Ever since the concept of EU citizenship was formally introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht, a lively debate followed as to how European citizenship, in particular in relation to the ‘traditional’ concept of national citizenship, should be viewed. It has, for instance, been described as a form of composite citizenship, in a sense that citizenship is composed of various statuses, rights and duties depending on the legal order to which the citizen is subject (Van Eijken 2015). The idea of composite citizenship is still very much linked to the definition of EU citizenship in the Treaty, which stipulates that EU citizens are nationals of the Member States, which has an additional value to national citizenship. The question is how the formal, legal conception of EU citizenship as can be found in the Treaty relates to a number of developments in the EU, like the upcoming Brexit, the Rule of Law crisis in a number of Member States and the case law of the European Court of Justice, attaching a fundamental status to EU citizenship. Considering these developments the question arises, whether EU citizenship should not be perceived as, or develop into, a more open, fluid concept, which has gained an independent and not merely additional status to national citizenship? In this paper the (legal) possibilities (clues) and constraints will be explored, which can already be found in old case law of the European Court of Justice and in the literature, with a view to develop a more open and inclusive concept of citizenship.
自从《马斯特里赫特条约》(Treaty of Maastricht)正式引入欧盟公民身份的概念以来，关于如何看待欧洲公民身份，特别是与“传统”的国家公民身份概念之间的关系，就展开了激烈的辩论。例如，它被描述为一种复合公民身份，从某种意义上说，公民身份由公民所服从的法律秩序的各种地位、权利和义务组成(Van Eijken 2015)。复合公民身份的概念仍然与《条约》中对欧盟公民身份的定义密切相关，该定义规定欧盟公民是成员国的国民，这对国家公民身份具有额外的价值。问题是，《条约》中关于欧盟公民身份的正式法律概念如何与欧盟的一些发展相关联，比如即将到来的英国脱欧、一些成员国的法治危机以及欧洲法院的判例法，这些都将欧盟公民身份赋予了基本地位。考虑到这些发展，出现了一个问题，欧盟公民身份是否应该被视为或发展成一个更开放、更流动的概念，它已经获得了独立的、而不仅仅是国家公民身份的附加地位?本文将探讨(法律上的)可能性(线索)和约束，这些在欧洲法院的旧判例法和文献中已经可以找到，以期发展一个更加开放和包容的公民概念。
{"title":"Deepening and widening of the protection of fundamental rights of European citizens vis-à-vis non-state, private actors","authors":"S. Vries, H. V. Eijken","doi":"10.4324/9780429198588-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198588-9","url":null,"abstract":"Ever since the concept of EU citizenship was formally introduced in the Treaty of Maastricht, a lively debate followed as to how European citizenship, in particular in relation to the ‘traditional’ concept of national citizenship, should be viewed. It has, for instance, been described as a form of composite citizenship, in a sense that citizenship is composed of various statuses, rights and duties depending on the legal order to which the citizen is subject (Van Eijken 2015). The idea of composite citizenship is still very much linked to the definition of EU citizenship in the Treaty, which stipulates that EU citizens are nationals of the Member States, which has an additional value to national citizenship. The question is how the formal, legal conception of EU citizenship as can be found in the Treaty relates to a number of developments in the EU, like the upcoming Brexit, the Rule of Law crisis in a number of Member States and the case law of the European Court of Justice, attaching a fundamental status to EU citizenship. Considering these developments the question arises, whether EU citizenship should not be perceived as, or develop into, a more open, fluid concept, which has gained an independent and not merely additional status to national citizenship? In this paper the (legal) possibilities (clues) and constraints will be explored, which can already be found in old case law of the European Court of Justice and in the literature, with a view to develop a more open and inclusive concept of citizenship.","PeriodicalId":158864,"journal":{"name":"Cultures, Citizenship and Human Rights","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132033386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-19DOI: 10.4324/9780429198588-12
D. Miert
From the 15th century onwards, up until at least the end of the 18th century, scholars and scientists in Europe often referred to the concept of a Respublica literaria (‘Republic of Letters’ or ‘Commonwealth of learning’) to denote the world they inhabited: an intellectual world in which scholars, printers, teachers and often patrons were tied together into huge correspondence networks, constituting a pan-European social network. The Republic of Letters is often characterized as an imagined community, but it may also be seen as civil society or even a knowledge commons. As a community that transgressed geographical boundaries and stimulated the sharing of knowledge, its members were forced to accept many differences in religion and politics. The Republic of Letters has therefore often been seen as fostering ‘tolerance’. Yet, the Republic of Letters was also exclusive: only highly educated people could participate, and these were usually white, male and heterosexual. Citizenship of this imagined community was defined by culture: by practices, and increasingly by codes of conduct. In this article, we will examine to what extent theories of citizenship help to gain a clearer picture of the structural impediments for women to be accepted as participants in this community.
{"title":"Contested cultural citizenship of a virtual transnational community","authors":"D. Miert","doi":"10.4324/9780429198588-12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198588-12","url":null,"abstract":"From the 15th century onwards, up until at least the end of the 18th century, scholars and scientists in Europe often referred to the concept of a Respublica literaria (‘Republic of Letters’ or ‘Commonwealth of learning’) to denote the world they inhabited: an intellectual world in which scholars, printers, teachers and often patrons were tied together into huge correspondence networks, constituting a pan-European social network. The Republic of Letters is often characterized as an imagined community, but it may also be seen as civil society or even a knowledge commons. As a community that transgressed geographical boundaries and stimulated the sharing of knowledge, its members were forced to accept many differences in religion and politics. The Republic of Letters has therefore often been seen as fostering ‘tolerance’. Yet, the Republic of Letters was also exclusive: only highly educated people could participate, and these were usually white, male and heterosexual. Citizenship of this imagined community was defined by culture: by practices, and increasingly by codes of conduct. In this article, we will examine to what extent theories of citizenship help to gain a clearer picture of the structural impediments for women to be accepted as participants in this community.","PeriodicalId":158864,"journal":{"name":"Cultures, Citizenship and Human Rights","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122132406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-11-19DOI: 10.4324/9780429198588-10
J. Bhabha
approximation to it’. Others are less sanguine in their assessment of the Trafficking Protocol’s impact and legacy. Marjan Wijers, an expert who participated in the negotiations leading up to the Protocol, is critical of its focus and argues that it prioritises attention to the coercion involved in the recruitment and transportation aspects of trafficking instead of unconditionally addressing the central human rights violation caused by human trafficking, namely the abusive working conditions of trafficked persons—be they labouror sex-sector related (a distinction Wijers is critical of)—irrespective of the initial induction circumstances. Torture, brutalisation, rape, coercion in the daily life of sex workers or undocumented migrants who chose to cross borders to improve their life prospects, she argues, are thus ignored or marginalised. This approach, she notes, diverts the primary preoccupation of anti-trafficking intervention from the protection of vulnerable workers to the policing of State borders. From a single country perspective, Grupo Davida, a conglomerate of academic researchers associated with the Davida prostitutes’ rights association in Rio de Janeiro, articulate a similar opinion based on their experience of the Trafficking Protocol’s impact on Brazil’s antitrafficking policies. Like Wijers, they note its impact on strengthening migration control policy and its concomitant neglect of some of the most vulnerable and exploited groups, including sex workers, coerced migrant labourers and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Kathryn Baer at The Trafficking Research Project too from her vantage point in Singapore—a non-signatory country influenced by global anti-trafficking discourse—criticises the impact that growing government emphasis on sanctioning trafficking has had on victim protection. She argues that policies justified as anti-trafficking measures in fact generate and justify raids on irregular migrants and sex worker groups, increasing criminal convictions of vulnerable workers but ignoring issues of victim protection or trafficking prevention. She also notes that a key rights issue confronting vulnerable migrant workers—deceptive recruitment practices that trick them into accepting exploitative labour contracts on false premises—is ignored. Yet another group of contributors strike a middle ground between these two contrasting perspectives, setting out both gains and detriments that the Protocol seems to have produced. Anne T Gallagher, a leading international expert on antitrafficking law and policy, carefully sets out the conclusions of her balance sheet. Like Ezeilo, she commends the agenda-setting achievements of the Protocol, the fact that it has generated a road map for dealing with trafficking where none existed. She also ANTI-TRAFFICKING REVIEW 4 (2015) notes the beneficial impact of the Protocol’s unitary (albeit unwieldy) definition of trafficking as a consensus-building breakthrough that provides a ba
{"title":"Looking back, looking forward","authors":"J. Bhabha","doi":"10.4324/9780429198588-10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198588-10","url":null,"abstract":"approximation to it’. Others are less sanguine in their assessment of the Trafficking Protocol’s impact and legacy. Marjan Wijers, an expert who participated in the negotiations leading up to the Protocol, is critical of its focus and argues that it prioritises attention to the coercion involved in the recruitment and transportation aspects of trafficking instead of unconditionally addressing the central human rights violation caused by human trafficking, namely the abusive working conditions of trafficked persons—be they labouror sex-sector related (a distinction Wijers is critical of)—irrespective of the initial induction circumstances. Torture, brutalisation, rape, coercion in the daily life of sex workers or undocumented migrants who chose to cross borders to improve their life prospects, she argues, are thus ignored or marginalised. This approach, she notes, diverts the primary preoccupation of anti-trafficking intervention from the protection of vulnerable workers to the policing of State borders. From a single country perspective, Grupo Davida, a conglomerate of academic researchers associated with the Davida prostitutes’ rights association in Rio de Janeiro, articulate a similar opinion based on their experience of the Trafficking Protocol’s impact on Brazil’s antitrafficking policies. Like Wijers, they note its impact on strengthening migration control policy and its concomitant neglect of some of the most vulnerable and exploited groups, including sex workers, coerced migrant labourers and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Kathryn Baer at The Trafficking Research Project too from her vantage point in Singapore—a non-signatory country influenced by global anti-trafficking discourse—criticises the impact that growing government emphasis on sanctioning trafficking has had on victim protection. She argues that policies justified as anti-trafficking measures in fact generate and justify raids on irregular migrants and sex worker groups, increasing criminal convictions of vulnerable workers but ignoring issues of victim protection or trafficking prevention. She also notes that a key rights issue confronting vulnerable migrant workers—deceptive recruitment practices that trick them into accepting exploitative labour contracts on false premises—is ignored. Yet another group of contributors strike a middle ground between these two contrasting perspectives, setting out both gains and detriments that the Protocol seems to have produced. Anne T Gallagher, a leading international expert on antitrafficking law and policy, carefully sets out the conclusions of her balance sheet. Like Ezeilo, she commends the agenda-setting achievements of the Protocol, the fact that it has generated a road map for dealing with trafficking where none existed. She also ANTI-TRAFFICKING REVIEW 4 (2015) notes the beneficial impact of the Protocol’s unitary (albeit unwieldy) definition of trafficking as a consensus-building breakthrough that provides a ba","PeriodicalId":158864,"journal":{"name":"Cultures, Citizenship and Human Rights","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133810663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Moritz Baumgärtel, B. Oomen, E. Durmuş, S. Miellet
{"title":"Cities of refuge","authors":"Moritz Baumgärtel, B. Oomen, E. Durmuş, S. Miellet","doi":"10.4324/9780429198588-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429198588-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":158864,"journal":{"name":"Cultures, Citizenship and Human Rights","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122209122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：