After the cold war era, it was assumed that the issue of war was no longer an issue of concern to the world. Therefore, nations were expected to experience peace and harmony. Huntington (2003) disagrees with this notion based on the fact that there followed a lot of ethnic clashes, and the expected universal organization was never founded. He states that the global politics experienced before and after the cold world war were different. According to his analysis, there were differences in the way nations defined civilization. After the cold war era, the nations cooperated and allied themselves according the similarities in culture. Conflicts were experienced between states with different cultures. The issue of belonging was based on nationality in terms of similar territories, culture, and ethnicity. These events, which happened after the cold war, could have been predicted even before the war as explained by the civilizational paradigm that he introduced (Huntington, 2003).
According to his predictions that were based on the past events, there will be a clash of civilization. Nations are expected to define belonging based on territories, ethnicity, and culture. This implies that citizenship will be restricted to the nationality of an individual (Huntington, 2003). This paper compares the issue of citizenship in the past and modern view in which globalization has become the force towards pluralism. It will discuss citizenship and the issues that transform it from the past view into modern practice. It states that the clash of civilization will not affect citizenship. This is because nations have adopted a transnational approach towards nationality and citizenship.
Citizenship in the 21st Century
Citizenship requires that individuals have the rights, duties, responsibilities, and identity that link them to the state in which they belong. When the aspect of migration and the minority of some tribes are considered, the issue of national citizenship is outdated. This has resulted to modern citizenship in which identity is not based on nationality, but rather the rights that one has in a certain nation (Bosniak, 2000). With the current trend in globalization, post-nationalism should be adopted. This is because people are migrating from one nation to another, and reside there for a long period. Living in a different state for a considerable period gives the person a right to be involved in collective decision within that state.
Participation of the individual in the responsibilities of the citizens in that country is also expected. An example is the case of guest workers that were invited to Western Europe when they had a shortage of labour. These workers were initially on temporal terms, but they later became permanent residents along with their descendants. Most of them were not given the opportunity of becoming the citizens to the nations that they resided (Koopmans & Statham, 1999). Today, this has changed, and many countries are promising citizenship at the international level. This is because people are likely to require the protection of their rights more than they used to require them during the national rights regime. Today, there is movement of people and products across borders, and this requires that they are protected like the nationals. They deserve equal treatment and rights for them to work together as one (Aleinikoff, 2001).
Citizenship has been extended beyond the nation, and this has resulted to a lot of post-national developments. People who have committed themselves to democracy and egalitarian values may not approve all the developments that have come about due to citizenship beyond borders. They may feel that their territory is being threatened and that they lose their power in politics and decision making. However, transnational citizenship is biased towards uniting people to form a common identity and solidarity. It is not about rights and political power. However, these are some of the traits that come with this form of citizenship. It diverts attention from the exclusive nationalism that only identifies fellow nationals and excludes the non-nationals from normative attention that they may offer. It seeks to integrate the outsiders as aliens and others as foreigners who have resided within the country long enough to exercise their rights. It also considers that there could be some nationals residing in other nations who will be included in the foreign nations in which they reside (Aleinikoff, 2001).
Political structures and activities have contributed to internationalised human rights (Likosky, 2002). These events have worked to improve the pace at which nations are embracing globalisation. This has raised concerns as to whether this may lead to increased political participation that is not formal. It is also feared that this may lead to deterioration of practices in place and identity. In this case, unlike national citizenship, transnational citizenship is not based on the national boundaries. This has been solved by the introduction of the international community and international laws that are used to govern people from different nationals under the same setting. It does not affect the individual guidelines that have been put for citizenship. This citizenship has taken a non-national form whereby issues like ethnicity, culture, and territories do not arise in identification. It gives a collective identity in which people from all sorts of origin and identity can belong (Lister &Pia, 2008).
The futuristic expectations are that there is going to be a plural understanding of the affiliations and identity that should exist among nations. This is because post nationalism has put the nation-centred way of thinking to an end. The issue of citizenship at the national level has also become flexible and is open to adapt to the emerging trends especially in terms of globalization. The political life experienced in the past during the nationalism era can now be restructured. This is meant to accommodate immigrants and foreigners who may be staying in foreign territories for a considerable period (Brettel&Hollified 2000).
The United States is an example of a nation that is geared towards promoting transnationalism. Since the era of civil rights, the U.S. immigration law that has been made flexible to allow a significant number of people to reside in the U.S. This implies that, in the coming decades, an increased number of people will move to reside in this country. These people will expect to be accorded rights and citizen responsibilities. Other nations are following the trend, and this will be a big step towards ending civil clashes, as well as adopting international identity and solidarity (Aleinikoff, 2001).
Transnational citizenship has United Nations and promoted an environment in which people from different cultures can work together while experiencing equal rights and protection. It has moved the world from the past practice in which people were restricted to interact within their territories and nations. This has resulted to the formation of an international community. The clash in civilization, which was predicted by Huntington, will not occur because globalisation has united the world. The national citizenship is no longer the ultimate practice that defines whether a person can belong to a certain region or not. The trend that was expected to take place based on what happened after the cold war is not the case today. The invention of globalisation and the international community has changed this and promoted international unity. It is expected that, in the future, this trend will keep improving. The world is set to become one community in which people can exercise their rights and responsibilities. Transnational citizenship has solved the problems experienced in national citizenship, and the issue of migration and relocation has been facilitated. People can have a sense of belonging in the places that they reside even if they are not nationals to those countries. The issue of civilisation will not interfere with citizenship in foreign countries and territories.
Aleinikoff, TA 2001, Citizenship today: global perspectives and practices, Brookings Inst. Press, Washington DC.
Bosniak, L 2000, Citizenship Denationalized, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, vol. 7, pp. 447-507.
Brettel, C &Hollified, JF 2000, Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines,Routledge, New York.
Huntington, SP 2003, The clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Koopmans, R & Statham, P 1999, Challenging the Liberal Nation-State?Postnationalism, Multiculturalism, and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany, Postnationalism.vol. 105, no.3, pp. 652-396.
Likosky, M 2002, Transnational Legal Processes, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lister, M &Pia E 2008, Citizenship in contemporary Europe, Edinburgh Univ. Press, Edinburgh.
Question 4: Nationality and Citizenship
The terms “nationality” and “citizenship” have been used synonymously in many situations. It has been assumed that these two terms mean the same thing. Nonetheless, this is not the case. There exist a wide variety of differences between these two terms. A citizen and a national in the same country may have unequal rights and privileges. This is defined by the rules and regulations of the given country that both to which the individuals belong. Nationality is believed to be a natural aspect of an individual, which the individual has no control. On the other hand, citizenship sounds like an aspect of legality that can be dictated by the concerned party. A person can be a national of a different nation but has citizenship of other countries. This means that this person can enjoy benefits of being both a national and citizen of different countries (United Nation’s Division for the Advancement of Women, 2003). This paper will discuss on the differences between nationality and citizenship. It will further highlight the various ways in which each of the status may be used, and when not applicable.
The Differences in the Concepts of Nationality and Citizenship
Nationality is a term used to refer to people who are born in a certain country or region. These people may be bound together by race, nation, or even the family chain that they are believed to originate. They may belong to the same territory; however, this is not always the case. If such a territory is bound together by political unity, the people may form a state (Weis &Lauterpacht, 1979). It also refers to the country of origin. In most of the cases, this is the same country from which the parents belonged. Individuals who share the same nationality are united and expect protection from their country of origin. This is even while they are in other foreign countries. An individual’s relevance to a certain country is subject to sovereignty, and they are tied to this. This is a personal relationship, which is influenced by territorial links a lot (Kaldor& Kumar, 1993). Citizenship refers to the membership to a certain political community. This membership makes an individual eligible practice the duties and rights associated with belonging to that community. These rights include civil, cultural, and social economic rights, as well as political rights. It allows a person to participate in collective decision making on matters that regulate social life. This is directly related to political power and democracy (Bellamy, 2008).
Citizens have responsibilities towards their country that include being obedient to the country’s laws, paying taxes, and services such as military among others. They are expected to present their interests as a union in which they influence their political rulers, ensuring that they put the interest of the public first. They control this service, and this ensures that they do not focus on their own personal interests (Bellamy, 2008). On the other hand, nationals are bound by sovereignty that they have. This includes the aspects that they share such as territories, religion, language or even traditions. The aspects that they share are what bring them together (Magocsi, 2010). This means that these two different aspects are influenced by what is common among the members. For citizens, decision making and responsibilities involved bind them together. For nationals, it is the similar traits that are shared between the members.
Citizenship brings people of different backgrounds and origins together. These people are expected to live with peace and harmony regardless of the cultural and ethnic differences that they may have. Rules and regulations cannot fully influence the mutual coexistence. They are required to establish neighbourliness. This is not natural, but is created because they are forced by circumstances to do that (Bellamy, 2008). On the other hand, nationalism is natural and does not require any effort for members to live well amongst themselves (Weis &Lauterpacht, 1979). From this observation, it can be concluded that citizenship brings different people together to form a community that has common interests and responsibilities. Nationalism is the opposite of this. This is because the shared traits are the results to the segregation and identification of communities. Citizenship brings people together while nationalism establishes sovereignty. Globalization is the most recent emerging trend that calls for international unity. For different nations to work together while aiming common goals, the integration of these two aspects can be successful in the formation of an international community (Kaldor& Kumar, 1993).
Citizenship comes with responsibilities and decision making. Being the citizen of a given country gives one more rights and privileges than with being a national who is not a citizen of the same country. The nationals are obliged to do the responsibilities expected of the citizens of that country. The rules and regulations must be adhered to irrespective of whether the nationals were involved in the decision making or not. Being a national does not necessarily mean that one is involved in decision making, but following the guidelines given is mandatory. Citizenship gives an individual the advantage of participating in the definition of these guidelines (Kaldor& Kumar, 1993).
Frameworks have evolved in which the European Union has avoided the difference between nationality and citizenship and refers to these two terms as one. This is a cause for controversy since it does not agree with the international law. Citizenship is associated with the internal membership to a country while nationality is external. When these two terms are separated, then the difference is evident. This is because people who reside in different locations from where they were borne can still identify themselves as nationals to their origin. They are also to identify themselves as citizens to the country that they reside in, and exercise their civil and political rights. The term national should not limit a person from acquiring the citizenship of another country as was the case after the First World War (Hansen & Weil,2002).
The United Kingdom does not attribute nationality to the possession of citizenship. In stead, it has stipulated that nationality is deprived of the rights of citizenship. The case of the United Kingdom is similar to that presented by the international law. There is a difference between the two terms, and they should be used to determine the rights that an individual should have within these two settings. There are cases in which people are citizens but not nationals to the countries in which they reside. Therefore, stating that all citizens to a given country must be nationals is wrong. Differentiating the two terms gives people the right to associate themselves to their roots while still exercising their rights in the places in which they reside. Separating the two terms will not only work at promoting law and international relations, but also gives people a sense of belonging (Boll, 2007).
Nationality and citizenship are two different terms that are often not differentiated. The differences depend on the country and the political system. Some nations use nationality to imply citizenship and vice versa. However, these terms should be used in their right context to simplify the processes of immigration and enhance the globalization process. When used synonymously, it can be confusing especially for visitors who travel to other regions. Such individuals may not communicate with ease and know what is expected of them as foreigners. Definitions based on the international law must be followed to ensure a mutual understanding among all nations.