Reconsidering the Concept of Citizenship

Abstract

SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION A. Preface Citizenship is the embodiment of the strongest link between the individual and the State, a link which is reflected by the fact that the citizen is entitled to all the rights which the States grants and is subject to all the duties which it imposes.1 Examination of citizenship on the threshold of the twenty-first century brings us face to face with a reality permeated by a multitude of contradictions and vagaries. On the one hand, the fall of the former Soviet Union has led to the birth of States founded on ethnic-- nationalist organization, associated with which is the issue to what extent an ethnic population may legitimately be split to justify separate political organization, a problem which can be seen in all its severity in the former Yugoslavia. On the other hand, opposing the processes of ethnicity and division are broad world trends of globalization which are sweeping away the borders between the various States and cultures and which are transforming the world into a single global village, in which many issues are regulated by international bodies that are either multinational or supranational. Notwithstanding that these processes raise the issue whether the State has stopped functioning as the basic core of political organization and therefore of citizenship-which embodies the connection between the person and the political organization in which he lives, a question which must perhaps be examined in connection with a framework other than that of the State-the prevailing view among scholars is that the State does continue to comprise the basic core of political organization.2 Accordingly, the starting point of this article, which examines citizenship, will be the connection between the individual and the State. At the same time, within the context of ascertaining the nature of the connection and its substance, I shall of course have to give appropriate weight to world trends of ethnic grouping and globalization and show how and to what extent they influence citizenship. Examination of the issue of citizenship from a prospective vantage point in the light of this conflicting reality of nationalist, ethnic insularity on the one hand, and universal, global opening-up on the other hand, is difficult and complex. However, this is not the only difficulty entailed in the examination of this issue. The primary difficulty ensues from the fact that even a retroactive examination betrays uncertainty regarding the significance of nationality. Nationality, in practice, is the manifestation of the strongest connection between the person and the State; however, there are no clear international criteria for defining how this connection is created. There is no clear international law stating in which circumstances a State must confer nationality upon a person and when a person has the right to become a citizen. The uncertainty and lack of definition in international law ensue from the fact that international law has sanctified the principle of State sovereignty and nonintervention on the part of one State in the affairs of another. State sovereignty has primarily been reflected in the power of the State to determine who will be its permanent and preferred members, i.e., who will be its citizens. Indeed, every State has established its own rules regarding when, how, and upon whom nationality will be conferred.3 This development of international law, by which the State's duty to confer nationality is not defined, is, in my opinion, mistaken. It is unjustified in the sense that it disregards global justice. How States divide people into societies cannot be left to regulation by each individual State, as large numbers of people cannot be left to find themselves possessing dual or multiple nationalities, while others are deprived of nationality altogether. The issue must be regulated by a legal arrangement between States, i.e., by international law, in order that global justice be achieved and each person enjoy complete membership, i. …