Transboundary associations as agents of boundary transformation

References

• Ahlhaus, S. 2020. Die Grenzen des Demos: Mitgliedschaftspolitik aus postsouveräner Perspektive. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Armour, R. 2017. “From Refugee to Chief Executive: Zazai’s Story of Hope.” TFN Magazine, September 26 2017. Accessed February 10, 2023. https://tfn.scot/features/from-refugee-to-chief-executive-zazais-story-of-hope.
   Google Scholar
• Arrhenius, G. 2005. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory.” In Democracy Unbound: Basic Explorations I, edited by F. Tersman, 14–28. Stockholm: Filosofiska institutionen, Stockholms Universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Arrhenius, G. 2018. “The Democratic Boundary Problem Reconsidered.” Ethics, Politics & Society – A Journal in Moral and Political Philosophy, N. 1:89–122. https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.1.1.52.
   Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2002. Politics and the Other Scene. London and New York: Verso books.
   Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2004. We, the People of Europe?: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2009. “Europe as Borderland.” Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space 27 (2): 190–215. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2010. “At the Borders of Citizenship: A Democracy in Translation?” European Journal of Social Theory 13 (3): 315–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431010371751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2014. Equaliberty: Political Essays. Durham: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2015. Citizenship. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Balibar, É. 2017. Citizen Subject: Foundations for Philosophical Anthropology. New York: Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 2004. The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 2006. Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 2011. Dignity in Adversity: Human Rights in Troubled Times. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benhabib, S. 2018. Exile, Statelessness, and Migration: Playing Chess with History from Hannah Arendt to Isaiah Berlin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boonen, C. 2022. “Étienne Balibar on the Dialectic of Universal Citizenship.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 48 (6): 904–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211042611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brambilla, C. 2015. “Exploring the Critical Potential of the Borderscapes Concept.” Geopolitics 20 (1): 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2014.884561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Celikates, R. 2019. “Constituent Power Beyond Exceptionalism: Irregular Migration, Disobedience, and (Re-)Constitution.” Journal of International Political Theory 15 (1): 67–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088218808311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, J. 2011. “Cosmopolitan or Colonial? The World Social Forum as “Contact Zone”.” Third World Quarterly 32 (2): 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2011.560466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, J., and J. Singh. 2009. “Is the World Social Forum a Transnational Public Sphere? Nancy Fraser, Critical Theory and the Containment of Radical Possibility.” Theory, Culture & Society 26 (5): 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409106350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 2004. Democracy and Education. New ed. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Donahue, T. J., and P. Ochoa Espejo. 2016. “The Analytical–Continental Divide: Styles of Dealing with Problems.” European Journal of Political Theory 15 (2): 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885115585324.
   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
• Fichte, J. G. 2008. Fichte: Addresses to the German Nation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser, N. 2008. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Oxford: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. 2008. Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, R. E. 2016. “Enfranchising all Subjected, Worldwide.” International Theory; Int. Theory 8 (3): 365–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GWP. 2017. “Transboundary Organisations (B3.01).” Accessed February 10, 2023. https://www.gwp.org/en/learn/iwrm-toolbox/Institutional_Arrangements/coordination_and_facilitation/Transboundary_organisations/.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser, W. 2007. Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497056
   Google Scholar
• Kapoor, N., and K. Narkowicz. 2019. “Characterising Citizenship: Race, Criminalisation and the Extension of Internal Borders.” Sociology 53 (4): 652–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518820250.
   Google Scholar
• Keane, J., and P. Meir. 1989. “Editors’ Preface.” In Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society, edited by John Keane and Paul Mier, 1–9. London: Hutchinson Radius.
   Google Scholar
• Kelliher, D. 2014. “Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984–5.” History Workshop Journal 77 (1): 240–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/hwj/dbt012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelliher, D. 2017. “Contested Spaces: London and the 1984–5 Miners’ Strike.” Twentieth Century British History 28 (4): 595–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/tcbh/hwx029.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khagram, S. 2002. “Restructuring the Global Politics of Development: The Case of India’s Narmada Valley Dams.” In Restructuring World Politics – Transnational Social Movements, Networks, and Norms, edited by S. Khagram, J. Riker, and K. Sikkink, 206–230. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laine, J. P. 2021. “Beyond Borders: Towards the Ethics of Unbounded Inclusiveness.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 36 (5): 745–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2021.1924073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., and S. Aksartova. 2002. “Ordinary Cosmopolitanisms: Strategies for Bridging Racial Boundaries among Working-Class Men.” Theory, Culture & Society 19 (4): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276402019004001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LGSM. 1986. All Out! Dancing in Dulais [Motion picture]. Accessed January 25, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHJhbwEcgrA.
   Google Scholar
• Longo, M. 2018. The Politics of Borders : Sovereignty, Security, and the Citizen After 9/11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lovera-Bilderbeek, S. 2020. “The World Social Forum between Politics and NGOs.” Globalizations 17 (2): 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2019.1670960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieson, K. 2021. “Reality of Seeking Asylum Means Little Choice for Desperate People - Sabir Zazai.” The Scotsman, June 21, 2021. Accessed February 2, 2023. https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/reality-of-seeking-asylum-means-little-choice-for-desperate-people-sabir-zazai-3279707.
   Google Scholar
• Melucci, A. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. London: Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Milstein, B. 2015. Commercium: Critical Theory from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
   Google Scholar
• Milstein, B. 2017. “A Tale of Two Demoi: Boundaries and Democracy beyond the Sovereign Point of View.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 43 (7): 724–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453716658691.
   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
• Owen, D. 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/10.3402/egp.v5i3.18617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patberg, M. 2020. “Extraordinary Partisanship in the European Union: Constituent Power and the Problem of Political Agency.” Constellations 27 (1): 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patberg, M. 2021. Constituent Power in the European Union. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pegg, C. H. 1983. Evolution of the European Idea, 1914–1932. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rumford, C. 2013. “Towards a Vernacularized Border Studies: The Case of Citizen Borderwork.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 28 (2): 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2013.854653.
   Google Scholar
• Schwiertz, H. 2021. “Radical Democratic Theory and Migration: The Refugee Protest March as a Democratic Practice.” Philosophy & Social Criticism. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453721996398.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. W. 2020. “Introduction to a Research Agenda for Border Studies.” In A Research Agenda for Border Studies, edited by J. W. Scott, 3–24. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Stoler, A. 2020. “Interior Frontiers.” In Thinking with Balibar: A Lexicon of Conceptual Practice, edited by A. Stoler, S. Gourgouris, and J. Lezra, 117–139. New York: Fordham University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Táíwò, O. O. 2020. “Civility as Self-Determination.” Philosophy East and West 70 (4): 1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1353/pew.2020.0076.
   Google Scholar
• Valdez, I. 2019. Transnational Cosmopolitanism: Kant, Du Bois, and Justice as a Political Craft. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. 2006. “Cosmopolitan Norms.” In Another Cosmopolitanism, edited by R. Post, 83–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whelan, F. 1983. “Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.” Nomos 25, Liberal Democracy: 13–47.
   Google Scholar
• White, J., and L. Ypi. 2017. “The Politics of Peoplehood.” Political Theory 45 (4): 439–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591715608899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolkenstein, F. 2020. “Transnational Partisan Networks and Constituent Power in the EU.” Constellations (Oxford, England) 27 (1): 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yuval-Davis, N. 2006. “Belonging and the Politics of Belonging.” Patterns of Prejudice 40 (3): 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220600769331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuval-Davis, N., G. Wemyss, and K. Cassidy. 2019. Bordering. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar