通过异化和出生特权重新思考公民权:波什尼亚克和沙查尔对自由公民权的批评

Q3 Social Sciences Issues in Legal Scholarship Pub Date : 2011-01-24 DOI:10.2202/1539-8323.1126
Sarah Song
{"title":"通过异化和出生特权重新思考公民权:波什尼亚克和沙查尔对自由公民权的批评","authors":"Sarah Song","doi":"10.2202/1539-8323.1126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The assumption that the boundaries of justice and democracy coincide with the territorial boundaries of states is subject to increasing normative critique. Linda Bosniak and Ayelet Shachar’s recent books are part of this charge; their common starting point is the tension between a commitment to bounded citizenship that privileges citizens over noncitizens and the moral cosmopolitan claim that all human beings, regardless of their citizenship status, are entitled to equal concern and respect. Bosniak’s focus is on the territorial interior and the difference that citizenship status does and doesn’t make to the legal rights a territorially present person is entitled do. Shachar critiques birthright citizenship laws, which are a central mechanism by which global inequality is sustained. This review essay argues that while these authors identify important new challenges and offer innovative proposals, they only take us part of the way toward meeting the challenge of articulating citizenship’s ethical significance and the relationship between our national and global obligations.","PeriodicalId":34921,"journal":{"name":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1126","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Citizenship through Alienage and Birthright Privilege: Bosniak and Shachar's Critiques of Liberal Citizenship\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Song\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1539-8323.1126\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The assumption that the boundaries of justice and democracy coincide with the territorial boundaries of states is subject to increasing normative critique. Linda Bosniak and Ayelet Shachar’s recent books are part of this charge; their common starting point is the tension between a commitment to bounded citizenship that privileges citizens over noncitizens and the moral cosmopolitan claim that all human beings, regardless of their citizenship status, are entitled to equal concern and respect. Bosniak’s focus is on the territorial interior and the difference that citizenship status does and doesn’t make to the legal rights a territorially present person is entitled do. Shachar critiques birthright citizenship laws, which are a central mechanism by which global inequality is sustained. This review essay argues that while these authors identify important new challenges and offer innovative proposals, they only take us part of the way toward meeting the challenge of articulating citizenship’s ethical significance and the relationship between our national and global obligations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1539-8323.1126\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Issues in Legal Scholarship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1126\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Issues in Legal Scholarship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1539-8323.1126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

正义和民主的边界与国家的领土边界一致的假设受到越来越多的规范性批评。琳达·波什尼亚克(Linda Bosniak)和阿耶莱特·沙查尔(Ayelet Shachar)最近的书就是这种指责的一部分;他们共同的出发点是对有限公民权的承诺——赋予公民高于非公民的特权——与道德上的世界主义主张——所有人,无论其公民身份如何,都有权得到平等的关注和尊重——之间的紧张关系。Bosniak的重点是领土内部,以及公民身份对领土上的人有权享有的法律权利的影响。沙查尔批评了出生公民权法,这是维持全球不平等的核心机制。这篇评论文章认为,虽然这些作者发现了重要的新挑战,并提出了创新的建议,但他们只带我们走了一部分路,以迎接明确公民道德意义和我们国家与全球义务之间关系的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rethinking Citizenship through Alienage and Birthright Privilege: Bosniak and Shachar's Critiques of Liberal Citizenship
The assumption that the boundaries of justice and democracy coincide with the territorial boundaries of states is subject to increasing normative critique. Linda Bosniak and Ayelet Shachar’s recent books are part of this charge; their common starting point is the tension between a commitment to bounded citizenship that privileges citizens over noncitizens and the moral cosmopolitan claim that all human beings, regardless of their citizenship status, are entitled to equal concern and respect. Bosniak’s focus is on the territorial interior and the difference that citizenship status does and doesn’t make to the legal rights a territorially present person is entitled do. Shachar critiques birthright citizenship laws, which are a central mechanism by which global inequality is sustained. This review essay argues that while these authors identify important new challenges and offer innovative proposals, they only take us part of the way toward meeting the challenge of articulating citizenship’s ethical significance and the relationship between our national and global obligations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Issues in Legal Scholarship
Issues in Legal Scholarship Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Issues in Legal Scholarship presents cutting-edge legal and policy research using the format of online peer-reviewed symposia. The journal’s emphasis on interdisciplinary work and legal theory extends to recent symposium topics such as Single-Sex Marriage, The Reformation of American Administrative Law, and Catastrophic Risks. The symposia systematically address emerging issues of great significance, offering ongoing scholarship of interest to a wide range of policy and legal researchers. Online publication makes it possible for other researchers to find the best and latest quickly, as well as to join in further discussion. Each symposium aims to be a living forum with ongoing publications and commentaries.
期刊最新文献
Current understanding of extracellular vesicle homing/tropism. Tort Policy in a Plural Context: Pathways Towards Objective Liability in UAE Tort Law Eliciting Best Evidence from a Child Witness: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom and India Bumped Redundancy and the Range of Reasonable Responses: To what Extent, if any, should Employers Consider Bumping? Life after Mirab v Mentor Graphics Limited UKEAT/0172/17DA Deconstructing the Opacity of Pari Passu Clause as a Pathway to Interpretative Clarity: Guidepost to Optimal Adjudicatory Outcomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1