Abstract
For decades, the theoretical discussion on justice has been unsuccessfully looking for convincing solutions to the moral problems connected to the persistence of (porous) borders in international politics. These problems are especially striking when one looks at the mismatch between the claims of international migrants and the arguments deployed by several contemporary liberal states in order to justify the rejection of those claims. Critically analysing how the most influential accounts of domestic and global justice deal with the issue of migration, the essay reveals the main weaknesses of the two approaches. It is argued that while theories of justice focusing on domestic justice seem unable to transcend the dichotomous logic of inclusion and exclusion because of their partial and biased interpretation of the phenomenon of migration, theories of global justice offer a multidimensional and well-balanced reading of international migration, but the solutions they propose do not rely on an accurate reading of the impact of global political dynamics on the management of international migration. In order to overcome the weaknesses of both approaches, a new research agenda is needed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
