Global surveillance and the boundary problem: What challenges does international surveillance pose to democratic theory?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54885/AUB-SP-EBUM6357Keywords:
surveillance, boundary problem, democracy, legitimacy, SnowdenAbstract
The article analyzes how the emergence of bulk international surveillance impacts the boundary problem in political theory. It first describes how the boundary problem was defined and developed as well as the solutions proposed in the literature. Then, the paper analyzes surveillance as a violation of privacy which has a chilling effect and presents the specificities of bulk collection of electronic information. The main argument of the article is that the permanent uncertainty that bulk international surveillance causes triggers the need for a cosmopolitan legal regime to govern it under any of the solutions proposed to the boundary problem.References
ABIZADEH, Arash. 2021. The scope of the All-Subjected Principle: On the logical structure of coercive laws. Analysis 81(4): 603-610. https://doi.org/10.1093/an alys/anab041
ABIZADEH, Arash. 2008. Democratic theory and border coercion: no right to unilaterally control your own borders. Political Theory 36(1): 37-65. https://doi.o rg/10.1177/0090591707310090
ABIZADEH, Arash. 2007. Cooperation, pervasive impact, and coercion: on the scope (not site) of distributive justice. Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (4): 318-358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2007.00116.x
ANDERSON, David. 2016. Report on Bulk Powers Review. London: UK Government. https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201 6/08/Bulk-Powers-Review-final-report.pdf.
ANDRIC, Vuko. 2021. Is the all-subjected principle extensionally adequate? Res Publica 27 (3): 387-407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09479-9
ARRHENIUS, Gustaf. 2005. The boundary problem in democratic theory. In Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations, eds. Gustaf Arrhenius & Folke Tersman, 14-29. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Filosofiska institutionen.
BAUBӦCK, Rainer. 2018. Democratic inclusion: Rainer Bauböck in dialogue. Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526105257.00007
BAUBӦCK, Rainer. 2015. Morphing the Demos into the right shape. Normative principles for enfranchising resident aliens and expatriate citizens. Democratization 22(5): 820-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2014.988146
BAUBӦCK, Rainer. 2009. Global Justice, Freedom of Movement and Democratic Citizenship. European Journal of Sociology 50(1): 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000 397560900040X
BECKMAN, Ludvig. 2014. The subjects of collectively binding decisions: Democratic inclusion and extraterritorial law. Ratio Juris 27(2): 252-270. https://doi.org/10.1 111/raju.12038
BECKMAN, Ludvig. 2012. Is residence special? Democracy in the age of migration and human mobility. In Territories of citizenship, eds. Ludvig Beckman & Eva Erman, 18-39. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137031709_2
BECKMAN, Ludvig. 2006. Citizenship and Voting Rights: Should Resident Aliens Vote? Citizenship Studies 10(2): 153-165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020600633093
BELLABY, Ross W. 2014. The ethics of intelligence: A new framework. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203383575
DWORKIN, Ronald. 2002. Sovereign virtue: The theory and practice of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c3pd0r
ERMAN, Eva. 2022. The boundary problem of democracy: A function-sensitive view. Contemporary Political Theory 21(1): 1-22.
ERMAN, Eva. 2014. The boundary problem and the ideal of democracy. Constellations 21(4): 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12116
GOODIN, Robert. 2016. Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide. International Theory 8(3): 365-389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000105
GOODIN, Robert. 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
HABERMAS, Jürgen. 1997. Popular sovereignty as procedure. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, eds. James Bohman & William Rehg, 35-65. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
LÓPEZ-GUERRA, Claudio. 2005. Should expatriates vote? Journal of Political Philosophy 13 (2): 216-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2005.00221.x
LUBIN, Asaf A. 2017. We Only Spy on Foreigners: The Myth of a Universal Right to Privacy and the Practice of Foreign Mass Surveillance. Chicago Journal of International Law 18(2): 502-552. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3008428
MacASKILL, Ewen & Gabriel DANCE. 2013. NSA Files Decoded: What the Revelations means for you. The Guardian, 1 November, https://www.theguardian.com/w orld/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded
MANOKHA, Ivan. 2018. Surveillance, panopticism, and self-discipline in the digital age. Surveillance & Society 16(2): 219-237. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v16i2.8346
MILLER, David. 2020. Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem. Philosophy Compass 15(11): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12707
OWEN, David. 2012. Constituting the polity, constituting the demos: on the place of the all affected interests principle in democratic theory and in resolving the democratic boundary problem. Ethics & Global Politics 5(3): 129-152. https://doi.org/10.340 2/egp.v5i3.18617
PÂRVU, Camil. 2015. The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Cosmopolitan Implications. In Cosmopolitanism Without Foundations?, ed. Tamara Cărăuș & Dan Lazea, 93-114. London: Zeta Books. https://doi.org/10.5840/zeta-cosmopolitanism20156
POSNER, Richard A. 1977. The right of privacy. Georgia Law Review 12: 393. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700005926
RICHARDS, Neil M. 2012. The dangers of surveillance. Harvard Law Review 126: 1934.
SHUBBER, Kadhim. 2013. A simple guide to the Prism controversy. Wired, 10 June, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/simple-guide-to-prism
SONG, Sarah. 2012. The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state. International Theory 4(1): 39-68. https://doi.org/10.101 7/S1752971911000248
SPITZER, Aaron John. 2022. Approaching the boundary problem: Self-determination, inclusion, and the unpuzzling of transboundary conflicts. Journal of International Political Theory 18(2): 244-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/17550882211020386
THEUNS, Tom. 2021. Pluralist democracy and non-ideal democratic legitimacy: Against functional and global solutions to the boundary problem in democratic theory. Democratic Theory 8(1): 23-49. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2021.080103
WARREN, Samuel, & Louis D. BRANDEIS. 1890. Right to privacy. Harvard. Law Review 4:193. https://doi.org/10.2307/1321160
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Analele Universității din București. Științe politice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
