ABSTRACT
The previous chapters have argued that people can be subject to the state in the sense relevant for the all-subjected principle to apply. However, specific claims of democratic inclusion depend on the scope of the state’s claimed authority. It is therefore necessary to account also for the extension of the state’s claim to legal authority. Three competing explanations of the scope of state authority are examined and ultimately rejected: the state-based argument, the substantive account, and the coercion account. The view defended holds that a person is subject to the legal system of the state only if subject to legal institutions with the capacity to determine exclusively valid claims to legal authority.
