Suchergebnisse

What are the rights and obligations of citizens who live outside their country? Political theory has so far focused on immigrants' access to citizenship in countries of settlement and has had little to say about their relations to their countries of origin. External citizenship is, however, of growing importance for large numbers of migrants as well as for sending states, many of which have dramatically changed their attitudes towards expatriates. I have proposed a stakeholder criterion for determining who should have claims to external citizenship status and rights. In this article I summarize how this argument applies to the acquisition and loss of citizenship outside a state's territory, to the right to return, to an external franchise, and to citizenship duties of military service, paying taxes and compulsory voting. Adapted from the source document.

Benhabib argues that the tension between universal human rights and democratic self-determination cannot be resolved. Distinguishing between the principle of rights, on the one hand, and context-specific `schedules of rights', on the other hand, helps, however, to specify the scope of both norms. I show that applying this idea to questions of citizenship requires further elaboration in three respects: (1) Benhabib's argument for porous rather than open borders, which does not fully address the challenge of global distributive justice; (2) norms for access to citizenship, which need to cover also transnational affiliations between sending states and their external populations; and (3) necessary constraints on democratic self-determination. I suggest replacing the principle of self-determination with a principle of self-government that does not include a unilateral right to determine the territorial or membership boundaries of the polity. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright 2007.]

In countries open for emigration & immigration, large numbers of citizens live outside the state territory & large numbers of non-citizens reside permanently in this territory. In many democracies, both groups will be excluded from democratic participation & representation. Yet more & more states revise their conceptions of citizenship to grant voting rights & political participation to non-citizen residents or non-resident citizens. This poses a considerable challenge to democratic theory. Under certain conceptions only one of these groups, but not the other has a claim to inclusion. Starting from a comparative examination of political participation rights, my contribution will discuss some arguments for & against expanding political citizenship beyond territory & formal nationality. Tables, References. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the phenomenon of extending electoral rights to expatriate citizens & to noncitizen residents. Why governments expand voting rights in this way is considered, finding a mixed bag of reasons. A nonterritorial conception of nationhood, often rooted in ethnic nationalism, is seen as a prime reason. Voting rights for noncitizen residents is less widespread but found in various forms around the world, & reasons for introducing this form of franchise are also mixed. Four contrasting ideal-typical positions for or against electoral rights beyond territory & citizenship are outlined & rejected, & an alternative principle, stakeholder citizenship, is proposed. 16 References. J. Zendejas

The relation between migration & domestic security is complex but in constant danger of being politically simplified. The general assumption spread by media reports & political speeches is that uncontrolled immigration endangers security directly by facilitating transborder criminal activity or indirectly by creating general conditions within society that diminish the state's capacity to maintain public order or to produce societal security in a more comprehensive sense. The contribution argues that an adequate analysis needs to modify this prima facie plausible account. First, there are important trade-offs between enhancing security & freedom of movement because the latter creates important benefits & has in a liberal perspective also intrinsic value. Second, migration control may itself endanger security by illegalizing human actions that cannot be de facto prevented & by creating a market for human trafficking. Third, closing borders for ongoing immigration flows may paradoxically increase inflows in the short run & prevent return migration in the long run. The essay examines further how migration affects the state's capacity to produce four public goods that are often included in a comprehensive conception of societal security: demographic sustainability, cultural homogeneity, democratic self-determination, & social security. Among these, redistributive welfare policies provide the strongest argument for immigration control, but cannot fully justify present priorities, levels, & means. A final aspect of the relation between migration & security is, however, the securitization of migration policy discourses that generally trumps other arguments & creates widespread support for counterproductive & normatively indefensible policies. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

Explores cosmopolitanism in terms of political communities that transcend state borders, situating this treatment in the field of cosmopolitan democracy that views human needs as best served by global political institutions. Discussion opens with a consideration of various interpretations of cosmopolitanism, contending that political theorists employ the term without any idea of a global community of citizens. It is asserted that two ways exist for building political communities beyond national identities, assimilation into larger communities that replicate particularistic nationhood traits or federalization that fosters loyalties to the larger unit. The latter, multinational federalism, appears most promising. However, such a cosmopolitan project must address issues of asymmetry, enlargement, & democratization. In this light, it is asked whether current conditions of globalization even allow for the emergence of a global political community before even considering the possibility of cosmopolitan democracy. Thus, various patterns of extant supranational political community are examined to determine their impact on democratic citizenship. Four boundary regimes through which political communities can relate in a larger supranational context are identified: separate, nested, multilevel, or overlapping. It is argued that, in fact, the state system is transforming via a combination of the nested, multilevel, & overlapping patterns. In this light, the UN & EU are assessed. Focus turns to overlapping affiliations as manifest in transborder national minorities, global networks of indigenous groups, & transnational migrant communities. It is concluded that a cosmopolitan democracy might arise from this overlapping pattern of minority communities should an endogenous development of liberal norms emerge in response to challenges raised by the claims of these transnational communities' leaders. J. Zendejas

Explores cosmopolitanism in terms of political communities that transcend state borders, situating this treatment in the field of cosmopolitan democracy that views human needs as best served by global political institutions. Discussion opens with a consideration of various interpretations of cosmopolitanism, contending that political theorists employ the term without any idea of a global community of citizens. It is asserted that two ways exist for building political communities beyond national identities, assimilation into larger communities that replicate particularistic nationhood traits or federalization that fosters loyalties to the larger unit. The latter, multinational federalism, appears most promising. However, such a cosmopolitan project must address issues of asymmetry, enlargement, & democratization. In this light, it is asked whether current conditions of globalization even allow for the emergence of a global political community before even considering the possibility of cosmopolitan democracy. Thus, various patterns of extant supranational political community are examined to determine their impact on democratic citizenship. Four boundary regimes through which political communities can relate in a larger supranational context are identified: separate, nested, multilevel, or overlapping. It is argued that, in fact, the state system is transforming via a combination of the nested, multilevel, & overlapping patterns. In this light, the UN & EU are assessed. Focus turns to overlapping affiliations as manifest in transborder national minorities, global networks of indigenous groups, & transnational migrant communities. It is concluded that a cosmopolitan democracy might arise from this overlapping pattern of minority communities should an endogenous development of liberal norms emerge in response to challenges raised by the claims of these transnational communities' leaders. J. Zendejas