ABSTRACT
The all-subjected principle applies to the state only if the state claims the authority to regulate conduct by binding decisions. A distinction is made between the causal and the normative powers of the state. The authority claimed by the state derives from the normative powers conferred on it by the legal system. According to the consequent ‘authority account’, the state claims the legitimate legal authority to regulate conduct by binding decisions. This view is contrasted with two rival accounts: the brute force account and the moral account.
