文章基本信息

标题：Territoriality and Demos in the European Polity
本地全文：下载
作者：Takeshi TSUCHIYA
期刊名称：日本EU学会年報
印刷版ISSN：1884-3123
电子版ISSN：1884-2739
出版年度：2013
卷号：2013
期号：33
页码：143-162
DOI：10.5135/eusj.2013.143
出版社：The European Union Studies Association-Japan
摘要：One main concern about the EU’s democratic deficit is no-demos problem. Supra-nationalists argue that European citizens can constitute a European demos, intergovermentalists refute that. However, the theories of demoi-cracy claim the EU rests on the plurality of demoi (plural form of demos). In this paper, I analyse these theories in terms of boundary problem in democratic theory which re-examines the basis for defining the boundaries of democracy. The main questions are: Does demoi-cracy exclude the third country nationals in the EU? If not, how to include them? And what is the normative foundation for the inclusion? The paper starts with reviewing Cheneval’s Rawlsian demoi-cratic theory which he calls ‘multilateral democracy’. Using Rawlsian original position, he proposes the principles of demoi-cracy. Subsequently, it examines Besson’s deterritorialized demoi-cracy. Her argument is based on affectedness. Although both Cheneval and Besson commit republicanism and deliberative democracy, they differ in terms of the normative foundation for the inclusion of third country nationals. Cheneval gives great weight to the self-determination of statespeoples i.e. nations, and their reciprocity. According to his theory of demoi-cracy, the third country nationals are not included in the original position, but by liberal democratic states and universal deliberation. This demoi-cracy does not offer the foundations for the inclusion of third country nationals. Moreover, it risks the exclusion of them because the EU citizens and the third country nationals are legitimately different political subject. Besson, by contrast, focuses on affected interest irrespective of nationality. However, I argue that she doesn’t offer satisfactory legitimation of the inclusion of third country nationals from the perspective of demoi-cracy. Her theory gaps polity’s reciprocity and individual inclusion. In conclusion, I argue the theories of demoi-cracy still confuse state as nation with as territory, so they should revisit state as ‘territory’ seriously.