Democracy, respect for judgement and disagreement on democratic inclusion

References

• Abizadeh, A. (2008). Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political Theory, 36(1), 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591707310090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agné, H. (2010). Why democracy must be global: Self-founding and democratic intervention. International Theory, 2(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971910000254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauböck, R. (2017). Democratic inclusion: Rainer Bauböck in dialogue. Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, L. (2009). The frontiers of democracy: The right to vote and its limits. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Beckman, L. (2019). Deciding the demos: Three conceptions of democratic legitimacy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 22(4), 412–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1390661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. (2000). Waldron on law and disagreement. Law and Philosophy, 19(4), 513–543. DOI:10.2307/3505081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality: Democratic authority and its limits. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Erman, E. (2014). The boundary problem and the ideal of democracy. Constellations, 21(4), 535–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12116
   Google Scholar
• Espejo, P. O. (2014). People, territory, and legitimacy in democratic states. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 466–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12064
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2007). Enfranchising all affected interests, and its alternatives. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35(1), 40–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. (2016). Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide. International Theory, 8(3), 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, C. C. (2004). Globalizing democracy and human rights. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Griffin, C. G. (2003). Democracy as a non–instrumentally just procedure. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement: Why moral conflict cannot be avoided in politics, and what should be done about it. Belknap.
   Google Scholar
• Hinsch, W. (2010). Justice, legitimacy, and constitutional rights. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230903326240
   Google Scholar
• Kassner, J. (2006). Debate: Is everything really up for grabs? The relationship between democratic values and a democratic process. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(4), 482–494. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00261.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, J., & Favor, C. (2017). Distributive justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ed. E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive/
   Google Scholar
• López-Guerra, C. (2014). Democracy and disenfranchisement: The morality of electoral exclusions. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mackie, J. L. (1964). Self-refutation–A formal analysis. The Philosophical Quarterly, 14(56), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2955461
   Google Scholar
• McMahon, C. (2009). Reasonable disagreement: A theory of political morality. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Miklosi, Z., & Moles, A. (2014). Disagreement and legitimacy. Res Publica, 20(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-013-9233-7
   Google Scholar
• Miller, D. (2009). Democracy’s domain. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 37(3), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01158.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Näsström, S. (2011). The challenge of the all-affected principle. Political Studies, 59(1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00845.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. basic book.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, D. (2018). Populus, demos and self-rule. In R. Bauböck (Ed.), Democratic inclusion: Rainer Bauböck in dialogue (pp. 183–203). Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quong, J. (2005). Disagreement, asymmetry, and liberal legitimacy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 4(3), 301–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X05056606
   Google Scholar
• Shafer-Landau, R. (1995). Vagueness, borderline cases and moral realism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 32(1), 83–96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valentini, L. (2013). Justice, disagreement and democracy. British Journal of Political Science, 43(1), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. (1999). Law and disagreement. OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Whelan, F. G. (1983). Prologue: Democratic theory and the boundary problem. Nomos, 25, Liberal Democracy, 13–47.
   Google Scholar
• Whitt, M. (2014). Democracy’s Sovereign enclosures: Territory and the all‐affected principle. Constellations, 21(4), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12122
   Google Scholar