ABSTRACT
An additional set of objections against the territorial interpretation of democratic inclusion proceeds from the observation that state borders are arbitrary creations of power-politics. Three distinct readings of this claim are evaluated; the claim that state borders are historically unjust, the claim that state borders are contingent, and the claim that state borders are morally illegitimate. In the end, I conclude that none of these arguments contradict the normative claims supported by the all-subjected principle.
