Suchergebnisse

Contemporary models of citizenship are critiqued in an attempt to conceptualize a more comprehensive notion of European citizenship. Four models of citizenship are identified: a rights-based model linked to liberalism; a duties-based model connected with conservatism; a participation-based model associated with democratic radicalism; & an identity-based model related to communitarianism. Arguing that issues of citizenship are subverted by discourses of nationalism, a postnational notion that emphasizes a citizen's rights, duties, participation, & identity is presented. In contemporary Europe, the traditional notion of citizenship based on rights & participation has been replaced by a supranational concept that privileges cultural identity of diversity. Consequently, a postnational notion of identity that reveres human rights, the environmnent, democracy, & multiculturalism is needed to contest current trends. 1 Figure, 64 References. Adapted from the source document.

Most critical analyses assess citizenship-deprivation policies against international human rights and domestic rule of law standards, such as prevention of statelessness, non-arbitrariness with regard to justifications and judicial remedies, or non-discrimination between different categories of citizens. This report considers instead from a political theory perspective how deprivation policies reflect specific conceptions of political community. We distinguish four normative conceptions of the grounds of membership in a political community that apply to decisions on acquisition and loss of citizenship status: i) a 'State discretion' view, according to which governments should be as free as possible in pursuing State interests when determining citizenship status; ii) an 'individual choice' view, according to which individuals should be as free as possible in choosing their citizenship status; iii) an 'ascriptive community' view, according to which both State and individual choices should be minimised through automatic determination of membership based on objective criteria such as the circumstances of birth; and iv) a 'genuine link' view, according to which the ties of individuals to particular States determine their claims to inclusion and against deprivation while providing at the same time objections against including individuals without genuine links. We argue that most citizenship laws combine these four normative views in different ways, but that from a democratic perspective the 'genuine link' view is normatively preferable to the others. The report subsequently examines five general grounds for citizenship withdrawal – threats to public security, non-compliance with citizenship duties, flawed acquisition, derivative loss and loss of genuine links – and considers how the four normative views apply to withdrawal provision motivated by these concerns. The final section of the report examines whether EU citizenship provides additional reasons for protection against Member States' powers of citizenship deprivation. We suggest that, in addition to fundamental rights protection through EU law and protection of free movement rights, three further arguments could be invoked: toleration of dual citizenship in a political union, prevention of unequal conditions for loss among EU citizens, and the salience of genuine links to the EU itself rather than merely to one of its Member States.

'Republican' and 'citizen', in fact, are old and intertwined words - so old that some may wonder at their relevance in the brave new world of the twenty-first century, and so intertwined that the phrase 'republican citizenship' seems almost redundant to others. There is no republic without citizens, after all; and, according to the classical republican thinkers, there is no citizenship, in the full sense of the word, except among those who are fortunate enough to inhabit a republic. But this view of citizenship's connection to republicanism no longer seems to prevail. If it did, there would be no need for a chapter on republican citizenship in this volume of essays on citizenship, for the authors would simply assume that citizenship entails republicanism and go on to other matters. There might also be no need for this chapter if it were not for the revival of scholarly interest in republicanism in recent years. Such a revival has definitely occurred, though, and occurred simultaneously with a renewed interest in citizenship. This coincidence suggests that republican citizenship is well worth our attention, not only for purposes of historical understanding but also as a way of thinking about citizenship in the twenty-first century. Why this revival has occurred and whether republican citizenship truly offers anything of relevance or value today are thus the subjects of this chapter.

In this article the author defines 'citizenship education' in the context of multicultural societies, applying the concept of transculturality. In this paper, he suggests how cross-cultural learning can be developed in a culturally diverse classroom. As soon as 'culture' is operationalized
as a set of rules, it appears that meta-rules can be applied to cultural diversity. Rules become questionable, as do the arguments themselves. Finally, only Human Rights can provide a basis for further discussion.

"Global Citizenship" published on by Oxford University Press.