On "Reframing Justice"

Hello All. Welcome to my blog. Forgive the lack of flair in that intro, I haven't enough sleep for eloquence. Most recently, I read a selection from Nancy Fraser's "Fortunes Of Feminism". In it, Fraser highlights important concepts that suggest a need/lack/inevitable tipping point in the balance between Feminism, Legislation, and [Formerly] Excluded Persons. I'll admit, much of this text went over my head. I did, however, have an image of Fraser's concepts.

She speaks of how prior notions of justice were constructed in a "Keynesian-Westphalian" frame. This frame was built within territorial states, subjecting all those belonging to said territories to said notions of justice. Understandably, there are people who do not in fact fall into this territorial scope, who are not able to enjoy the same notion of justice. That brings up Fraser's point of The "What" and the "Who". The moment we apply a Keynesian-Westphalian frame to justice, we add a Who to the What. This means that rather than just concerning ourselves with the applications of justice, we now have to concern ourselves with Who deserves it.

This leads to my question. Territories didn't seem to be what Fraser wished to combat, but rather the idea that a person outside a territory has to be concerned with their right to have a voice. That these people are twice removed from justice, the first being that they are outside of the territory, and the second being that they have to "earn the right to have rights". Is it a neccesity, that a territory imposes these limitations on one's experience in a society? that a territory framework limits one's ability to fully participate in promoting their own good or Telos? Is it possible to maintain your territory, have the what of justice, but not have the who?