On the Distinctive Procedural Wrong of Colonialism

on the unequal structure of the political decision procedures characterizing colonial settings, rather than on their outcomes. 2 Ypi's view is elegant, parsimonious and intuitively appealing.But upon scrutiny, it turns out to be unsustainable.Seeing why this is so is instructive, and sheds light on the nature of the wrong of colonialism.My argument proceeds as follows.In Section I, I present Ypi's account of the distinctive procedural wrong of colonialism, and note that it is susceptible to two interpretations: an "aggregate" and a "corporate" one.In Sections II and III, I explain why neither interpretation is convincing.The aggregate interpretation over-reaches: it leads us to condemn as wrongful a range of practices that are instead fully justified.The corporate interpretation problematically presupposes that collective entities are fundamental units of moral concern, contrary to normative individualism.The difficulties with Ypi's view prompt me to suggest, in Section IV, that either there is no distinctive procedural wrong attached to the unilateral takeover of political collectives or, if there is, this wrong was virtually never instantiated in real-world cases of colonization.I thus conclude that, although colonialism was wrong for countless reasons, there is no distinctive procedural wrong of colonialism. I. Ypi's account of the wrong of colonialismWhat is colonialism?Ypi understands it as a "practice that involves collective political agents," whereby some such agents (the colonizers) subjugate others (the colonized) and exercise "political and economic control" over them. 3For Ypi, colonialism so understood is always wrong-indeed, she asks her readers to grant as 2 Ibid., p. 163.3 Ibid., p. 162, added emphasis.Ypi notes that while political collectives are typically territorially organized, this territorial dimension is not relevant to the analysis of the wrong of colonialism.