IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v54y2006i3p427-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part One

Author

Listed:
  • John Horton

Abstract

Part One of this article seeks to defend the idea of associative political obligations against a number of criticisms that have been advanced opposing it. The purpose of this defence is not to demonstrate that the associative account is therefore the best explanation of political obligations, but only that the principal reasons which have been given for rejecting it are much less compelling than its critics maintain. The argument focuses in particular on the various criticisms advanced by A. John Simmons. Two general lines of defence figure especially prominently. First, it is shown how many of the criticisms in one way or another ultimately rest on the assumption that political obligations must be voluntarily acquired, when it is just this assumption that is contested by an associative account. Secondly, it rebuts the charge that the idea of associative obligations faces a particular problem because it entails the view that members must have obligations to associations or groups that are evil. While it is not claimed that the idea of associative political obligations is entirely without difficulties, it is contended that stories of its demise are greatly exaggerated, and in this respect the ground is laid for Part Two of the article, which sketches a particular account of associative political obligations.

Suggested Citation

  • John Horton, 2006. "In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part One," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 427-443, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:54:y:2006:i:3:p:427-443
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00621.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00621.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00621.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George Klosko, 1998. "Fixed Content of Political Obligations," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 46(1), pages 53-67, March.
    2. Richard Dagger, 2000. "Membership, Fair Play, and Political Obligation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 104-117, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Mason, 2009. "Environmental Obligations and the Limits of Transnational Citizenship," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 280-297, June.
    2. Richard Vernon, 2007. "Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 865-879, December.
    3. John Horton, 2007. "In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part Two," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 1-19, March.
    4. John Horton, 2007. "Defending Associative Political Obligations: A Response to Richard Vernon," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 880-884, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel McDermott, 2004. "Fair‐Play Obligations," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 52(2), pages 216-232, June.
    2. Isaac Taylor, 2017. "Data collection, counterterrorism and the right to privacy," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 16(3), pages 326-346, August.
    3. John Horton, 2007. "In Defence of Associative Political Obligations: Part Two," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(1), pages 1-19, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:54:y:2006:i:3:p:427-443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.