Suchergebnisse

Should EU citizenship be disentangled from Member State nationality? Certainly, says Dora Kostakopoulou. By no means, argues Richard Bellamy. In the 2nd Global Citizenship Governance Forum, we have asked a number of eminent scholars to take sides in this timely and important question. Under the current legal regime, each Member State has the power to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of citizenship based on national interests, without necessarily taking into account a European (or other states') interests. The Forum challenges the empirical and normative assumptions underlying such a regime and examines the idea of autonomous European citizenship, free of Member State citizenship, from historical, conceptual, comparative, and legal perspectives. Overall, the Forum addresses some of the fundamental problems of European Union citizenship and reflects on alternative remedies – their political feasibility, legal implications, and the future of Union citizenship after Brexit. ; The study is supported by the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant (# 716350). The views expressed in this publication cannot in any circumstance be regarded as the official position of the European Union. ; Kickoffs by Dora Kostakopoulou and Richard Bellamy; contributions by Jean-Thomas Arrighi, Rainer Bauböck, Richard Bellamy, Dimitris Christopoulos, Jelena Džankić, Eva Ersbøll, Oliver Garner, Dimitry Kochenov, Dora Kostakopoulou, Jules Lepoutre, Willem Maas, Liav Orgad and Daniel Thym; rejoinder by Dora Kostakopoulou.

That European Union citizenship remains an unfinished institution is beyond any doubt. Even its modest original content enshrined in the Treaty of European Union revealed this. Article 25 TFEU (formerly Article 22 TEC) has always carried the promise of the extension its material scope of Union citizenship by a unanimous decision of the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. Although this procedure has not been activated yet, EU citizenship has evolved. For more than a decade, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has not hesitated to subject it to critical reflection and inquiry and to embark upon unknown and controversial terrains, thereby inviting both admiration and fierce criticism. European judges have taken quite seriously constitutionalisation of Union citizenship and sought to respond positively to citizens' needs and expectations. But as their decisions are guided by norms which often conflict with states' interest in unilateral migration control and the pursuit of power, governments have not hesitated to express their disapproval of what they perceive to be judicial policy-making. ; Udostępnienie publikacji Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego finansowane w ramach projektu "Doskonałość naukowa kluczem do doskonałości kształcenia". Projekt realizowany jest ze środków Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego w ramach Programu Operacyjnego Wiedza Edukacja Rozwój; nr umowy: POWER.03.05.00-00-Z092/17-00.

Citizenship legislations of the Member States of the European Union are the result of common principles, shared influences and various constitutional identities. Altogether, they revolve around a set of international rules and converge on a general status: European citizenship. Building on this tension between unity and diversity, this report aims to describe the rules regarding loss of citizenship within the Member States (adding the United Kingdom), compare legislations and analyse both recent trends and ancient origins from a legal perspective. The six main categories that this report follows in order to examine citizenship loss in the European Union are divided between voluntary (renunciation) and involuntary loss of citizenship (possession of another nationality; residence abroad; disloyalty or lack of merit; fraud and similar acts; loss linked to family relationship).

International audience ; Citizenship legislations of the Member States of the European Union are the result of common principles, shared influences and various constitutional identities. Altogether, they revolve around a set of international rules and converge on a general status: European citizenship. Building on this tension between unity and diversity, this report aims to describe the rules regarding loss of citizenship within the Member States (adding the United Kingdom), compare legislations and analyse both recent trends and ancient origins from a legal perspective. The six main categories that this report follows in order to examine citizenship loss in the European Union are divided between voluntary (renunciation) and involuntary loss of citizenship (possession of another nationality; residence abroad; disloyalty or lack of merit; fraud and similar acts; loss linked to family relationship).

International audience ; Citizenship legislations of the Member States of the European Union are the result of common principles, shared influences and various constitutional identities. Altogether, they revolve around a set of international rules and converge on a general status: European citizenship. Building on this tension between unity and diversity, this report aims to describe the rules regarding loss of citizenship within the Member States (adding the United Kingdom), compare legislations and analyse both recent trends and ancient origins from a legal perspective. The six main categories that this report follows in order to examine citizenship loss in the European Union are divided between voluntary (renunciation) and involuntary loss of citizenship (possession of another nationality; residence abroad; disloyalty or lack of merit; fraud and similar acts; loss linked to family relationship).

This article will analyse the use of genealogy in the context of race, place, and justice via the concepts of nationality/citizenship and cultural/national identity, including "imagined communities". Analysis is undertaken through the legal concept of "jus sanguinis" and simultaneous differing interpretations of "citizen", including the concept of "effective nationality". The latter incorporates the Nottebohm principle "shared sentiments and interests" and is particularly relevant in "security situations. This article argues that "effective nationality" is indicative of the Anderson's famous landmark study of nationalism, "Imagined Communities". The legal concept of jus sanguinis draws upon genealogy: "A line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor". However, the imagined communities to which someone perceives they belong, through ancestral lineage, or cultural, political or religious affinity are often highly contested cultural notions, not least in times of political unrest. This article will focus on the UK and show how liberal policies and criteria initially aimed at the expansion of citizenship have, in the 21st century, similarly enabled exclusion. However, I argue that the current exclusion process is the simultaneous use of jus sanguinis and cultural interpretations of "effective nationality" when applied to those who supported proscribed groups, for example ISIS in Syria. This paper uses legislation, media comment, and the legal case studies of Nottebohm and Shamima Begu.

This article explores how ASEAN member states can further integrate by reforming their respective constitutions and citizenship laws. It examines how member state's constitutions have recognised citizenship. Dual citizenship has many benefits to an individual and nation state. Dual citizenship, from an economic and integration perspective eases the restrictions of movement. The ease in movement across international borders enable citizens to engage with other states and their citizens in economic and social activities. The rights of citizens have become a very important part of modern democratic states. Thus, it is examined what ex-press rights have been afforded to the citizens of ASEAN member states through their respective constitutions. In doing so, one only needs to look at how the republic of Slovenia has established their constitution and citizenship laws since becoming independent in 1991, and obtaining full membership to the European Union in 2004. Looking to the European Union and Slovenia, ASEAN and its member states could borrow and transplant legal principles and laws to enhance the integration process and reform their constitutions and citizenship laws.

A majority of the world population lives in cities, but determining citizenship remains a monopoly of nation-states. Should cities claim their own citizenship, based on residence rather than nationality? Should they get enhanced powers and bypass states when addressing challenges of migration or climate change? Or would urban citizenship deepen the political divide between metropolitan and rural populations that disintegrates liberal democracies today? These questions are raised in Rainer Bauböck's kickoff for a GLOBALCIT Forum that was also published on Verfassungsblog. 22 authors respond to these questions and reflect on the prospects for urban and local citizenship. The forum concludes with a rejoinder by Rainer Bauböck.

In March 2010, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU or Court) handed down its judgment in the long awaited case of Rottmann. This paper explores some of the implications of this important judgment through a series of comments placed contemporaneously on the EUDO Citizenship website and a conclusion finally revised by Jo Shaw in November 2011. The judgment clarifies the relationship between EU citizenship and national citizenship, stating that a withdrawal of national citizenship which results in a person ceasing to be an EU citizen altogether 'by reason of its nature and consequences' falls within the scope of EU law and is thus subject to review by national courts and the Court of Justice in the light of the requirements of EU law. The conclusion as to whether national authorities have overstepped the mark will be made in the light of a proportionality test. While Rottmann itself represents an interesting jumping off point for further reflection on the EU/national citizenship nexus, its broader interest partly lies in the fact that it sits – with the benefit of some hindsight – at the beginning of a new period of judicial activism on the part of the Court of Justice in relation to the scope and character of EU citizenship. This broader context is surveyed by Shaw in the concluding thoughts. ; Research for the EUDO Citizenship Observatory working papers series has been jointly supported by the European Commission grant agreement JLS/2007/IP/CA/009 and by the British Academy Research Project CITMODES (both projects co-directed by the EUI and the University of Edinburgh). The financial support from these projects is gratefully acknowledged. ; Setting the scene: the Rottmann case introduced Jo Shaw 1 The entirely conventional supremacy of Union citizenship and rights Gareth T. Davies 5 Two Sovereign States vs. a Human Being: CJEU as a Guardian of Arbitrariness in Citizenship Matters Dimitry Kochenov 11 Some comments on Rottmann and the "personal circumstances" assessment in the Union citizenship case law Michael Dougan 17 The correlation between the status of Union citizenship, the rights attached to it and nationality in Rottmann Oxana Golynker 19 European Union citizenship and Member State nationality: updating or upgrading the link? Dora Kostakopoulou 21 The consequences of the Rottmann judgment on Member State autonomy - The Court's avantgardism in nationality matters Gerard René De Groot and Anja Seling 27 Concluding thoughts: Rottmann in context Jo Shaw 33