Kim Angell
Biographic Data
| ID | 4372029 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Kim Angell |
| GIVEN NAMES | Kim |
| FAMILY NAME | Angell |
| SIGNATURE | ANGELL K |
| AFFILIATIONS | University of Oslo |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-2748-6210 |
| VERIFIED | Yes |
| TOTAL WORKS | 12 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 25 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 12 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2012 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2026 |
| H-INDEX | 3 |
Kolodny beyond the state: On claims against inferiority and territorial rights
According to Niko Kolodny, each person has a fundamental claim against standing in relations of inferiority to others. In his recent book, The Pecking Order, Kolodny masterfully demonstrates how this claim illuminates a surprisingly wide range of fundamental issues in political philosophy – from the citizen’s complaint against the state to the nature and justification of democracy. Notably, Kolodny focuses on ‘domestic’ questions – concerning peo…
Should We Increase Young People’s Voting Power
This paper argues that democratic collectives have reason to increase the voting power of their younger members. It first presents an intuitive case for weighted voting in general, before drawing support from a prominent principle of democratic inclusion – the all-affected principle. On a plausible understanding of that principle, a decision may affect people to varying degrees, and this variation should be reflected in the strength of their say.…
States, cities, and border control: Do sub‐state collectives have a right to protect vulnerable people on the move
It is beyond doubt that states everywhere practice discretionary border control. However, in normative political theory, there is vigorous debate about the justifiability of this practice. Some theorists appeal to border crossers’ interest in free movement, envisioning an open borders utopia, while others emphasize the value of collective self‐determination, defending strong border control rights for states. Both perspectives focus on two primary…
Should Rawlsian end-state principles be constrained by popular beliefs about justice
Although many accept the Rawlsian distinction between ‘end-state’ and ‘transitional’ principles, theorists disagree strongly over which feasibility constraint to use when selecting the former. While ‘minimalists’ favor a scientific-laws-only constraint, ‘non-minimalists’ believe that end-state principles should also be constrained by what people could (empirically) accept after reasoned discussion. I argue that a theorist who follows ‘non-minimal…
New territorial rights for sinking island states
Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to the people of sinking island states. When their territories inevitably disappear, what, if anything, do the world's remaining territorial states owe them? According to a prominent ‘nationalist’ approach to territorial rights – which distributes such rights according to the patterns of attachment resulting from people's incorporation of particular territories into their ways of life – the is…
A Life Plan Principle of Voting Rights
Who should have a right to participate in a polity’s decision-making? Although the answers to this ‘boundary problem’ in democratic theory remain controversial, it is widely believed that the enfranchisement of tourists and children is unacceptable. Yet, the two most prominent inclusion principles in the literature – Robert Goodin’s ‘all (possibly) affected interests’-principle and the ‘all subjected to law’-principle – both enfranchise those gro…
Secession and political capacity
We argue that plebiscitary theories of secession have more permissive implications than has thus far been recognized, by proponents and critics alike. The plebiscitary theory aims to devise a principle for the moral right to secede. This principle implies, we claim, that the view under many circumstances is unable to distinguish between secession of collectives and individuals. Thus, not only large groups like the Catalans and the Scots, but also…
The All Affected Principle, and the weighting of votes
In this article we defend the view that, on the All Affected Principle of voting rights, the weight of a person’s vote on a decision should be determined by and only by the degree to which that decision affects her interests, independently of her voting weights on other decisions. Further, we consider two recent alternative proposals for how the All Affected Principle should weight votes, and give reasons for rejecting both
Resource Rights: Expanding the Scope of Liberal Theories
What is a just global distribution of resources? According to liberal theories of resource rights, a just distribution is sensitive to how resources support people’s life plans or identity-conferring practices. A minimum share of some resources, like water and air, are necessary for anyone’s plans or practices. They can therefore be claimed by us all, simply as human beings. Apart from such general claims to generic resources, liberal theories wi…
A Forward-Looking Justification of Territorial Rights
According to a prominent forward-looking justification of territorial (jurisdictional) rights, people may establish such rights over a piece of land if they develop economic and/or religious-cultural life plans the satisfaction of which requires controlling it. This argument suffers from a gap problem. The relevant life plans can be satisfied without granting their holders jurisdictional authority. Having lesser entitlements, such as occupancy ri…
Should Irregular Immigrants Be (Rapidly) Enfranchised
Theories of voting rights differ quite sharply with regard to whether or not they support (rapid) enfranchisement of irregular immigrants. In this paper, we first outline these theories and their implications. We then assess a number of reasons against rapidly enfranchising irregular immigrants. We find, on reflection, that none of these reasons are persuasive. While this result is not in itself sufficient to draw strong conclusions, it does offe…
Do Insecure Property Rights Ground Rights of Jurisdiction? Miller on Territorial Justice
New territorial rights for sinking island states
Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to the people of sinking island states. When their territories inevitably disappear, what, if anything, do the world's remaining territorial states owe them? According to a prominent ‘nationalist’ approach to territorial rights – which distributes such rights according to the patterns of attachment resulting from people's incorporation of particular territories into their ways of life – the is…
Should Irregular Immigrants Be (Rapidly) Enfranchised
Theories of voting rights differ quite sharply with regard to whether or not they support (rapid) enfranchisement of irregular immigrants. In this paper, we first outline these theories and their implications. We then assess a number of reasons against rapidly enfranchising irregular immigrants. We find, on reflection, that none of these reasons are persuasive. While this result is not in itself sufficient to draw strong conclusions, it does offe…
The All Affected Principle, and the weighting of votes
In this article we defend the view that, on the All Affected Principle of voting rights, the weight of a person’s vote on a decision should be determined by and only by the degree to which that decision affects her interests, independently of her voting weights on other decisions. Further, we consider two recent alternative proposals for how the All Affected Principle should weight votes, and give reasons for rejecting both
A Forward-Looking Justification of Territorial Rights
According to a prominent forward-looking justification of territorial (jurisdictional) rights, people may establish such rights over a piece of land if they develop economic and/or religious-cultural life plans the satisfaction of which requires controlling it. This argument suffers from a gap problem. The relevant life plans can be satisfied without granting their holders jurisdictional authority. Having lesser entitlements, such as occupancy ri…
Do Insecure Property Rights Ground Rights of Jurisdiction? Miller on Territorial Justice
Do Insecure Property Rights Ground Rights of Jurisdiction? Miller on Territorial Justice
A Forward-Looking Justification of Territorial Rights
According to a prominent forward-looking justification of territorial (jurisdictional) rights, people may establish such rights over a piece of land if they develop economic and/or religious-cultural life plans the satisfaction of which requires controlling it. This argument suffers from a gap problem. The relevant life plans can be satisfied without granting their holders jurisdictional authority. Having lesser entitlements, such as occupancy ri…
Should Irregular Immigrants Be (Rapidly) Enfranchised
Theories of voting rights differ quite sharply with regard to whether or not they support (rapid) enfranchisement of irregular immigrants. In this paper, we first outline these theories and their implications. We then assess a number of reasons against rapidly enfranchising irregular immigrants. We find, on reflection, that none of these reasons are persuasive. While this result is not in itself sufficient to draw strong conclusions, it does offe…
Resource Rights: Expanding the Scope of Liberal Theories
What is a just global distribution of resources? According to liberal theories of resource rights, a just distribution is sensitive to how resources support people’s life plans or identity-conferring practices. A minimum share of some resources, like water and air, are necessary for anyone’s plans or practices. They can therefore be claimed by us all, simply as human beings. Apart from such general claims to generic resources, liberal theories wi…
A Life Plan Principle of Voting Rights
Who should have a right to participate in a polity’s decision-making? Although the answers to this ‘boundary problem’ in democratic theory remain controversial, it is widely believed that the enfranchisement of tourists and children is unacceptable. Yet, the two most prominent inclusion principles in the literature – Robert Goodin’s ‘all (possibly) affected interests’-principle and the ‘all subjected to law’-principle – both enfranchise those gro…
Secession and political capacity
We argue that plebiscitary theories of secession have more permissive implications than has thus far been recognized, by proponents and critics alike. The plebiscitary theory aims to devise a principle for the moral right to secede. This principle implies, we claim, that the view under many circumstances is unable to distinguish between secession of collectives and individuals. Thus, not only large groups like the Catalans and the Scots, but also…
The All Affected Principle, and the weighting of votes
In this article we defend the view that, on the All Affected Principle of voting rights, the weight of a person’s vote on a decision should be determined by and only by the degree to which that decision affects her interests, independently of her voting weights on other decisions. Further, we consider two recent alternative proposals for how the All Affected Principle should weight votes, and give reasons for rejecting both
New territorial rights for sinking island states
Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to the people of sinking island states. When their territories inevitably disappear, what, if anything, do the world's remaining territorial states owe them? According to a prominent ‘nationalist’ approach to territorial rights – which distributes such rights according to the patterns of attachment resulting from people's incorporation of particular territories into their ways of life – the is…
Should Rawlsian end-state principles be constrained by popular beliefs about justice
Although many accept the Rawlsian distinction between ‘end-state’ and ‘transitional’ principles, theorists disagree strongly over which feasibility constraint to use when selecting the former. While ‘minimalists’ favor a scientific-laws-only constraint, ‘non-minimalists’ believe that end-state principles should also be constrained by what people could (empirically) accept after reasoned discussion. I argue that a theorist who follows ‘non-minimal…
Should We Increase Young People’s Voting Power
This paper argues that democratic collectives have reason to increase the voting power of their younger members. It first presents an intuitive case for weighted voting in general, before drawing support from a prominent principle of democratic inclusion – the all-affected principle. On a plausible understanding of that principle, a decision may affect people to varying degrees, and this variation should be reflected in the strength of their say.…
States, cities, and border control: Do sub‐state collectives have a right to protect vulnerable people on the move
It is beyond doubt that states everywhere practice discretionary border control. However, in normative political theory, there is vigorous debate about the justifiability of this practice. Some theorists appeal to border crossers’ interest in free movement, envisioning an open borders utopia, while others emphasize the value of collective self‐determination, defending strong border control rights for states. Both perspectives focus on two primary…
Kolodny beyond the state: On claims against inferiority and territorial rights
According to Niko Kolodny, each person has a fundamental claim against standing in relations of inferiority to others. In his recent book, The Pecking Order, Kolodny masterfully demonstrates how this claim illuminates a surprisingly wide range of fundamental issues in political philosophy – from the citizen’s complaint against the state to the nature and justification of democracy. Notably, Kolodny focuses on ‘domestic’ questions – concerning peo…
Political science (11 works) · Law (10 works) · Sociology (10 works) · Law and economics (9 works) · Political Philosophy and Ethics (9 works) · Politics (9 works) · Law (8 works) · Philosophy (5 works) · Political economy (4 works) · Political philosophy (4 works)