Abstract
In this paper, the author examines the moral significance of territorial boundaries as markers of belonging. He contrasts territorial and non-territorial (transnational) modes of allocating citizenship rights. Transnational conceptions of citizenship often too quickly move from territoriality to nationalism. But this relationship is neither historically nor conceptually inevitable. On the contrary, this paper argues that the liberal ideal of collective self-determination incorporates a legally inclusive notion of territories as non-ascriptive markers of belonging. Exploring the implications of this argument, the paper endorses a residence-based citizenship model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I am very grateful to Julie Vatain and Lucy Garnier for reviewing this article. Sara Fyson not only offered her support but also read various drafts of this paper. I also wish to thank Stephen Castles for providing me with empirical data. This paper has been developed with and thanks to the European Research Training Network “Applied Global Justice” (HPRN-CT-2002-00231). It was written in 2005 while I was an associated member of the Maison Française d’Oxford visiting the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford. For a substantially revised version see my forthcoming book Territorial Rights and Global Justice.
- 2.
Even during the Medieval period, governance was territorially linked: “it was not governance over persons, or over members simply, as in a nomadic tribal system, but over a geographical region, even if its boundaries were often more zones than clear demarcations” (Buchanan 2003: 7). The distinctive character of modern territorial sovereignty has therefore to be defined more precisely. One possibility could be to conceive the modern system of rule, in contrast to its medieval counterpart, as the institutionalisation of public authority within mutually exclusive jurisdictional domains (cf. Ruggie 1986: 143). This means inversely, that the medieval system of rule was structured “by a nonexclusive form of territoriality, in which authority was both personalized and parcelized within and across territorial formations” (Ruggie 1998: 150).
- 3.
It is, however, rather simplistic to assume that jus sanguinis and jus domicili could coexist, reinforcing each other. Strictly speaking, they are mutually exclusive. The principle of residence states in fact that long-term residents are to be considered citizens of a state, as I said, just because of their territorial location and, therefore, regardless of personal capacities or properties.
- 4.
“Denizenship” is a term coined by legal scholars to reflect people residing in a country who are not exactly citizens, but who are not foreigners either.
- 5.
Briefly put, my basic idea is that a deterritorialized system of political communities undermines liberal efforts internally without bringing any substantial benefits externally. Its effect would be that each group would be constantly forced to police and ensure the boundaries of their membership, no longer sharing citizenship duties that normally commit them to a common public good.
- 6.
“Conversely, the ius sanguinis primarily maintained the symbolic boundaries and the coherence of migrating nomadic societies. Wherever there is no physical locus the symbolic bonds of common blood, descent, history, fate, culture, religion or language evolve into the primary source of commonness and of communal lives” (Preuß 1998: 309).
- 7.
Although in British law, after 14 years of illegal stay, the applicant can apply for naturalisation.
Bibliography
Books
Bauböck, R. 1994. Transnational citizenship: Membership and rights in international migration. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Benhabib, S. 2004. The rights of others: Aliens, residents, and citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haushofer, K. 1927. Grenzen in ihrer geographischen und politischen Bedeutung. Berlin: Kurt Vowinckel Verlag.
Ratzel, F. 1897. Politische geographie. München/Leipzig: R. Oldenbourg.
Rifkin, J. 2004. The European dream. How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. New York: Penguin.
Sack, R. 1986. Human territoriality. Its theory and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Soysal, Y. 1994. Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spruyt, H. 1994. The sovereign state and its competitors: An analysis of systems change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Articles
Bader, V.M. 1999. Citizenship of the European union. Human rights, rights of citizens of the union and of member states. Ratio Juris 12(2): 153–181.
Castles, S. 1996. Comments on Yasemin Soysal. Unpublished paper presented at the expert colloquium citizenship and exclusion, Amsterdam, April 9–12, 1996.
Preuß, U.K. 1998. Migration: A challenge to modern citizenship. Constellations 4: 307–319.
Ruggie, J.G. 1998. Territoriality and beyond. Problematizing modernity in international relations. International Organization 47(1): 139–174.
Contributions to a Volume
Buchanan, A. 2003. The making and unmaking of boundaries: What liberalism has to say. In States, nations, and borders: The ethics of making boundaries, ed. A. Buchanan and M. Moore, 231–261. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferrajoli, L. 1994. Dai diritti del cittadino ai diritti della persona. In La cittadinanza, ed. D. Zolo, 263–292. Rome/Bari: Laterza.
Føllesdal, A. 1999. Third country nationals as Euro-citizens – the case defended. In Whose Europe? The turn towards democracy, ed. D. Smith and Sue Wright, 104–122. London: Blackwell.
Lange, R.D. 1995. Paradoxes of European citizenship. In Nationalism, racism, and the rule of law, ed. P. Fitzpatrick, 97–115. Dartmouth: Aldershot.
Ruggie, J. 1986. Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis. In Neorealism and Its Critics, ed. R.O. Keohane, 131–157. New York: Columbia University Press.
Internet
Oger, H. 2003. ‘Residence’ as the new additional inclusive criterion for citizenship. http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue5/oger5.html. Accessed 1 June 2005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Angeli, O. (2013). Territoriality and Transnational Citizenship. In: Merle, JC. (eds) Spheres of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5998-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5997-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5998-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)