The underrated premium of territorial arrival
in The shifting border
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

At the outset of his response to Ayelet Shachar, Jakob Huber observes that political theorists usually ask two kinds of questions when it comes to issues of refugees and asylum: who should be granted refugee status and how the burdens of refugee protection should be distributed among states. Shachar’s essay, by contrast, presents a third puzzle: does it matter from where refugees seek protection. Noting that Shachar herself is drawn to a negative conclusion, Huber makes the contrary case, building on Kant’s conception of cosmopolitan right (Weltbürgerrecht) in order to defend a right of safe passage. He begins by arguing that our answer to the shifting-border phenomenon is contingent on a deeper question concerning the relation between humanitarian claim-making and territorial presence. He then turns to a related interpretive puzzle. Against the widespread “natural law” reading, he puts forward an interpretation that characterizes cosmopolitan mobility as a form of political agency. This allows him to defend a right of safe passage as part and expressive of a broader shift aimed at acknowledging the choice and the voice of refugees. Huber concludes by suggesting that conceiving of mobility as a form of agency invites us to reframe migration as a whole and see it less as a problem than as a regular part of the human condition.

The shifting border

Legal cartographies of migration and mobility: Ayelet Shachar in dialogue


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 97 22 1
Full Text Views 2 2 0
PDF Downloads 1 0 0