Hong Do

There is limited research on international legitimacy from the perspective of ordinary citizens in non-democratic states. These citizens have restricted opportunities for political participation and lack the means to hold their representatives accountable in both domestic and international decision-making processes. Meanwhile, international institutions exert varying degrees of authority over them. Therefore, for international institutions to be legitimate, they must provide a moral justification for their political authority over these individuals. This paper argues that legitimate international institutions must offer citizens of non-democratic states adequate opportunities for political participation.

The prevailing belief, both within the immigration literature and in current political debate, is that the cornerstone of resolving immigration issues is the attainment of citizenship. In contrast, this article delves deeper into the plight of citizens with a perceived immigration background. We argue that formal equal citizenship does not alleviate the morally objectionable patterns of social inequality experienced by these citizens. To elaborate further, we insist that citizens with a perceived immigration background are often not treated equally by social institutions or by their fellow citizens. To address this concern, we argue that these citizens have a claim against being treated as strangers, aliens, and nonmembers of society, which is grounded in the public and equal advancement of the fundamental interest in ‘being at home’.