Justifying Extraterritorial Political Obligations

The central question of this paper concerns whether imposing political obligations that apply to nationals beyond the bounds of a state's territory can be justified by liberal accounts of political obligation. Using the example of South Korea's extraterritorial jurisdiction over its citizens' conduct abroad, this paper examines some paradigmatic accounts of political obligation and evaluates the reasons they can give for extraterritorial political obligations. Even when we assume their relative success in accounting for political obligations to particular states in general, the paper argues that none of them are able to adequately account for political obligations that extend beyond a state's territory. Hence, it concludes that there isn't a satisfactory substantive, liberal justification for extraterritorial political obligations for the time being.