PS139: States, Nations, and the Politics of Citizenship Rules. (original) (raw)
Related papers
Citizenship in the context of immigration and emigration - course outline and readings
Citizenship can refer to a legal status, a set of rights, an individual’s engagement in political life, or an identity. The course examines these different aspects of citizenship in the context of migration. The course draws on theories and research from politics, sociology, anthropology, and history. It covers cases from most regions of the world, including Western Europe, North America, East Central Europe, the Middle East, and Africa.
The Politics of Citizenship Policy in Post-Soviet Russia.
Post-Soviet Affairs, v. 28, no. 1, 2012
Russian citizenship policy has evolved in puzzling ways from the 1990s, when all former Soviet citizens were entitled to simplified access to Russian citizenship, to the 2002 citizenship law, which put an abrupt end to this policy, giving few but those born on the territory of Russia the right to citizenship. Since 2002, the right to Russian citizenship has been extended to some additional categories of former Soviet citizens, but without a return to the expansive policy of the 1990s. Drawing on legal and governmental sources and the scholarly literature, this article looks at elite debates over citizenship rules to analyze Russian citizenship politics and policies, focusing on citizenship rules affecting former Soviet citizens. These are examined to uncover the causes of legislative zigzags and ascertain the applicability of existing citizenship theories to Russian realities.
The Shifting Parameters of Nationality
Netherlands International Law Review , 2018
This article has two interrelated aims. First, the article goes beyond law and places the discussions on nationality in the broader literature on citizenship, also drawing on social sciences, political theory and moral philosophy. The ensuing conceptual, historical and multi-disciplinary account highlights the long pedigree of the idea of citizenship, the manifold conceptions of citizenship that have developed over time (including supra-national, sub-national and transnational citizenship). The article demonstrates how the changing spatialities of citizenship culminated in a focus on the nation-state, and the emergence of legal citizenship or nationality, reflecting the legal bond between an individual and a state. It was also noted that in several respects the parameters of nationality keep changing. More particularly, four developments have been highlighted that circumscribe the sovereign right of states to determine who are their nationals, both legally and through de facto pressures. Secondly, this contribution provides the overarching framework for the special issue while identifying the salient discussion points regarding nationality and international law that will be teased out in the articles of the special issue. The article ends with a brief overview of the articles that make up the special issue.
International Migration in Thailand 2009
International Organization for Migration, Thailand Office, 2009
Over the past few decades, Thailand has played an important role in international migration in the region and it is currently not only a country of origin but also of transit as well as of destination. Because of relatively prosperous and stable economy, Thailand has become a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of ofasylum seekers and millions of migrant workers from its neighboring countries. Simultaneously, many Thais continue to look for better opportunities overseas. However, these continuous changes in migration trends and patterns, coupled with the dearth of data and sound research on the topic, make it very challenging for government policies, legislation, institutions and programs to respond to the evolving reality in a quick and effective manner. Furthermore, most available studies only focus on selected issues of migration and do not provide a comprehensive overview
“Citizenship is the right to have rights” was famously claimed by Hannah Arendt. Te case of the ‘erased’ of Slovenia sheds new light on this assumption that was supposedly put to rest afer World War II. We lack a comprehensive paradigm for grasping what citizenship means today in and to our societies. My thesis is that there are currently three ways to understand the notion. These different views tend to merge and overlap in the today’s debate, furthering misunderstandings. I will account for different conceptions of the citizenship by looking at the opposite of citizenry. Te political model holds the subject (sujet) in opposition to the citizen (citoyen), entailing problems related to the democratic quality of institutions. Law and jurisprudence look at the citizenship by trying to limit the numerous hard cases arising in the world of migration where the opposite of the citizen is the alien and the stateless. While in social sciences the citizenship is the opposite of the exclusion and represents social membership. Therefore, my aim is to distinguish and clear out these three different semantic areas. This essay is presented in four sections: First, I briefly recall the case of the ‘erased’ of Slovenia, which presents us with one of the more poignant examples of statelessness in the today’s world, so their status can be easily related to the problems that the aforementioned theoretical shortcomings entail. The ‘erased’ had their residency permits and by extension, civil rights as well, revoked by the Slovene government in the aftermath of the break-up of Yugoslavia. This erasure was ruled to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia but so far it has by and large remained only at that ruling, with little additional legal action, which has prompted complaints from the Ombudsman’s Office and Amnesty International. Tis issue is tied to some of the findings of Hannah Arendt, who claimed that human rights often proved to be ineffective when faced with significant numbers of people who were not citizens of any specific country. Although in the aftermath of WW2 measures to end this situation of statelessness were progressively taken by the international community, there are still cases of a legal vacuum where people could be deprived of their fundamental rights. And as long as human rights remain largely declarative and as long as there is a glaring lack of international agencies of judicial enforcement, we can claim that Arendt’s paradox of human rights has not been yet fully overcome. The second section focuses on discourse analysis of the citizenship. There is no doubt that the citizenship nowadays represents a much broader subject than it did only a couple of decades ago, however, if anything, this has only caused its meaning to become more vague. Since the late 1990’s scholars have increasingly directed attention towards interdisciplinary perspectives covering the fields of politics, sociology, history and cultural studies that move beyond conventional notions of the citizenship, but the understanding of the citizenship itself often lingers on traditional assessments, characterised by clear-cut disciplinary divides. This disciplinary entrenchment has led to the effect of deepening misunderstandings, and attempts to bridge the divide between various perspectives facing increasing difficulties. So it becomes clear that we lack a comprehensive model for understanding the notion of the ‘citizenship’, and to remedy that, rather than simply asking “what is citizenship?” as that would give no clear answer, we shall ask what is opposed to the citizenship. I will provide the answer to that question in the third section, where attention is directed to the composition of the three separate semantic areas that are connected to the term “citizenship.” These areas correspond to three separate figures of opposition: Te subject, the alien and the excluded, which form the foundation of three basic dichotomies (citizenship/subjecthood; citizenship/being a foreigner; citizenship/exclusion). And from this we can extract various meanings of the citizenship: in the realm of political science, ’citizenship’ means the ‘non-subject’; in legal science, ‘citizenship’ means the ‘non-alien’; and in social science, ‘citizenship’ means ‘non-exclusion’ from participation in the social network of a group. I shall focus on the structure, content and origin of these dichotomies, and also on the kind of problems they are trying to resolve. Finally, I will point to an array of questions that the citizenship raises in the today’s complex society. Some of them deal with political rights of the Poles living in the UK, citizenship issues of the Russians in Estonia and the status of the Hungarian ethnic minorities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia. Furthermore, we may notice an alarming surge of perverse effects that the customary legal perspective has on citizenship such as the increase of cases of statelessness and multiple nationalities, besides new phenomena such as the so-called “legal tourism.” On top of that, Europe is facing an increasing wave of nationalism and social integration issues, which come in wake of the general economic downturn, activism against the Bolkenstein directive and recent jurisprudence of the ECJ in the cases Rüfert, Viking Line and Laval. In light of all this we can conclude that citizenship studies require less ambiguous tools than those prevailing in literature. Te first step towards achieving this is to give up hoping for any understanding of “citizenship” that encompasses all the different meanings mentioned above. Te only way to take them all in is to use a very vague idea of “citizenship” that promotes unsuitable policies and no real solutions. So I suggest that we should rather focus on the tripartition scheme and discourse analysis discussed above, as they can be useful tools for decision makers so as to design as consistent policies as possible, and also for our shedding new light on transnational citizenship building and cross-state handling of status-related issues. KEYWORDS: political, legal and sociological concept of citizenship, human rights, the erased of Slovenia, stateless people (statelessness), right to have rights, legal status