Skip to main content
main-content

Über dieses Buch

This open access book discusses how national citizenship is being transformed by economic, social and political change. It focuses on the emergence of global markets where citizenship is for sale and on how new reproduction technologies impact citizenship by descent. It also discusses the return of banishment through denationalisation of terrorist suspects, and the impact of digital technologies, such as blockchain, on the future of democratic citizenship. The book provides a wide range of views on these issues from legal scholars, political scientists, and political practitioners. It is structured as a series of four conversations in which authors respond to each other. This exchange of arguments provides unique depth to current debates about the future of citizenship.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

Premium-Abo der Gesellschaft für Informatik

Sie erhalten uneingeschränkten Vollzugriff auf alle acht Fachgebiete von Springer Professional und damit auf über 45.000 Fachbücher und ca. 300 Fachzeitschriften.

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 69.000 Bücher
  • über 500 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Umwelt
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Testen Sie jetzt 30 Tage kostenlos.

Basis-Abo der Gesellschaft für Informatik

Sie erhalten uneingeschränkten Vollzugriff auf die Inhalte der Fachgebiete Business IT + Informatik und Management + Führung und damit auf über 30.000 Fachbücher und ca. 130 Fachzeitschriften.

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter

Open Access

Correction to: You Can’t Lose What You Haven’t Got: Citizenship Acquisition and Loss in Africa

The footnote given by the author was inadvertently missed in the previously published original version. The footnote is added as “* This blog posting was written in November 2014 and reflects events at that time.

Bronwen Manby

Should Citizenship Be for Sale?

Frontmatter

Open Access

Summary: Global, European and National Questions About the Price of Citizenship

The forum debate ‘Should citizenship be for Sale?’ collected comments representing a wide range of views and some highly original arguments. They can be summarised by distinguishing global, European and national perspectives.

Rainer Bauböck

Open Access

Dangerous Liaisons: Money and Citizenship

Vogue predictions that citizenship is diminishing in relevance or perhaps even vanishing outright, popular among jetsetters who already possess full membership status in affluent democracies, have failed to reach many applicants still knocking on the doors of well-off polities. One can excuse the world’s destitute, those who are willing to risk their lives in search of the promised lands of migration in Europe or America, for not yet having heard the prophecies about citizenship’s decline. But the same is not true for the well-heeled who are increasingly active in the market for citizenship: the ultra-rich from the rest of the world. They are willing to dish out hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain a freshly-minted passport in their new ‘home country.’ That this demand exists is not fully surprising given that this is a world of regulated mobility and unequal opportunity, and a world where not all passports are treated equally at border crossings. Rapid processes of market expansionism have now reached what for many is the most sacrosanct non-market good: membership in a political community. More puzzling is the willingness of governments – our public trustees and legal guardians of citizenship – to engage in processes that come very close to, and in some cases cannot be described as anything but, the sale and barter of membership goods in exchange for a hefty bank wire transfer or large stack of cash.

Ayelet Shachar

Open Access

Cash-for-Passports and the End of Citizenship

Investor citizenship programmes are becoming increasingly commonplace in state practice. What was once the province of outlier Caribbean microstates is gaining traction among more substantial states. Cash-for-passports, as Ayelet Shachar labels the phenomenon, clashes with our received understandings of citizenship as a marker of social solidarity in a Walzerian sense. The emerging market for citizenship literally commodifies the status.But where Shachar sees investor citizenship programmes as a threat to robust citizenship ties, I see them more as a manifestation of citizenship that is already being hollowed out. In the old world, investor citizenship programmes would have been inconceivable.Today, far from inconceivable, they are becoming an accepted element of strategic immigration policy.

Peter J. Spiro

Open Access

Citizenship for Those who Invest into the Future of the State is Not Wrong, the Price Is the Problem

Citizenship-by-investment programs boil down to naturalizing for nothing but money. This is not unfair in itself. However, the amount of the prize reveals how difficult acquiring the citizenship through alternative procedures is. Unfairness is located here.

Magni-Berton Raul

Open Access

The Price of Selling Citizenship

Selling citizenship, even if it (often) appears repugnant, pales in comparison to many of the other inequities attendant on the ordinary transmission of citizenship, as Shachar’s own work has forcefully hammered home. For all that selling citizenship troubles us, it might do us the considerable service of forcing us to think (more) about the way in which many people already obtain citizenship, and the way in which citizenship practices more broadly both feed off, and make it harder to tackle, underlying global inequalities. Writing better citizenship laws can only be part of the solution to that problem. There are many other important ways of tackling global inequalities that deserve at least equal attention.

Chris Armstrong

Open Access

Global Mobility Corridors for the Ultra-Rich. The Neoliberal Transformation of Citizenship

The problem with investment citizenship ain’t that it is for sale, the problem is global inequality. Citizenship-by-investment schemes do not themselves produce injustice but they are unjust because they build on pre-existing large disparities in the world: If all countries were equal in living conditions would the scheme be objectionable? If the answer is no, as I think it is, then the source of injustice is global inequality rather than policies that do not themselves produce injustice.

Roxana Barbulescu

Open Access

The Maltese Falcon, or: my Porsche for a Passport!

Selling passports dilutes the value of citizenship to a tradable commodity, voiding it of the sense of rights and duties and undermining citizens’ solidarity. If states sell citizenship, what the buyer gets will no longer look like citizenship at all.

Jelena Džankić

Open Access

What Is Wrong with Selling Citizenship? It Corrupts Democracy!

Citizenship has two faces: one directed towards other states, the other one directed towards citizens inside the polity. The policy of selling EU passports to investors disfigures both faces. Members states who do so cash in on the added value of EU citizenship created by all the member states jointly rather than by themselves. The global inequality of birthright citizenships will be exacerbated instead of diminished if the most valuable citizenships are sold to wealthy elites. Internally, selling citizenship corrupts democracy in a similar way as vote-buying and once again links the presumptively equal status of citizenship to social class, just as income tests for naturalisation do. As a union of democracies, the EU must be concerned when democracy is corrupted by the rule of money in any of its member states.

Rainer Bauböck

Open Access

What Money Can’t Buy: Face-to-Face Cooperation and Local Democratic Life

At bottom, what makes the golden passport wrong is that it undermines political equality, not that it puts closed communities in question, or shatters the separations between the spheres of justice. What remains priceless is the active face-to-face partaking and building of democratic institutions on the basis of principles of equality and solidarity: that is what money can’t buy.

Paulina Ochoa Espejo

Open Access

If You Do not Like Selling Passports, Give Them for Free to Those Who Deserve Them

While it is difficult to disagree with most of the arguments against monetisation of citizenship, in my view they all aim at the wrong target. It is not the sale of citizenship per se which violates principles of justice and democracy; it is the existing international system of inclusion and exclusion of third country nationals which is deeply skewed and denigrates the value of citizenship. A condition under which anyone would give huge amounts of money for a travel document is deeply troubling. It is not membership but mobility which is at issue.

Vesco Paskalev

Open Access

Citizenship for Real: Its Hypocrisy, Its Randomness, Its Price

Lawyers and political scientists opposed to the idea of selling citizenship will not have any arguments to support their position, should rich misleading assumptions and selfless rhetorical pirouettes – priceless in fiction writing – useless in legal studies – be removed from their often passionate advocacy. I review the usual rotations lending such pirouettes appeal: of the intrinsic value of citizenship, of equality and nondiscrimination, of the arch-importance of the citizenship’s political components and, finally, of EU law concerns. I come to dismiss them all.

Dimitry Kochenov

Open Access

Trading Citizenship, Human Capital and the European Union

The state as a self-determining agent has a clear and well-established interest in structuring ‘access to citizenship’ in ways that support its goals, whether these goals concern economic development, health and social welfare, cultural standing or sporting glory. The legitimacy of the ways in which it pursues these goals is however another question. Practices that support the emergence of transnational class and status stratification in which mobility rights become radically unequally distributed are not compatible with the democratic legitimacy of states or of the EU. States whose policies are pushing to the neoliberal extreme, help bring into focus a wider range of policies that are hollowing out democratic citizenship from within.

David Owen

Open Access

Citizenship for Sale: Could and Should the EU Intervene?

‘Intervention’ is much too strong a word for whatever it is that the European Parliament could and should do on 15 January, when it debates the issue of EU citizenship for sale. But a first and wide-ranging reflection on some of the emerging consequences of EU citizenship for national democracies would at least be a start. 2013 was the year of the EU citizen. It did not do much to raise public awareness about EU citizenship and it ended with moves towards its commodification. Wouldn’t it be appropriate for the European Parliament to start the new year with a real debate on the relation between national and EU citizenship?

Jo Shaw

Open Access

Linking Citizenship to Income Undermines European Values. We Need Shared Criteria and Guidelines for Access to EU Citizenship

The decision by the Maltese Parliament to offer Maltese citizenship – and consequently – EU citizenship to third country nationals who can afford to pay € 650.000 comes as a closure of the EU year of citizens and reflects a worrying trend in the conception of all those rights related to EU citizenship, including above all freedom of movement. If we don’t want to leave a golden opportunity to Eurosceptics, nationalists and populists, we must seize the chance for a leap forward in the European process involving a much wider concept of citizenship than that defined in the letter of the EU Treaties.

Hannes Swoboda

Open Access

Coda

The ‘selling of citizenship’ is indicative of larger and deeper transformations of our conception of political membership. Globally, it exacerbates inequality by securing privileged access to membership for the super-rich. Domestically, it runs the risk of straining civic bonds and democratic solidarity. Taken together, these developments reveal whom the contemporary market-friendly state prioritizes in the admission line and whom it most covets as future citizens.

Ayelet Shachar

Bloodlines and Belonging

Frontmatter

Open Access

Bloodlines and Belonging: Time to Abandon Ius Sanguinis?

The transmission of citizenship status from parents to children is a widespread modern practice that offers certain practical and normative advantages. It is relatively easy to distribute legal status to children according to parents’ citizenship, especially in the context of high mobility where the links between persons and their birthplace are becoming increasingly strained. Granting citizenship status to children of citizens may also be desirable as a way of avoiding statelessness, acknowledging special family links and fostering political links between children and the political community of their parents. These apparent advantages of ius sanguinis citizenship are, however, outweighed by a series of problems. In what follows I argue that ius sanguinis citizenship is (1) historically tainted, (2) increasingly inadequate and (3) normatively unnecessary. Ius sanguinis citizenship is historically tainted because it is rooted in practices and conceptions that rely on ethno-nationalist ideas about political membership. It is inadequate because it becomes increasingly unfit to deal with contemporary issues such as advances in assisted reproduction technologies and changes in family practices and norms. Lastly, ius sanguinis citizenship is normatively unnecessary because its alleged advantages are illusory and can be delivered by other means.

Costica Dumbrava

Open Access

Ius Filiationis: A defence of Citizenship by Descent

Costica Dumbrava runs three main attacks against ius sanguinis: It is tainted by its associations with ethnonationalism; it is inadequate because, in an age of new reproduction technologies, same sex marriage and patchwork families, biological descent no longer traces social parenthood; and it is unnecessary, since its protective effects can be achieved by other means. I will accept the first and second argument with some modifications, but reject the third.

Rainer Bauböck

Open Access

Tainted Law? Why History Cannot provide the Justification for Abandoning Ius Sanguinis

Costica Dumbrava rejects ius sanguinis as 1) historically tainted, 2) increasingly inadequate and 3) normatively unnecessary. In my response, I mainly focus on the first, historical dimension. Drawing on examples from the case of Germany, often used as the prime example to show what is wrong with ius sanguinis, I will contest the idea that ius sanguinis as such has been discredited by history. Its supposed taintedness has to do with issues not intrinsic to this principle of transmitting citizenship, namely restrictive admission practices and racially based exclusion. Its use in certain problematic ways and contexts in the past does not mean it necessarily has to be used like that in the future. If complemented by other, inclusionary mechanisms of allocating citizenship in conjunction with increased tolerance for multiple citizenship it certainly remains a useful – and necessary – method of transmitting citizenship in the day and age of multiple transnational migrations.

Jannis Panagiotidis

Open Access

Family Matters: Modernise, Don’t Abandon, Ius Sanguinis

I appreciate the ideas that Costica Dumbrava and others have introduced into this debate. States’ concerns about the quality and political consequences of their citizenship are important. But citizenship is a two-way street. Our discussion of ius sanguinis laws should extend beyond the concerns of states to also consider the serious practical consequences of citizenship laws on citizens, including the long-term unity and security of their families. Families facing instability or separation because children are denied their parents’ citizenship are unlikely to be satisfied with the explanation that ius sanguinis is inadequate or historically tainted; the resulting individual sense of injustice might even discourage the loyalty and identification states seek in citizens.

Scott Titshaw

Open Access

Abolishing Ius Sanguinis Citizenship: A Proposal Too Restrained and Too Radical

Costica Dumbrava maintains that ius sanguinis citizenship is a historically tainted, outmoded, and unnecessary means of designating political membership. He argues that it is time to abandon it. Dumbrava limits his challenge to ius sanguinis citizenship per se, and even suggests that family-based migration rights could be used to minimise the disruptive effect of abolishing citizenship-by-descent. But his core complaints about ius sanguinis citizenship – the mismatch of biological parentage and political affinity, the difficulties of determining legal parentage – can be, and have been, levied against these various family-based preferences and statuses, which are likely found in every nation’s nationality laws. It is therefore important to consider his proposal in light of the role that the parent-child relationship plays in the regulation of migration, naturalisation, and citizenship more generally. I also argue that, as a remedy for the problems that he has identified, Dumbrava’s proposal is at once too restrained and too radical.

Kristin Collins

Open Access

Citizenship Without Magic

I share Costica Dumbrava’s critique of ius sanguinis citizenship, and ultimately what is, I think, his rejection of birth as the basis for political membership generally. Of course, there are issues of practicality – of the world as we find it – that might limit whether and how one would advance the abolishment of birthright citizenship in light of specific political dynamics. But it is precisely those practicalities, and the near unthinkability of alternatives to birth-based citizenship that demand our interrogation of birthright in the first instance. As Joseph Carens has argued with respect to his advocacy of open borders, ‘even if we must take deeply rooted social arrangements as givens for purposes of immediate action in a particular context, we should never forget about our assessment of their fundamental character. Otherwise we wind up legitimating what should only be endured’.

Lois Harder

Open Access

The Janus-Face of Ius Sanguinis: Protecting Migrant Children and Expanding Ethnic Nations

Costica Dumbrava’s proposal for abandoning ius sanguinis is timely and bold. My intuition is to reject his suggestion that children’s citizenship might be disconnected from that of their parents, but to join his advocacy for a radical rethinking of the ius sanguinis principle with a view towards eliminating it once and for all. These are rather contrasting stances in relation to the same principle. My contribution aims to resolve the apparent contradiction.

Francesca Decimo

Open Access

The Prior Question: What Do We Need State Citizenship for?

In his kick-off contribution, Costica Dumbrava offers a threefold critique of ius sanguinis as a norm of citizenship acquisition. I share the scepticism expressed by various contributors to this Forum. However rather than address Dumbrava’s critique head on, I suggest that the kind of critique of ius sanguinis that he offers gets things moving askew from the start. When asking what citizenship rules we ought to endorse or reject, we ought to begin with a prior question: ‘what do we need state citizenship rules for?’

David Owen

Open Access

No More Blood

Problems have plagued the ius sanguinis principle – the transmission of citizenship from parent to child – for as long as it has existed. Costica Dumbrava is surely correct that the time has come to ask whether ius sanguinis is still necessary. But the core problem with ius sanguinis, I would argue, is not that it uses the parent-child relationship to determine membership but that it overemphasizes the importance of the genetic tie to this relationship.

Kerry Abrams

Open Access

Law by Blood or Blood by Law?

I agree to certain extent with Costica Dumbrava that ius sanguinis encompasses certain problematic issues, especially where it concerns newer forms of procreation, like IVF for lesbian couples and surrogacy. However, the origin of the problem cannot be attributed to ius sanguinis, but to non-solidarity of states that overuse the ordre public exemption for the denial of the recognition of parentage. Ius sanguinis is still the most suitable option for the main purposes of nationality law where it concerns children. I like Bauböck’s proposal of a ius filiationis. I see it, however, more as a change from ‘law by blood’, meaning parentage ties based on blood relationship, to a ‘blood by law’ relationship, meaning that parentage ties are seen to be established by the law. This thus means only an extension of the ‘blood’ definition.

David Armand Jacques Gérard de Groot

Open Access

Limiting the Transmission of Family Advantage: Ius Sanguinis with an Expiration Date

Citizenship is needed from birth, and ius sanguinis citizenship, rather than merely extending unjustified privilege, allows children to live and move with their parents; their continuing citizenship as adults, however, could be made conditional on some period of residence.

Iseult Honohan

Open Access

Retain Ius Sanguinis, but Don’t Take it Literally!

Costica Dumbrava has raised an important question about whether to abandon ius sanguinis citizenship. His arguments are that ius sanguinis is historically tainted and unfit to deal with contemporary issues such as developments in reproductive technologies and changes in family practices and norms. He also claims that ius sanguinis is normatively unnecessary, as it is possible to deliver its advantages by other means. In my response I argue that – from a human rights perspective – children need their parents’ citizenship – or rather, the citizenship of their primary caretakers, be they biological parents or not. Consequently, although I concur with the argument that ius sanguinis, if taken literally, is unfit to deal with some new family arrangements, I do not endorse the viewpoint that it is time to abandon ius sanguinis. Rather, ius sanguinis should be translated into ius filiationis by entitling children to their social parents’ citizenship. In order to achieve mutual understanding about this, states should engage in international cooperation with a view to adopting common guidelines on the recognition of the legal parent-child relationship –as happens already with regard to adoption.

Eva Ersbøll

Open Access

Distributing Some, but Not All, Rights of Citizenship According to Ius Sanguinis

I overall agree with Dumbrava’s argument that ius sanguinis is unable to cope with the diversification of family structures and is not that morally appealing to begin with, I disagree with him on the details, especially with his background assumption that family ties (although not exclusively genetic, as it is presently the case) must play a salient role in the distribution of citizenship – although in the second part of this contribution I do offer a potential defence of his view against what is probably the strongest objection to his argument, which is that the abolishment of ius sanguinis would split families apart. The main question is: Why should we insist on ius sanguinis except because it would ensure that everyone’s human right to citizenship is satisfied? And insofar as statelessness can be equally avoided via ius soli, why should blood ties create an entitlement to citizenship?

Ana Tanasoca

Open Access

Learning from Naturalisation Debates: The Right to an Appropriate Citizenship at Birth

Citizenship has a political and a legal dimension. In his opening contribution, Costica Dumbrava only marginally addresses the legal dimension of citizenship, acknowledging its importance, but suggesting that it is replaceable with alternative arrangements, such as a universal status for children. But in reality much legal baggage is attached to citizenship, and one cannot simply shake it off, even if this appears normatively attractive. The whole human rights movement can be seen as an effort to separate access to legal rights from possessing a status of political membership, and this attempt has not reached its goal (yet). Citizenship is still the ‘right to have rights’. Avoidance of statelessness is therefore not just a legal whim; it is a human rights failsafe mechanism.

Katja Swider, Caia Vlieks

Open Access

Don’t Put the Baby in the Dirty Bathwater! A Rejoinder

It is beyond dispute that any attempt to dislodge a deeply rooted and widespread institution such as ius sanguinis is bound to pose serious practical challenges. However, if one has compelling moral reasons for dismantling such an institution, one ought to work towards this end. Babies are born into a physical world and from actual bodies but they are not naturally born into families and citizenship. The latter are social conventions that demand our acceptance when they are justified and our courage to change and replace them when they are not. To my critics who worried that abolishing ius sanguinis amounts to throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater I reply that we should not put the baby in the dirty bathwater in the first place.

Costica Dumbrava

The Return of Banishment

Frontmatter

Open Access

The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship?

From antiquity to the late 20th century, denationalisation was a tool used by states to rid themselves of political dissidents, convicted criminals and ethnic, religious or racial minorities. The latest target of denationalisation is the convicted terrorist, or the suspected terrorist, or the potential terrorist, or maybe the associate of a terrorist. He is virtually always Muslim and male. Citizenship-stripping is sometimes defended in the name of strengthening citizenship, but it does precisely the opposite. The defining feature of contemporary legal citizenship is that it is secure. Making legal citizenship contingent on performance demotes citizenship to another category of permanent residence. Citizenship revocation thus weakens citizenship itself. It is an illegitimate form of punishment and it serves no practical purpose.

Audrey Macklin

Open Access

Terrorist Expatriation: All Show, No Bite, No Future

Expatriation measures adopted by a handful of countries are ill-advised and possibly unlawful. Denationalisation of terror suspects clearly merits the attention of scholars and activists; after decades of disuse, states are now stepping back into the practice of forced expatriation. But denationalisation is increasingly anachronistic and toothless in the face of diminished conceptions of citizenship as an institution and changed locations of allegiance. The expatriation measures are empty gestures, a kind of counter-terror bravado to make up for the deficiency of more important material responses.

Peter J. Spiro

Open Access

Should Those Who Attack the Nation Have an Absolute Right to Remain Its Citizens?

Macklin is certainly right to worry about the possible abuses of denationalisation. But a liberal constitutional regime can control such abuses by scrupulously controlling the state’s exercise of this power through a variety of familiar institutions and practices. These include a careful definition and exacting limitation of the grounds for revocation; demanding procedural and evidentiary requirements before such a power can be exercised; a right to legal counsel; and an independent judiciary accustomed to challenging state power in the name of protecting individual rights. We have entrusted our precious liberties to the faithful working through of these institutions and practices. Some of these liberties are even more precious than our right to retain our citizenship when we have knowingly acted in horrendous ways that make it justifiable, under the safeguards I describe, for the state to declare that status forfeited.

Peter H. Schuck

Open Access

Terrorists Repudiate Their Own Citizenship

This commentary reflects on the changing nature of terror and of citizenship, which militates against the notion of “cruel” banishment. First, Islamist terror is conducted against indiscriminate “citizens”, so that stripping terrorists of their citizenship seems just the adequate response. Secondly, citizenship is ever more privilege and contract, so it is odd to conceive of it as something that can never be lost. In fact, terrorists repudiate their own citizenship.

Christian Joppke

Open Access

It’s Not About Their Citizenship, it’s About Ours

Today’s rush to strip terrorist suspects of their citizenship should arouse suspicion. One is easily tempted to think that we are living in extraordinarily dangerous times, which warrant a return to what the US Supreme Court considered to be ‘cruel punishment’ half a century ago. Yet as a matter of statistics, and despite our contrary impressions, violence of all kinds in the world is actually declining. On the other hand, the capacity of law enforcement agencies for surveillance and control, especially in the OECD countries, has increased dramatically, so the return to practices which have long been abandoned is difficult to justify. This is not to say that that citizenship is a sacred cow and any return to abandoned practices is excluded by some historic laws of human progress. But it does follow that the proponents of banishment must provide a more subtle justification than we have seen so far.

Vesco Paskalev

Open Access

You Can’t Lose What You Haven’t Got:Citizenship Acquisition and Loss in Africa

This chapter outlines the legal provisions on loss and deprivation of nationality in Africa, and the way in which they are implemented in practice. It highlights differences from the European and North American context for most discussion around nationality deprivation on security grounds.

Bronwen Manby

Open Access

Revocation of Citizenship of Terrorists: A Matter of Political Expediency

Revocation of citizenship means a substantial interference with individual rights. It can only be justified if tightly defined material conditions in accordance with the constitutional law of each country and its international commitments are fulfilled. Risk assessment and proof of an affiliation, assistance or membership in an international terrorist organisation will be essential elements in this procedure. Whether there is a practical value in revocation of citizenship for citizens engaged in international terrorism in addition to criminal and administrative sanctions is within the framework of law a matter of political expediency which may well lead to different results in different countries.

Kay Hailbronner

Open Access

Whose Bad Guys Are Terrorists?

Denationalising terrorists is neither a necesssary nor an effective tool in fighting terrorism. It is instead a symbolic gesture that aims to affirm the basic values of a liberal constitution and an attempt to divert terrorist threats by inflicting them on other states. I argue that stripping terrorist suspects of their citizenship cannot be justified on either of these grounds.

Rainer Bauböck

Open Access

Human Rights for All Is Better than Citizenship Rights for Some

The best way to avoid The calamities of the rightless for whom no law exists (Arendt) is not only to strengthen citizenship protections. That may well have the perverse consequences of, on the one hand, rendering citizenship ever harder to achieve, and on the other, relegating noncitizens to an increasingly rightless realm. We must do the harder, more basic work of defining and instantiating meaningful human rights protections for all people, regardless of status, or location. Focusing too specifically on the problem of deprivation of citizenship must not blind us ‘to the numerous small and not so small evils with which the road to hell is paved.’

Daniel Kanstroom

Open Access

Denationalisation, Assassination, Territory: Some (U.S.-Prompted) Reflections

Unlike the several liberal states Macklin cites which have already, or will soon, deploy citizenship revocation as an anti-terrorism mechanism, the United States is unlikely to implement similar policies. The U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to prohibit unilateral citizenship-stripping as a tool of governance. Instead, denationalisation via expatriation in the U.S. requires the individual to specifically consent to relinquish the status, and such consent cannot be inferred from acts alone – even from acts which some (including some commentators in this symposium) would like to characterise as intrinsically antithetical to citizenship identity.

Linda Bosniak

Open Access

Beware States Piercing Holes into Citizenship

It is possible to imagine carefully fashioned cases where denationalisation seems a morally appropriate response as long as a range of guarantees are met. However, while this realisation might help us identify the terms on which the denationalisation of a particular individual is permissible, it tells us little about the broader consequences of piercing the norm of unconditional citizenship for punitive reasons. Once we are realistic about the political dangers of conceding to the state powers to withdraw citizenship, we’re brought back to a position compatible with Audrey Macklin’s ban on denationalisation.

Matthew J. Gibney

Open Access

Disowning Citizens

Macklin’s kick-off focused ‘exclusively on denationalisation for allegedly disloyal conduct by a citizen, while a citizen’. Most contributions to this debate weighed the predicament of the former citizen against state interests. In my contribution, I offer a typology of cases in which revocation could be sought according to some of the contributors. I contend that disowning of citizens by their states is incoherent, tenuous, or disingenuous.

Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler

Open Access

Our Epoch’s Little Banishments

I argue that the conceptual locus of the category banishment in today’s world is not banishment in the historical sense of the term, but a new kind of banishment that is predicated on the formation of geographies of privilege and disadvantage that cut across the divides of our modernity – East-West, North-South. The formation of such geographies includes a partial disassembling of the modern national territorial project, one aspiring (and dependent on) national unity, whether actual or idealised. This also means that there is a weakening of the explanatory power of the nation-based encasements of membership (for citizens, for firms, for political systems) that have marked our modernity. The micro-banishments I refer to are part of emergent and proliferating geographies of disadvantage (for citizens, firms, districts) internal to a country.

Saskia Sassen

Open Access

Deprivation of Citizenship: Is There an Issue of EU Law?

The purpose of this short intervention in the debate on The Return of Banishment initiated by Audrey Macklin, where the pros and cons of various forms of deprivation policies pursued by, or sought by, liberal states have been fully debated, is to add an element of EU law. Specifically, in the light of the judgments of the European Court of Justice in Rottmann and Ruiz Zambrano, how – if at all – are Member States’ laws and procedures on involuntary loss of citizenship affected by EU law, given that the primary competence to determine the rules on the acquisition and loss of citizenship remains with Member States?

Jo Shaw

Open Access

On Producing the Alien Within: A Reply

In this rejoinder I respond to the various contributors and defends my position regarding the normative, legal, and practical deficiencies of citizenship revocation on national security grounds.

Audrey Macklin

Cloud Communities

Frontmatter

Open Access

Cloud Communities: The Dawn of Global Citizenship?

This kickoff contribution argues that new conceptions of global citizenship are needed today and that new digital technologies might make them viable. Blockchain technology could provide, first, every person with a unique and internationally recognized and self-sovereign legal persona that could also serve to provide individuals globally with an equal voice in international affairs. Second, blockchain technology also permits individuals or international organisations to form cloud communities in cyberspace whose aim is political decision-making and in which individuals take part in a process of governance and the creation of law.

Liav Orgad

Open Access

Citizenship in Cloud Cuckoo Land?

We are in the midst of a digital revolution that could transform societies worldwide as profoundly as the agrarian revolution of the Neolithic age and the industrial revolution of the 19th century did. No doubt, new technologies will also deeply affect the structure and boundaries of political communities and the meaning of citizenship. Liav Orgad tells a hopeful story about the benefits of blockchain technology. It can serve to create an international legal identity for every human being and new forms of non-territorial political community in which citizenship is based entirely on consent. I share Orgad’s sense of excitement about the speed and depth of change that we are witnessing. But I am less optimistic about the future of citizenship.

Rainer Bauböck

Open Access

Citizenship in the Era of Blockchain-Based Virtual Nations

In the last decades, modern democracies have been witnessing a low rate of political participation and civic engagement with existing governmental institutions. Civic participation is not dead, however, it is only shifting to a new space. In the shadow corners of the internet, people are looking at blockchain technology as a means to replace many of our traditional institutions. While most of the attention was put, initially, on Bitcoin disrupting banks and other financial operators, as people understood the full potential of blockchain technology they saw it a means to implement new governance structures that could potentially replace some of our existing systems of governance. At the extreme end of this spectrum are those who envision the creation of new blockchain-based virtual nations, with a view to ultimately replace the nation state, or at least experiment with new and allegedly apolitical governance systems, which nevertheless play a crucial political function.

Primavera De Filippi

Open Access

Global Citizenship for the Stay-at-Homes

The citizen’s right to have a stake beyond national borders potentially bridges the cleavage between the globally mobile and the immobile. It belongs to, and appeals to the interests of, both classes of citizens. It can be exercised physically by the former group, and virtually by the latter through the novel channels that technology opens up. It is this very right that holds the potential to respond to nationalist and protectionist stances variedly represented in the contemporary political spectrum of several western countries.To the extent that these stances are driven by fear and insecurity, the concrete conferral of a right to have a stake beyond one’s borders can teach the 21st century citizens an important lesson: that protection and security do not come from populist retrenchment into closure and exclusion. They rather come from the broadening of the umbrella under which citizenship claims can find accommodation. National citizenship can change to track not only the territorial boundaries of nation states but also the virtual ones of human stakes and interests.Never mind the gap between the mobiles and the immobiles. New technology brings about the gift of global citizenship for the stay-at-homes.

Francesca Strumia

Open Access

A World Without Law; A World Without Politics

Text-based, voluntary cloud-based communities can sustain the values of civil-society, but it is difficult to imagine how they can generate laws that are involuntary and that operate on the bodies of participants.

Robert Post

Open Access

Virtual Politics, Real Guns: On Cloud Community, Violence, and Human Rights

My contribution does not intend not to defeat Orgad’s vision, but to outline significant worries about how we might make that vision real. Orgad does not want voluntary forms of transnational institution to take the place of states, but insists upon their validity and power as ‘state-like entities.’ It is this latter point with which I take issue. If these institutions are to become genuinely state-like, they must have some part in doing what it is that states do; and we must understand how they could do that sort of thing, and how we could move from where we are to where we might be. If, in contrast, these institutions are merely places for debate and for the creation of solidarity, then we have had them for a very long time indeed. It is then not clear what these tools provide us with except for scale and ease. Either way, I suggest, we have some work to do. Orgad’s vision is profoundly hopeful, while my own is not, and I genuinely hope I can be proven wrong.

Michael Blake

Open Access

A World Wide Web of Citizenship

Liav Orgad offers a characteristically insightful and provocative speculation on how novel technologies will facilitate global citizenship. Global interconnectedness is transforming individual identity composites to include transnational elements, and the migration of identity is, as Orgad argues, establishing more pervasive understandings of global responsibility. Along these three dimensions of interconnectedness, identity, and responsibility, we are assimilating an understanding of global citizenship. A recent worldwide poll found that a majority of respondents consider themselves more global citizens than citizens of their own countries.

Peter J. Spiro

Open Access

Citizenship Forecast: Partly Cloudy with Chances of Algorithms

Exercising citizenship has always involved some forms of technology, from voting pebbles in Ancient Greece to ballot boxes and electoral districting algorithms in modern representative democracies. However, the high levels of sophistication and, ultimately, opaqueness of technologies such as blockchain must be a real concern should we decide to entrust these technologies with the role of embodying democratic self-government. We are asked to take for granted the promises of new digital technologies and are kindly invited to take our places in shiny new cloud communities. However, we rarely understand how these technologies work, who designs and oversees them and whether we would be able to dispense of them if we find them wanting.

Costica Dumbrava

Open Access

The Separation of Territory and State: a Digital French Revolution?

The contributions on cloud communities and citizenship in this blog raise both hopes and fears. The reality of an idea initially as outlandish as citizens of a digital cloud is materialising as we ponder and debate its practices. Political theory and the law must attempt to keep up with these rapidly changing circumstances. This comment raises some questions regarding three assumptions in this debate: (1) Cloud states have no territory; (2) Cloud states cannot exert violence; (3) Cloud state membership is based on choice.

Yussef Al Tamimi

Open Access

A Brave New Dawn? Digital Cakes, Cloudy Governance and Citizenship á la Carte

In his kick-off contribution Orgad notes that the future of citizenship is dynamic and multi-layered. Yet so is the present, and so has been its past. The key question is whether we are ready to embrace a new approach to citizenship, based on ‘smart contracts’ operating in cyberspace and regulating needs of individuals, just as a business model would do. Even if digital technologies bring along numerous benefits we have to recognise that their á la carte approach is hardly conducive to the creation of a community of shared values among members. That is, it is hardly conducive to citizenship.

Jelena Džankić

Open Access

Old Divides, New Devices: Global Citizenship for Only Half of the World

When we assess the benefits and limitations of state citizenship versus a voluntary model of global citizenship, we need to compare the reality of the state with the reality of cloud communities or the ideal of the state with the ideal of cloud communities. I am attracted to a system of voluntary membership where citizenship does not come coupled with the right to exclude, and I can see the advantages of ‘trustless systems’. Both of those things are compatible with the kind of utopian society Marx thought would come after capitalism had been superseded and when the need for a state (understood as a collective coercive system of punishment) would have withered away. But speaking about reality, capitalist relations control the state and they will control cloud communities. Without remedying the asymmetries of access to the means of connection, and the exclusions they generate, the ideal of global citizenship will be as illusory as the ideal of a state that is effective in distributing social goods. While in the case of the state, we have at least a history of political mobilisation and, if lucky, democratic learning processes and institutions on which to rely when seeking change, nothing of that sort is available in the cloud. So we should probably hold on to state citizenship for the conflictual period of transition and leave cloud communities to the future utopian society that may become accessible once interconnectedness is truly global. If it ever does.

Lea Ypi

Open Access

Escapist Technology in the Service of Neo-Feudalism

New technologies, when deployed without addressing the flaws of the current legal-political reality are bound to become anything but an instrument of empowerment and liberation. It would be a grave mistake to put technology to the service of the mythology of citizenship, instead of interrogating citizenship’s essence and functions and questioning its darker corners.

Dimitry Kochenov

Open Access

Cloud Communities and the Materiality of the Digital

Is the internet free of geography and/or materiality? Can we rely (exclusively) on technology such as the blockchain to solve the socio-political problems of our society? This contribution takes a sociological perspective to reflect on the possibilities and the constraints of technology, exploring the materiality of the cloud and the challenges of tech-enabled self-governance.

Stefania Milan

Open Access

Cloud Agoras: When Blockchain Technology Meets Arendt’s Virtual Public Spaces

The virtual public space of blockchain communities will make citizens think, engage and act more virtually. In other words, the virtual reality of cloud agoras will have an impact on institutions and the participants themselves; it will yield pressures for more open, transparent and accountable institutions and will result in more virtuous, that is, actively engaged, citizens. Whether cloud agoras will prove to be decisive public spaces and strong promoters of democratic processes that make wealth, power and privilege accountable or merely subaltern counter publics will depend on the intentions and actions of their participants. In other words, the answer to the question whether the virtual public space of global citizenship will have a decisive influence on global, regional and national public policy-making is not theoretical or scholarly; it will be a contextual one.

Dora Kostakopoulou

Open Access

Global Cryptodemocracy Is Possible and Desirable

The fascinating discussion kicked-off by Liav Orgad addresses the interplay between the clouds and earth: How do cloud citizens and cloud communities relate to their earthly counterparts? Orgad presented the vision of cloud communities, yet many commentators claim that what happens in the cloud stays in the cloud and that such communities cannot have relevance to earthly matters. I claim that much of this criticism loses its force if we go all the way and aim for a global cloud community of all global citizens. And I present a possible design for such a global democracy of global citizens based on an egalitarian cryptocurrency, which we could call ‘cryptodemocracy’.

Ehud Shapiro

Open Access

The Future of Citizenship: Global and Digital – A Rejoinder

We can construct theoretical models of digital citizenship but, as this debate has shown, there are plenty of uncertainties – political, technological, and psychological ones – before it can become actually operative. I agree with Milan that ‘much work is needed … before we can proclaim the blockchain revolution.’ In particular, I share the concern about global inequality generated by ideas of cloud communities due to lack of internet access (Dzankic, Ypi, Kochenov) – this gap, however, has tremendously (and rapidly) narrowed and in 104 states more than 80 per cent of the youth population (aged 15–24) are now online. The situation will further improve if a right to internet access is universally recognised. And I cannot but share Bauböck’s worries about the tyranny of the majority in the cloud – addressing it is a matter of constitutional design of voting mechanisms (note, however, that there will be judicial review, decisions that require supermajority, and perhaps even veto rights in the digital world as well). Discussing these (and others) concerns will keep theorists and policy makers busy in the years to come. While the focus of this debate is on global citizenship and virtual communities, I see it as a broader invitation to reflect on the nexus between new technologies and the future of citizenship.

Liav Orgad
Weitere Informationen

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise