Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T05:40:09.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EU Citizenship as a Mental Construct: Reconstruction of Postnational Model of Citizenship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2012

Sanja Ivic
Sanja Ivic
Affiliation:
Institute for European Studies, Trg Nikole Pasica 11, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia. Email: aurora1@yubc.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to revise essentialist conceptions of the European Union citizenship and European identity, and make a case for a ‘politics of affinity’. This politics is founded on flexible notion of Union citizenship that accommodates multiple identities. The ‘politics of affinity’ avoids homogenizing assumptions and unitary conceptions of European, national, regional and other identities. It promotes diversity, otherness and fluid character of the postmodern European citizenship. It also advocates a more fluid idea of boundaries. The politics of affinity grounds European politics and citizenship discourse on affinity (not identity). The following lines will reflect on the institutional mechanisms, reforms and policies needed for the implementation of the politics of affinity. This paper will focus on the Treaty of Lisbon, the 2004/38 Citizenship Directive, the 2003 Directive on Long-term Residence Third Country Nationals and some ECJ's rulings in the new millennium.

Type
Citizenship, Bureaucracy and Entrepreneurship
Information
European Review , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , 02 May 2012 , pp. 419 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes and References

1.Meehan, E. (1993) Citizenship and the European Community (London: Sage) .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Caporaso, J.A. (1996) The European Union and forms of state: Westphalian, regulatory or postmodern? Journal of Common Market Studies, 34(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Caporaso examines the European Union in the light of three state forms – the postmodern state, the Westphalian state and regulatory state.Google Scholar
4. According to van Ham, ‘postmodernism offers a new, radical intellectual and political agenda. Its rejection of boundaries of any kind, whether as means of physical demarcation (separating peoples between “us” and “them”) or as intellectual ordering devices (distinguishing between academic disciplines) should be read as a means to overcome modernist mechanisms of marginalization and exclusion of peripheral voices: the poor, women and children, racial and other minorities, artists and youth and other sub-cultures, as well as academic endeavors that try to go beyond the well-trodden path of orthodox discourse. It is broadly interdisciplinary in approach and denies that any particular methodology is better than another […] As a result, postmodernism does not acknowledge monological interpretations of reality, rejects unifying and dominant actors like the nation-state.’ Van Ham, P. (2001) European Integration and the Postmodern Condition: Governance, Democracy, Identity (London & New York: Routledge), p. 16.Google Scholar
5. ‘ “Nestedness” implies the traditional federal (territorial) principle by which smaller units (counties, states, provinces, cantons) are situated within larger units.’ Closa, C. (1995) Citizenship of the union and nationality of member states. Common Market Law Review, 32, pp. 511–512.Google Scholar
6.Closa, C. (1995) Citizenship of the union and nationality of member states. Common Market Law Review, 32.Google Scholar
7.Van Ham, P. (2001) European Integration and the Postmodern Condition: Governance, Democracy, Identity (Routledge: London & New York).Google Scholar
8. ‘This goes hand in hand with a perceived loss of the sense of a shared historical past, which may in turn open up possibilities of forging more inclusive identities going beyond the rigid confines of the national-state. The interconnectedness of the world also makes it difficult for individual states and societies to sustain possible illusions and fantasies of ‘national superiority’ and uniqueness.’ Van Ham, P. (2001) European Integration and the Postmodern Condition: Governance, Democracy, Identity (London & New York: Routledge), p. 15.Google Scholar
9. ‘Given the proliferation of legal statuses in Europe-among others, (Member State) national, dual national, European citizen, third-country national, resident, permanent resident – traditional notions of citizenship are simply not the correct standard against which to measure the actual context of European citizenship.’ Horváth, E. (2008) Mandating Identity: Citizenship, Kinship Laws and Plural Nationality in the European Union (the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International Horváth), p. 97.Google Scholar
10.Fox, J. (2005) Unpacking ‘transnational citizenship’. Annual Review of Political Science, 8.Google Scholar
11.Habermas, J. (2001) Postnational Constellation: Political Essays trans. and ed. by M. Pensky (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
12.Kostakopolou, T. (1996) Towards a theory of constructive citizenship in Europe. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(4).Google Scholar
13. ‘In such a public, individuals can participate as individual citizens and members of communities or groups which have equal status in the public sphere – they can take action both as citizens and as black citizens, or gay citizens, or old age pensioner citizens. This will free the European demos from the grip of nationality, without at the same time postulating an abstract, undifferentiated collectivity.’ Kostakopolou, T. (1996) Towards a theory of constructive citizenship in Europe. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(4), p. 346.Google Scholar
14. Boundaries can be perceived as constructed (determined by feeling and belief), not fixed.Google Scholar
15.Soysal, Y. N. (1994) Changing Citizenship in Europe: Remarks on Postnational Membership and the National State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
16.Young, I. M. (1989) Polity and group difference: a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship. Ethics, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Benhabib, S. (1994) Democracy and difference: reflections on the metapolitics of Lyotard and Derrida. Journal of Political Philosophy, 2(4).Google Scholar
18.Isin, E. F. and Wood, P. K. (1999) Citizenship and Identity (London, New Delhi: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
19. Soysal argues: ‘What is ironic is that the preservation of particularistic group characteristics – such as language, a customary marker of national identity – is justified by appealing to universalistic ideas of personhood.’ Soysal, Y.N. (1994) Changing Citizenship in Europe: Remarks on Postnational Membership and the National State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 154.Google Scholar
20. Soysal states: ‘Turkish migrants in Berlin represent an example of this emerging form of membership (so, for that matter, do Moroccans in Paris, Pakistans in London, and Surinamese in Amsterdam). As foreign residents of Berlin, Turkish migrants share a social space with foreigners from other countries and with German citizens. They pay taxes, own businesses and homes, work in factories and in the service sector, receive welfare, rent government-subsidized apartments, and attend schools. They form political associations, join unions and political parties, organize protests, formulate platforms, and advance claims. Either selectively or concurrently, they invoke, negotiate, and map collective identities as immigrant, Turk, Muslim, foreigner, and European.’ Soysal, Y. N. (1994) Changing Citizenship in Europe: Remarks on Postnational Membership and the National State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 166.Google Scholar
21. Or, even, supranational.Google Scholar
22. This is also characteristic of modern idea of identity, which is described in Kafka's novels. Kafka describes impossibility of reconciliation of personal and social identity, and that is why in most of his novels the main character dies.Google Scholar
[23]Stojković, B. (2002) Identitet i komunikacija, Belgrade, Fakultet političkih nauka, Čigoja štampa.Google Scholar
24.Harraway, D. (1991) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, Cyborgs and Women (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
25. According to Sonia Kruks: ‘What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, preidentrian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied: it is a qua woman, qua blacks, qua lesbians that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal human kind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one's differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different.’ Kruks, S. (2000) Retrieving Experience: Subjectivity and Recognition in Feminist Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), p. 85.Google Scholar
26. Richardson et al. argue about four notions of the self: (1) traditional notion, based on the idea of moral responsibility; (2) modern notion founded on the idea of conscious, rational and unitary subject; (3) postmodern notion which emphasizes discoursive constructedness of the self and (4) dialogical notion which contains all three ideas of the self: pre-modern, modern and postmodern. Richardson, F. C., Rogers, A. and McCaroll, J. (1998) Toward a dialogical self. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(4).Google Scholar
27.Stychin, C.F. (2001) Disintegrating sexuality: citizenship and the EU. In: R. Bellamy and A. Warleigh (ed.) Citizenship and Governance in the European Union (London & New York: Continuum).Google Scholar
28. Meehan E. 2000. Citizenship and the EU. Discussion Paper C 63, Bonn, Centre for European Integration Studies.Google Scholar
29. According to Horváth, ‘the political community – circumscribed by state borders – is no longer linked to the territory in which rights may be exercised. Instead, the territory of rights spreads far beyond the territory of the community. Thus, Member State nationals enjoy a number of citizenship rights (free movement and residence, non-discrimination, etc.) throughout the Union that used to be limited to the nation state […] As a corollary […], it is not only nationals who enjoy certain rights in the territory of the Member State, but a much larger group, including European citizens and extending, through the Long-Term Residence Directive, to third-country nationals legally residing in a Member State. The citizenship-nationality link that formed the basis of the nation state has thus been broken. Because of this development […], it is not the members of the given political community who determine the content of applicable rights, but a supra-state entity, namely, the European Union.’ Horváth, E. (2008) Mandating Identity: Citizenship, Kinship Laws and Plural Nationality in the European Union (the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International), 980.Google Scholar
30. The rights guaranteed to the EU citizens are: right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Article 8a); ‘the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections in the Member State in which he resides under the same conditions as nationals of that state’ (Article 8b), ‘the right to petition the European Parliament in accordance with Article 138d’ (Article 8d), the right to ‘apply to the ombudsman’ (Article 8d). ‘Every citizen of the Union shall, in the territory of the third country in which the Member State of which he is a national is not represented be entitled to protection by the diplomatic or consular authority of any Member State on the same conditions as nationals of the State.’ (Article 8c).Google Scholar
31. ‘The Doctrine was reiterated by the Solemn Declaration of the Birmingham European Council, highlighting the point that citizenship of the Union brings the citizens additional rights and protection without in many ways taking place of their national citizenship. The doctrine was furthermore confirmed by the Edinburgh European Council Decision, of which Section A states that provisions on citizenship of the Union do not in any way take the place of national citizenship. This Decision was accompanied by a unilateral Danish Declaration on Citizenship stating that “citizenship of the Union in no way in itself gives a national of another Member State the right to obtain citizenship or any of the rights, duties, privileges or advantages that are inherent in Danish citizenship.” ’ Closa, C. (1995) Citizenship of the union and nationality of member states. Common Market Law Review, 32, pp. 511–512.Google Scholar
32. The Declaration (No. 2) on Nationality of a Member State, Available at: europa.eu/abc/treaties/archives/en/entr10htm/Google Scholar
33. ‘Provision should be made for a degree of flexibility so that account can be taken of circumstances in which a person might have to leave the territory on a temporary basis’ (Council Directive 2003/109/EC, para. 6).Google Scholar
34. ‘Conditions for acquiring long-term resident status’.Google Scholar
35. Article 11.1 of Directive 2003/109/EC.Google Scholar
36. ‘Member States may decide to grant access to additional benefits in the areas referred to in paragraph 1. Member States may also decide to grant equal treatment with regard to areas not covered in paragraph 1’ (Article 11.5, Directive 2003/109/EC). ‘Member States may take a decision to expel long-term resident solely where he/she constitutes an actual and sufficiently serious threat to public policy or public security’ (Article 12.1, 2003/109/EC).Google Scholar
37. ‘Citizens are directly represented at the Union level at the European Parliament’ (Article 8A.2). ‘Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union’ (Article 8A.3). ‘Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European Commission, within the framework of its powers to submit any appropriate proposal on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Treaties’ (Article 8B.4).Google Scholar
38.Shaw, J. (2008) The treaty of Lisbon and citizenship. European Policy Brief.Google Scholar
39. J. Shaw 2010. Citizenship: contrasting dynamics at the interface of integration and constitutionalism. EUI Working Papers, EUDO Citizenship Observatory.Google Scholar
40.Kochenov, D. (2008/2009) European citizenship and the difficult relationship between status and rights. Columbia Journal of European Law, 15.Google Scholar
41. Kochenov emphasizes that ‘such practice is not without limitations, however. As spelled out by ECJ in Micheletti, any decision of a Member State related to that state's nationality, should be taken with “due regard to Community law.” At the same time the Member States are not given any discretion as far as regulation of the nationality of any other Member State is concerned.’ Kochenov, D. (2008/2009) European citizenship and the difficult relationship between status and rights. Columbia Journal of European Law, 15, 182.Google Scholar
42. Article 12 of the Treaty on European Union states that ‘without prejudice to any special provisions contained [in this Treaty], any discrimination on the ground of nationality shall be prohibited.’Google Scholar
43. See the cases: 214/95 Boukhalfa v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland [1996]=CR I-2253; the joined cases 65 and 111/95 The Queen v. Secretary State for the Home Departement ex parte Shingara and Radion [1997] ECR I-3341; the joined cases C-64 and 65/96, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Kari Uecker, Vera Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1997] ECR I-3171.Google Scholar
44. However, inside the framework of the Treaty of Rome, EU citizens are perceived merely as economic subjects.Google Scholar
45. ‘Although European judges knew that Union citizenship was not a market citizenship, they, nevertheless, embarked upon a process of “adaptive stabilization” of its meaning. In Uecker and Jacquet, the Court ruled that Article 8 was not intended to alter the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty so as to cover internal situations. […] … In Stober and Pereira the Court saw Article 52 EC, coupled with Reg 1408/71, as the key Article in deciding that German legislation, which required the children of self-employed workers to reside in Germany in order to qualify for dependent children's allowance, was incompatible with the Treaty. In Kremzov, European citizenship was invoked, but without success. The Court confirmed its treatment of purely internal situations by ruling the sentence of imprisonment imposed on Kremzow by an Austrian criminal court did not fall within the scope of the application of the Treaty.’ Kostakopolou, D. (2005) Ideas, norms and European citizenship: explaining institutional change. The Modern Law Review Limited, 68(2), pp. 244–245.Google Scholar
46.Kostakopolou, D. (2005) Ideas, norms and European citizenship: explaining institutional change. The Modern Law Review Limited, 68(2).Google Scholar
47. ‘The case concerned a Spanish resident in Germany who whilst unemployed claimed a German child-benefit allowance. Under German social security law, her application was refused because she was not in a possession of a valid residence permit. The Court did not accept this limiting condition […] …lawful and authorized residence in another Member State by the national of one of the Member States is sufficient, alone, to bring a person within the personal scope of the Community law. This the contribution of the concept of Union citizenship as universal ascription to all nationals of the Member States, regardless of economic status.’ Bulvinaite, I. (2003) Union citizenship and its role in the free movement of persons regimes. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5, p. 4. Available at: http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue5/bulvinaite5.htmlGoogle Scholar
48. O. Hamernik (2007) On EU citizenship in the light of objective justification of national rules in the ECJ case-law, www.enelsyn.gr/papers/…Paper%20by%20%Pavel%20Hamernik.pdfGoogle Scholar
49. Rudy Grzelczyk (2001) EU Case Law, 2001, http://www.eucaselaw.info/rudy-grzelczyk-2001/Google Scholar
50. According to Van der Mei: ‘Economically inactive can still be required to present proof that they will not become a burden on the host of State's social assistance schemes. Grzelczyk does not imply recognition of a general unconditional right to freedom of movement. The ruling merely implies that Union citizens who have initially convinced the host State's authorities that they are able to provide for themselves but who, contrary to initial expectations, become temporarily in financial need do not automatically lose their right to reside. Secondly, Grzelczyk does not necessarily imply that Community students can actually claim social assistance in the host state. The ruling merely implies that Community students can claim social assistance benefits where, and under the same conditions as, national students have right to such benefits. National social assistance laws, however, may contain eligibility criteria, which students often are not able to meet […] Further, Article 12 (1) of EC Treaty does not object to national rules which make entitlement to social assistance and other minimum subsistence benefits subject to requirements of habitual residence or domicile on the national territory.’ P. Van Der Mei Free movement of person within European Community. In P. Hamernik and O. Hamernik On EU citizenship in the light of objective justification of national rules in the ECJ case-law, www.enelsyn.gr/papers/…Paper%20by%20%Pavel%20Hamernik.pdfGoogle Scholar
51. Case C-456/02 Trojani, judgement of 7 September 2004.Google Scholar
52. Case C-209/03 Bidar, judgement of 15 March 2005.Google Scholar
53. ‘Trojani had no community right to reside since he could not support himself but it appeared that he has been lawfully resident under Belgian law. That was sufficient for the Court to decide that his right arose from Article 18 and to bring the equal treatment requirements of the Treaty into play in terms of his entitlement to the minimex. On the other hand in the Bidar case the Court has accepted the residence right of a French student who had completed his secondary education in the UK and his entitlement to student grant. The Court after accepting the direct applicability of Article 18 EC was able to arrive at such broad conclusions mentioned above.’ Göçmen, H. (2008) Does the concept of European citizenship lack content? GAU Journal of Social and Applied Science, 2(4), 61.Google Scholar
54. C-406/04, 18.07.2006.Google Scholar
55. O. Hamernik On EU citizenship in the light of objective justification of national rules in the ECJ case-law, www.enelsyn.gr/papers/…Paper%20by%20%Pavel%20Hamernik.pdfGoogle Scholar
56. Para 3 of the judgment.Google Scholar
57. The right to move and reside freely in the Member States (Article 18 EC).Google Scholar
58. Quoted in Bulvinaite, I. (2003) Union citizenship and its role in the free movement of persons regimes. Web Journal of Current Legal Issues, 5, http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2003/issue5/bulvinaite5.htmlGoogle Scholar
59.Todorova, M. (1997) Imagining the Balkans (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
60. ‘Mental maps incorporate elements of the meaning people attach to spatial configurations, the loyalties they hold, the emotions and passions that groupings evoke, and their cognitive ideas about how the world is constructed.’ Migdal, J. S. (2004) Mental maps and virtual checkpots: struggles to construct and maintain state and social boundaries. In Joel S. Migdal (ed.) Boundaries and Belonging: States ans Societies in the Struggle to Shape Identities and Local Practicies (New York: Cambridge University Press), p. 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Representatives of this point of view within philosophy of science are ntirealists: Laudan, Fine, van Fraassen, etc.Google Scholar
62.Subotić, M. (2007) Na drugi pogled: Prilog studijama nacionalizma (Belgrade: Institut za filozofiju i društvenu teoriju).Google Scholar
63.Anderson, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London, New York: Verso).Google Scholar
64.Wolff, L. (1994) Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
65.Foucault, M. (1979) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, translated by A. Sheridan (Harmondsworth: Penguin).Google Scholar
66.O'Neill, O. (1994) Justice and boundaries. In: C. Brown (ed) Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
67. Bidder B. 2010. Romanian passports for Moldovans: entering the EU through the back door. Available at: www.spiegel.de/international/europe/Google Scholar
68. This card guarantees limited rights to access to healthcare, cheap bus pass and a refund of visa costs.Google Scholar
69. R. Bauböck (2010) Dual citizenship for transborder minorities. Available at: www.eudo_citizenship.eu/citizenship…/Google Scholar
70. F. Bieber (2010) Dual citizenship can be a solution, not a problem. Available at: www.eudo_citizenship.eu/citizenship…/Google Scholar