs, The University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania, 2001, pp. 301-323.
MILLER, D., “Why Immigration Controls are Not Coer- cive: A reply to Arash Abizadeh”, Political Theory, 38, 1, 2010, pp. 111-120.
MILLER, R., Globalizing Justice: The ethics of poverty and power. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
PEVNICK, R., “Political Coertion and The Scope of Dis- tributive Justice”, Political Studies, 56, 2008, pp. 399-413.
POGGE, T., “Are We violating the Human Rights of the World ́s Poor?, Yale Human Rights & Development, 14, 2, 2011, pp. 1-33.
RAZ, J, Practical reasons and norms, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
RAZ, J, The Morality of Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.
Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho
RISSE, M., “What to say about the State”, Social Theory and Practice, 32, 4, 2006, pp. 671-698.
SCHAUER, F. The Force of Law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2015.
SEGLOW, J., “Associative duties and Global Justice”, Journal of Moral Philosophy, 7, 2010, pp. 54-73.
VALENTINI, L. Justice in a Globalized World: A Norma- tive Framework, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
Copyright (c)
Los textos publicados en esta revista están –si no se indica lo contrario– bajo una licencia de Creative Commons: Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional. Puede copiarlos, distribuirlos y comunicarlos públicamente siempre que cite debidamente a su autor/a y el nombre de esta publicación, CEFD | Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho, no los utilice para fines comerciales y no haga con ellos obra derivada. La licencia completa se puede consultar en Creative Commons
La Universitat de València, sus fundaciones y entidades asociadas están adaptadas a la LOPD y al RGPD. Tienen habilitada una dirección lopd@uv.es para cualquier información, sugerencia, petición de ejercicio de derechos y resolución amistosa de controversias en materia de protección de datos de carácter personal. Más información en https://www.uv.es “política de privacidad”.