In the public debate it is easy to discern two camps expressing opposing and deeply held moral beliefs. A struggle between on the one hand a primarily national outlook and particularistic ethic in which the interests and identities of the current members of society set clear limits to the obligations that the state should take upon itself, and one the other an universalistic ethical view which highlights human rights and humanitarian needs, and criticices the exclusionary consequences of the nationalistic outlook.

In this dissertation the struggle between these two moral and political views is discussed within the realm of liberal political theory. Liberalism is commonly assumed to be universalistic by its nature, and thus critical of the rights and practices of states to exclude outsiders and prioritize members. But the relationship between liberalism and nationalism is not straitforward. Proponents of what is called liberal nationalism press the point that it is often within traditional nation states that liberal ideals of individual liberty and equality has been achieved, and they argue that liberal theory as well as practise should reflect that egalitarian and democratic institutions are dependent on a degree of cohesion, trust and solidarity that a world organized in accordance with universal principles is unlikely to maintain.