The issue belying the concept of citizenship lies on the fact that humans have the innate sense of ‘privacy orientation’ thus nationality credence is sorted to be a summit where fully established laws and regulations must be implemented in the most justifiable sagacity to avoid commencing squabbles (Arthur, 2001).
The rise of migration in certain areas in Europe is undeniably mounting in number. Due to the advent of tourism and globalization, Europe has considerably become one of the most employment-sought countries in the planet, and a residential paradise as well (Byram & Grundy, 2003). However, the advantages brought upon by the said attraction from other countries have implicitly created a clash of interest among European Citizens and those who has acquired the citizenship. Such manifestation ought to be the result of the unclear laws set for the country and those regulated by the international supreme (Janowitz, 1980), at that. The aforementioned statement then raises the argument of this paper.
With the attempts to answer such delimitations and definition of privileges to be enjoyed, the integration of the laws and the level of immunity of a European citizen over a “pure” European (by blood, race and or affinity) also stream in the waters of the controversy (J. Shaw, 1998). Along with this spat also lies the concern on the sense of identity, the level of acceptance on societal values, the definition of the rights and the responsibilities, and most of all, the consideration on which stands along the power of security and of legalities (“The Functionality of Citizenship ” 1997). Consequently, the approach given by those who feel that they are ‘oppressed’ with the inequity of the said ‘rights’ and ‘sanctions’ is an assumption that the issue falling on that certain ground must be taken action in the most immediate time possible.
Citizenship-as-legal-status, defined as citizenship with the particularity of political economy termed in “full-membership” gives emphasis on responsibilities and virtues that it they have been entitled as those who are “good citizens” (Byram & Grundy, 2003). However, theorists give the distinction on the theory of the latter with an echelon of psychological explanations that an individual’s goodness does not swim in an ocean of physical perspective but rather on the influences of such.
On the contrary, Citizenship-as-activity is characterized as individuals who have acquired the citizenship either because of marital reason or migration basis. This controversial legal way of acquiring citizenship may not be as heavy or considerably ‘thick’ like that of the ‘physical’ grounds, but had been harmoniously accepted and judged legal and is therefore also a legitimate form of citizenship, only that, for those possessing “dual-citizenship” are vested with two forms of right, those by which are stated in the “country of origin” and that by which one has migrated to (Arthur, 2001; Lister, 1997).
The issue on citizenship
Interests in the issue of citizenship had been significantly brought on the juncture of economic and social change. Evidently, it is harmoniously related with the alteration whether it be on the advantage or disadvantage of the community in the means of communication, population growth and movement, environment, and several administrative and political matters which take a huge part in the complications of the concern (Halfmann, 1998).
Due to the persistent demand on distinguishing such differences, the European government, which is also conceived to be imposed on other countries as well, marked a line in between the above mentioned delimitations and privileges among the “pure” citizens, and the citizens “through legal acquisition” (Halfmann, 1998). There have been general agreements over the core components, although there is no “universal” description of such with regards to the precise and exact meaning of such terms. As a result, such misunderstandings give rise to the very different perceptions on what “citizenship” entails (Byram & Grundy, 2003). For the benefit of such level of clashing of concept, numerous analysts in the sociological and political arena considered the following realms for the objective of distinguishing the precession of the problem: knowledge, action, community, rights and responsibilities, public and private morality, inclusivity, and locality. The aforementioned fields have been critically studied so as to come up with a definite solution to the inquiry of citizenship (Lister, 1997).
The question of pride
The major concern on the issue of citizenship and the bounds it has been marked, explores the importance of the identity and the democratic deficit which are considered as forces behind the rivalry of those who feel that their inherent rights have been stepped beyond the limits of their expectation as pure and naturally born citizens in Europe (Arthur, 2001). Further, as cultural behavior stresses, the feeling of having rights only enjoyed by individuals of your same kind create a feeling of importance that it cannot be taken away. They considered such as a distinguishing factor for them as “Europeans” by which they inherited from their forefathers, and thus raising the issues on those who are “citizens by legality” formidably haunt their pride.
Along with the problems cited, the privileges and the rights are also shared by those who have acquired the level of citizenship and also entitle them with certain immunity measures which are questionable if collaborated in the constitution — another factor which is beyond the imagination of those who were not able to understand the privilege of immunity (Halfmann, 1998). Constitutionally, those which are dual citizens, although it barely depends upon which nation that individual actually came from, with the bridge of the embassy, they are not to be imposed with the regulatory criminal laws as defined and imposed to those who are “pure citizens” of Europe (Janowitz, 1980; J. Shaw, 1998).
Constitutional arguments with regards to justice system
An example of such instance which had been haunting the International Court for the reason that there had been laws which do not collaborate and perceivable adhere with the laws of the country concerned. Further illustration of such case are defined in the International Law and the issues which struck the Nation and also served as an example to all the other countries not to commit the same clash of authority again (Scott & Lawson, 2002).
The following issues had been raised and submitted and thus are considerably the deliberative arguments of those citizens whose main concern revolve around the gist of legalities:
Due respect to their right in exercising diplomatic protection in relation the convicts or otherwise known as the ‘consular assistance submission’ having had failed to inform them with their rights stated in the Constitution.
The application of rules under municipal law which prevented the convicts from raising their claims along with their execution – ‘illegal municipal law submission’.
Failure to comply the measures indicated by the ICJ and failure to take all measures for the prevention of the pending decision – ‘provisional measures submission’.
Requiring the US to provide the guarantee of ‘non-repetition’ of such acts coherent with the international law and to give assurance that future cases would not commit the same mishaps again – ‘assurance and guarantee submission’.
The diplomatic relations were shaken by the level of procuring such rights which both parties believed are to be implemented and imposed for the sake of justice. Accordingly, the whole gist of the conflict justifies the violations committed tantamount to one statement as per studied by those under the responsibility of analyzing such case: conceivably, the strongest evidence which is considered in the most justifiable sense of dispute ought to be seen in an order which had been unanimously adopted without the consideration of individual opinion (M. N. Shaw, 2003). The pious result of such incident is pushing their aim for the line to be marked in between the level of citizenship.
‘Outsiders’ and ‘Insiders’
The synthesis of the rights as well as with the participatory approaches on the concern on citizenship is often linked on the notion of human agency. The inclusion of those who are considered as “outsiders” are those embracing the feminist theory of internationalist agenda while the “insiders” are those which dig on differentiated universalism. On the pitch of public-private dichotomy, conceptual citizenship and reconstruction on such basis are argued as to provide the importance of theoretical and political tools for societal development (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994).
In the level of theories, political analysts and critics found the hidden agendum of “citizenship-busters” to have been using the advantage of the issuance of citizenship rights on their regard. The renewed interest on such political discourse integrated the demands of justice and community membership aligned with the measures of philosophical explanations respectively. Backlash against welfare and failure on environmental policies, citizen cooperation and rules and regulations impositions also created a massive damage embroidering resurgence on nationalist movements (Osler & Starkey, 1999).
The raging clashes on identity perspective dominantly clear the events on health and stability of democracy. Given such proposition, it had been surfacing on clamors that justice must not only lie on the bestiality of the structure but also on the nature of the individual inhabiting such vicinity taking further attention on the qualities and the attitudes as well. Moreover, the sense of identity and the potentiality of the competing forms in the subject of national, regional, ethnic or religious identities, tolerance and ability in working together with others who are conceivably different from them, the desire on participation on national and communal activities for the enhancement and the development of public good as well as with the level of accountability on political authorities are taken as crucial points in the issuance of European Citizenship (Kymlicka & Norman, 1994; J. Shaw, 1998). Furthermore, the sagacity of the willingness in showing self-restraint and the collaboration on exercising personal responsibilities in economic and personal demands affecting the environment and the community had been flagging the noted queries on what those who wish to acquire the privileges of the country are to be bequeathed upon to (Halfmann, 1998).
Call for theory of citizenship
Considering the fact that not there had been a major problem caused by the attitude and behavior of citizens, it is not quite surprising that the quality of democracy had been hard to establish. The question then with regards to such orbit around the complication of making those who are not of the same culture, or have not thoroughly adopted the European way of living follow the rules set by the country given the fact that they have been raised on a different manner (Janowitz, 1980). Undeniably, it indeed requires thorough analysis and survey with critical research to be able to fix the immortal problem and maze of human behavior. Aside from that, the issue on loyalty and allegiance is inevitable to take heed to, given the theory that “blood is thicker than water” and with the horrors of terrorism, it is predictably unavoidable to have culprits which stands on the same ground.
Globalization’s way of creating a harmonious relationship and collaboration among different countries are best illustrated in the art of citizenship. Even though it does not leave the web of convolution in the arena of contemporary sociology, its essence and effectiveness in raising the relationship of archipelagic and state-boundaries towards a melodic bond are up to date relentlessly enjoyed by the migrating masses (J. Shaw, 1998). There may have been certain boundaries and hanging controversies on the question of equality, but generally, it connotes the prudence of citizen rights enlarging the sphere of parity in the field of political, economic and social gain. Consequently, the “slippery concept” of citizenship’s exclusionary tensions suggests a radical extension in order to achieve the triumph of the entrenchment of the principle of autonomy over and above the facilitation of free and equal political participation.
Arthur, J. (2001). Citizenship Through Secondary History. London: London Taylor & Francis.
Byram, M., & Grundy, P. (2003). Context and Culture in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon: Buffalo Multilingual Matters.
The Functionality of Citizenship (1997). Harvard Law Review, 110(8), 1814-1831.
Halfmann, J. (1998). Citizenship Universalism, Migration and the Risks of Exclusion The British Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 513-533.
Janowitz, M. (1980). Observations on the Sociology of Citizenship: Obligations and Rights Social Forces, 59(1), 1-24.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the Citizen: A Survey of Recent Work on Citizenship Theory Ethics, 104(2), 352-381.
Lister, R. (1997). Citizenship: Towards a Feminist Synthesis [Electronic Version]. Citizenship: Pushing the Boundaries, 57, 28-48. Retrieved July 12. 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0141-7789%28199723%290%3A57%3C28%3ACTAFS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D.
Osler, A., & Starkey, H. (1999). Rights, Identities and Inclusion: European Action Programmes as Political Education [Electronic Version]. Oxford Review of Education, 25, 199-215. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0305-4985%28199903%2F06%2925%3A1%2F2%3C199%3ARIAIEA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y
Scott, D., & Lawson, H. (2002). Citizenship Education and the Curriculum. Westport: Conn. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Shaw, J. (1998). The Interpretation of European Union Citizenship [Electronic Version]. The Modern Law Review, 61, 293-317. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-7961%28199805%2961%3A3%3C293%3ATIOEUC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
Shaw, M. N. (2003). International Law (Fifth ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.