Speakers

Biography
Since 2008, Joachim Blatter is Professor of Political Science at the University of Lucerne. He received his PhD at the Martin-Luther University in Halle, and wrote his Habilitation at the University of Konstanz. He held positions at the University of St. Gallen, at the Free University of Berlin, and at Erasmus University in Rotterdam. He was a visiting scholar at Harvard University, at the Australian National University, at the European University Institute in Florence, at the Wissenschaftszentrum (WZB) in Berlin, and at the Institut für Höhere Studien in Vienna. He is interested in the historical transformations of and the current challenges for governance, citizenship and democracy. Furthermore, he has been contributed to the development of qualitative methods in the Social Sciences. Two recent publications provide the background for his talk in Uppsala: Blatter, J, and J. Schulz (2022): Intergovernmentalism and the Crisis of Democracy: The Case for for Creating a System of Horizontally Expanded and Overlapping National Democracies. European Journal of International Relations 28(3): 722-747; Blatter, J., E. Michel & S. Schmid (2022): Enfranchisement regimes beyond de-territorialization and post-nationalism: definitions, implications, and public support for different electorates. Democratization, Online first: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2022.2037567

Abstract Title
Multiple Citizenries in Europe: Why Additional National Citizenships are more promising than the European Citizenship for Fostering Democracy and Integration

Abstract
In Europe, we discover two different ways to overcome the exclusivity of national citizenries: a) a vertical way in which a European citizenry emerges on top of national citizenries, and b) a horizontal way in which national citizenries overlap through the spread of dual/multiple citizens. In my presentation, I argue that the latter is more promising for enhancing the legitimacy and the efficiency of inter-democratic cooperation within the EU and beyond. I start by highlighting the higher empirical relevance of the second option: it is not only the much more universal phenomenon, but it has also larger impacts on democratic processes and outcomes. Parliamentarians in the European Parliament do not represent a European citizenry, but national ones – all attempts to change this, e.g. through a pan-European electoral district, failed. Rapidly raising numbers of dual citizens, in contrast, get the opportunity to use their multiple citizenships for voting in multiple polities. This is made possible by the growing electoral inclusion of non-resident nationals in national elections, and on the growing inclusion of non-national residents on the local level. The emerging system of overlapping electorates is very much in need for an explicit and joint constitutionalization, since it undermines the value of democratic equality. Democracies could use such a constitutional process to create a system of horizontally expanded and overlapping national peoples, parties, and parliaments. They should sign a “Joint Declaration of Interdependence and Identification” and invite each other’s citizens to become “consociated citizens,” a status that comes with the right to send a limited number of “consociated representatives” into the national parliament of the inviting state. A joint and carefully calibrated horizontal expansion of national demoi, the accompanying transnationalization of democratic institutions and processes and the resulting system of overlapping national democracies has many advantages compared to the vertical layering that is currently pursued in the EU. It does not endanger (as the latter approach does), but promises to revitalize established and crucially important intermediary institutions of representative democracy: parties and parliaments.

More info

Biography
Jelena Dzankic is Part-Time Professor in the Global Governance Programme at the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute in Florence, Italy, where she is Co-Director of the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT). She holds a PhD degree in International Studies from the University of Cambridge, and has taught and researched at the University of Edinburgh, University College London, University of Graz, and Passau University. She is the author of the Global Market for Investor Citizenship (Palgrave 2019), a leading study in the field of wealth-based citizenship acquisition. Her earlier works include Citizenship in Bosnia Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro. Effects of Statehood and Identity Challenges (Routledge, 2015), and the edited volumes Europeanisation of the Western Balkans: A failure of EU Conditionality (2018, with S. Keil and M. Kmezic), and The Europeanisation of Citizenship Governance in South-East Europe (2016, with S. Kacarska and N. Pantic). Her articles appeared, inter alia, in Citizenship Studies, Nationalities Papers, and Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Research interests: Citizenship acquisition and loss, Wealth-based migration and new mobilities, Europeanisation, State-building

Abstract Title
CBI and the Challenges to Good Governance

Abstract text
Literature on citizenship by investment (CBI) has mushroomed over the past decade to address normative questions raised by the exchange of money and societal membership; matters of benefits and risks these programmes pose in the context of global inequalities and justice; and scholars increasingly enquire both into the idiosyncrasies of CBI programs and their trends and determinants across countries and over time. Media and civil society interest in these programmes has often been related to scandals of corruption and money laundering. This divergence in the interest between scholars, concerned mainly with theoretical questions, and the media and civil society, which zoomed in on the practice of CBI, has opened up an avenue for the pursuit of an empirically informed conceptual question: can the marriage between fully democratic institutions and CBI programs work out? To address it, this paper operationalises the conceptually ambiguous notion of ‘good governance’. It does so by focusing on the twelve principles of good governance developed by the Council of Europe in 2008, including free and fair elections, ethical conduct, rule of law, transparency, sound financial management and accountability, etc. The paper then empirically studies the practical implementation of CBI programs that had existed since 1984, and identifies where challenges to such principles of good governance emerged. It concludes with a reflection on the linkages between CBI and democratic governance, and suggests possible scenarios that could eliminate risks that these programmes pose to unconsolidated or unstable political institutions.

Read more here

Biography
I am a political scientist working as a teacher and research fellow at the Department of Government, Uppsala University. My research interests encompass political economy, social policy, international migration, economic integration and working conditions. I am affiliated with the Uppsala Center for Labor Studies and have been working as consultant for reports on public administration and working conditions in Europe for the European Commission and the International Labour Organization.

My latest research on the social rights of immigrants in the context of European welfare states can be found in the Journal of European Social Policy, Comparative Political Studies and Social Policy & Administration. In it I investigate whether and how the institutional design of modern social protection systems generates barriers to welfare access for immigrants and their families across countries and over time of residency.

Currently I am working in the project Varieties of Attitudes to Family Migration (VoFAME) which investigates public attitudes towards family formation and family reunification in Europe using survey experiments. The project is a collaboration between researchers at the Department of Government, Uppsala University, and the School of Social Sciences at Södertörn University.

I am also employed as a data manager in the Comparative Policy Laboratory (COMPLAB) which is part of the research infrastructure Democracy, Environment, Migration, Social Policy, Conflict, and Representation (DEMSCORE). There I am coordinating the collection of country-level data for comparative research on migration policy. Both DEMSCORE and VoFAME are funded by the Swedish Research Council.

Abstract title
Attitudes to family migration in Europe – A conjoint survey experiment

Abstract text
Studies on attitudes towards family migration are extremely scarce. This is rather surprising, especially when considering that the reunification of family members cuts across all other migration categories. It also constitutes by far the largest form of entry across Western democracies. As part of a new research project on varieties of attitudes towards family migration in Europe (VoFAME), this paper addresses the described gap in the literature. It uses conjoint experiments with 5,000 respondents in five European countries: Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Respondents are presented with two pairs of incoming family migrants and resident family members. They are then asked to select the pair that they would grant residency if having to choose between the two. Conducting this type of survey makes it possible to systematically capture attitudes towards various attributes for both the person entering and the family member already residing in the country. Attributes of the fictitious couples are modelled after legal principles for family reunification as they are established through the European Union’s Family Reunification Directive. The results of our study suggest that respondents are most concerned with the economic situation and the level of language acquisition in the prospective household. These ‘integration measures’ are considered to be more important than more basic formal requirements such as country of origin, nature of the relationship or legal status of the family member in the country of destination.
Read more here

Biography
Jonas Hultin Rosenberg, PhD, is a researcher at the Department of Government and a visiting researcher at Centre for Multidisciplinary Research on Religion and Society (CRS), Uppsala University, Sweden. Hultin Rosenberg’s main research interest lie within political philosophy, especially normative democratic theory. He has been a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Political Science, Copenhagen University.

Abstract title
Attitudes on Immigrant Enfranchisement Prior to Naturalization – Insights from a Conjoint Experiment

Abstract text
International migration has put pressure on the connection between citizenship and the right to vote. Today, the number of foreign born resident non-citizens is large, and growing, in many countries and this group lacks the right to vote in national elections almost everywhere. This has resulted in a situation where a significant proportion of the adult population of many established democracies are disenfranchised.

This situation has received significant attention from scholars of democratic theory that argues that the disenfranchisement of resident non-citizens amounts to a “democratic deficit” (Blatter et al, 2017). Comparative empirical studies on voting-right regulations covering the current practices and the main trends indicates that most democratic states have only taken limited steps to remedy this deficit. However, although studies on the popular support for change in more democratic directions are still rare, there are a couple of recent papers suggesting that a significant minority both in the US (Hultin Rosenberg and Wejryd, 2022) and in Europe (Michel and Blatter, 2020) supports such changes.

This paper aims at contributing to this emerging literature by studying how immigrant attributes affect attitudes toward immigrant enfranchisement. We study this by means of a conjoint experiment conducted on 5000 respondents in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK). Conjoint experiments have become widely used in political science after the introduction of Hainmueller et al. (2014) and are usually employed as full factorial survey experiments measuring how respondents’ attitudes are affected by a fictional object’s characteristics, which are randomized along several uncorrelated dimensions. The study at hand follows this convention. In the conjoint experiment, the respondents were to choose and rate profiles of fictional, potential voters. Each voter was described with six different attributes: citizenship, residency, taxpaying, country of origin, education, and gender.

The results indicate that the support for enfranchising immigrants prior to naturalization is significantly higher if the immigrant is described as an income-tax payer. The results also indicate that the support for enfranchising immigrants is slightly higher if the immigrant is described as an EU-citizen (compared to a third country citizen) and if the immigrant is described as a long-term resident (compared to a short-term resident).

References

Blatter, Joachim, Samuel D. Schmid, and Andrea C. Blättler. 2017. “Democratic Deficits in Europe: The Overlooked Exclusiveness of Nation‐States and the Positive Role of the European Union.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 55 (3): 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12491

Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J. and Teppei Yamamoto. 2014. “Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments” Polit. Anal., 22 (1) , pp. 1-30.

Hultin Rosenberg, Jonas, & Wejryd, Johan (2022). “Attitudes toward competing voting-right requirements: Evidence from a conjoint experiment”. Electoral Studies, 77, 102470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102470

Michel, Elie, and Joachim Blatter. 2020. “Enfranchising immigrants and/or emigrants? Attitudes towards voting rights expansion among sedentary nationals in Europe.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1–20.

Read more here

Biography
Prof. Dimitry Kochenov leads the Rule of Law working group at CEU Democracy Institute in Budapest and teaches at CEU Department of Legal Studies in Vienna. He is also an adjunct professor at LUISS Faculty of Law in Rome. Dimitry is the author, inter alia, of Citizenship (MIT Press, 2019), translated into several languages and reviewed in NYRB. He edited a number of volumes on EU Citizensihp, EU Rule of Law and other aspects of European Integration, including five for Cambrdidge and one for Oxford University Press, most recently ‘Residence and Citizenship Sales: The Changing Boundaries of Belonging’ (with Kristin Surak, Cambridge, 2023). Dimitry’s Quality of Nationality Index (with J.Lindeboom, Bloomsbury, 2020) was featured in The Economist, Forbes and FT. Prof. Kochenov is on the editorial boards, inter alia, of the Oxford Encyclopaedia of EU Law and The Hague Journal of the Rule of Law. He taught at Princeton, Oxford, Osaka, UNAM, Groningen etc and served as the founding chairman of Investment Migration Council (Geneva). He consults governments and international organizations on the matters of his interest.

Abstract title
ABSTRACT CITIZENSHIP IN THE AGE OF CONCRETE HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract text
Citizenship – whenever the concept is used – is taken to be part of our ‘natural world’: living without it is unthinkable for many, no matter how many contradictions this legally-driven and deeply entrenched social construct actually entails. The core contradictions I dwell on are two. The first contradiction promoted by the concept of citizenship arises between an abstract claim of equality among those who ‘belong’ and citizenship’s consequential nature in terms of the unequal distribution of rights and liabilities in the world, as citizenships vary radically in quality. More still, in a world where inequalities are spatialized and borders signify exclusion from opportunity and – as long as these are policed by citizenship – blood-based segregation between the haves and have nots, citizenship emerges as the core tool of exclusion of the racialized ‘other’, not belonging to the global aristocracy of the former colonizers, the ‘super citizens’. Citizenship is, thus, the defining element of the global (to a large extent race-based) segregation, the system, ie ‘passport apartheid’. Not only is citizenship incompatible with equality. It is designed to deliver strict segregation.

Read more here

Biography
I am a lawyer focusing on nationality, citizenship, migration and political theory. I am currently Professor of public law at University of Corsica (France). My PhD thesis, Nationalité et Souveraineté, was published in 2020 by Dalloz. In this first book, I investigated the degree of liberty States enjoy to determine who should be a national, building on French, European and international law. I am now working on Union citizenship, from a legal, comparative and theoretical perspective. Before joining University of Corsica, I was Associate Professor at University Côte d’Azur (France) and Research Associate at the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute in Florence (Italy).

Abstract title
Romantic Times? The Genuine Connection of Union Citizens

Abstract text
What does it mean to be a European citizen? From the treatise, the question is easily answered: Being a European citizen means being a citizen of a Member State of the European Union (EU). Outside the treatise, however, the question is at the core of a significant (r)evolution. From the last years, the European Parliament, the European Commission, and the European Court of Justice are all newly and increasingly paying attention to the very substance of the legal link between the EU and its citizens. From the last couple of years, the legal doctrine of the ‘genuine link’ or ‘genuine connection’ – which was previously regarded as a ‘romantic’ (outdated) notion – is now becoming central to evaluate the legitimacy of the Member States policies regarding nationality acquisition and loss. This communication aims first to clarify the content of the genuine link doctrine, from ancient international law to contemporary EU law. Second, this contribution questions the justifications for such a legal policy, particularly with regard to democracy and loyalty in the EU.

Read more here

Biography

Willem Maas, Jean Monnet Chair and Professor of Political Science, Public & International Affairs, and Socio-Legal Studies at York University, chaired Glendon Political Science for three and a half years, Glendon Faculty Council for four, and is also active in professional service, including co-chairing the Council for European Studies Territorial Politics and Federalism Research Network, serving on the executive of the Iternational Political Science Association’s Migration and Citizenship Research Committee, and remaining active in the American Political Science Association’s Migration and Citizenship section, which he co-founded. Professor Maas has held appointments at Yale, NYU, Radboud, Leiden, EUI, and elsewhere, and writes on EU and multilevel citizenship, migration, borders, free movement, and politics focusing on Europe and North America. He co-edits the Oxford Studies in Migration and Citizenship book series and also heads the Canadian part of the Whole-COMM project, investigating the integration of migrants in small communities. In the 2022/23 academic year, Maas is York Massey Fellow at Massey College.

Abstract title
Money Matters in EU Citizenship

Abstract text
Money facilitates or inhibits not only international migration but also the movement of people within a political system, known as internal migration. Despite the ideal of equal citizenship, examples from around the world demonstrate that the movement of citizens across internal boundaries is not always free; central governments must strive to guarantee the rights of internal migrants. Governments at all levels (not just the national level) generally value rich or otherwise desirable migrants while generally fearing or shunning poor or undesirable migrants. Money often makes the difference between being wanted or unwanted – and this holds true even when the prospective migrants are internal migrants with shared rights and citizenship. Housing restrictions, efforts to attract well-off residents, and limits on mobility for those needing public assistance are only some ways in which money acts as barrier or incentive to internal migration. These various roles of money in internal migration demonstrate the ways in which financial disparities and conditions exist in tension with ideas of equal citizenship. After three decades of formal EU citizenship, and over six decades of free movement rights for workers (and related categories of people), how should we evaluate EU citizenship from the perspective of comparative citizenship studies?

Read more here

Biography

Anthoula Malkopoulou is Associate Professor of Political Theory at the Department of Government, Uppsala University, specialised in democratic theory and history of political thought. She has a PhD from the Centre of Excellence in Political Thought, University of Jyväskylä (2011) and a qualification as Docent from Uppsala (2018).

In 2020-21, Anthoula was Associate Professor at Lund University, and in 2017-20 Lecturer at the Hellenic Open University. She was the recipient of the Seeger Fellowship at Princeton University (2019), the Fullbright-Schuman Award at Columbia University (2018), a Fellowship at the ‘Engaging Vulnerability’ Program (2018) and a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship in Uppsala (2014-16), and the Erik Allard Fellowship at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study (2012). She has been a Visiting Professor in Adelaide, Rome, Helsinki, Dublin, Berlin and Athens.

Anthoula’s main research interests lie at the intersection of democratic theory, constitutional law and electoral politics. She is also interested in 19th and 20th century political thought, ancient democracy, ideas of representation, voting rights, populism, political parties, parliamentarism and rhetoric. Anthoula is currently involved in three research projects dealing with Democratic Self-Defence in relation to (a) the Social Model (MM Wallenberg Foundation), (b) Populism (Carlsberg Foundation) and (c) European Public Broadcasting (Swedish Research Council). She also participates in a fourth project on ‘Contributivism’, funded by the Swedish Research Council.

Her first book The History of Compulsory Voting in Europe: Democracy’s Duty? (Routledge, 2015) examined contemporary calls to make voting obligatory in light of 19th and 20th century French debates on the meaning of political participation. It highlighted the differences between republican and conservative defences of the practice and revived the idea, on which both sides converged, that high turnout is a way to defend democracy from extremist parties. Her second book Theories of Democratic Self-defence explores the underlying norms of exclusion, toleration, and integration that animate the principal traditions of dealing with extremist parties. It is under contract with Oxford University Press, and in 2022 was awarded the York Political Theory Manuscript Workshop Award.

Anthoula has published peer-reviewed articles in International Political Science Review, Political Studies, European Constitutional Law Review, Australian Journal of Political Science, History of Political Thought, Constellations, Redescriptions, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, and History of European Ideas. She has co-edited three volumes: Militant Democracy and its Critics (with Alexander Kirshner, 2019), Equal Representation (with Lisa Hill, 2016) and Rhetoric, Politics and Conceptual Change (with Kari Palonen, 2011).

Since 2016, she is in the editorial team of Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory and steering committee member of the ECPR Standing Group on Political Concepts. Anthoula has taught courses in political theory and democratic politics both at undergraduate and postgraduate level in Lund, Uppsala and Jyväskylä, and currently supervises two PhD students.

Abstract title
The new citizen as an ‘asset’: Why MPs think that enfranchisement should depend on material contributions

Abstract text
Universal manhood suffrage marked the abandonment of economic criteria as conditions for enfranchisement. Yet, these criteria are still relevant for access to voting rights, as for example through the rapidly rising citizenship-by-investment programs. Is the concept of the ‘contributing’ citizen making a comeback? And if so, what are the implications of binding the franchise to material contributions for the prospects of democratizing our societies?

To establish the relevance and nature of contributivist arguments, i.e. arguments that ground voting rights on material contributions today, I examine parliamentary debates on voting rights in four European countries –France, Germany, Italy and the UK– from 2010 onwards. They comprise primarily debates on immigrant and emigrant access to voting rights, for example the debate on voting eligibility of resident EU citizens in the 2015 referendum or the question of naturalizing young athletes and ‘ius scholae’ in Italy.

I find that contributivist arguments are indeed present today, but that they feature a noticeable difference from corresponding arguments in the past. In the era of limited suffrage, property or income were proof of ‘moral competence’, namely the capacity to reason and a strong personal interest in the stability of the state. By contrast, today a citizen who works, pays taxes or otherwise materially contributes to society is viewed as an ‘asset’, that is, as an individual who adds value to society, offers a vital service to the community, makes the country ‘better’. As such, economic contribution is not so much proof of the capacity of prospective voters to judge what is in the best interest of the host-society; economic contribution becomes an exchange value for enfranchisement, it objectifies and instrumentalizes the prospective voter so that the state can capitalize on her.

This new type of contributivism has a good and a bad side. It offers a minimum advance in terms of democratizing societies, as it replaces the highly restrictive naturalistic criteria of ius sanguinis and ius soli with a materialist criterion that is in principle more flexible and openly accessible. At the same time, however, it represents a major setback in terms of equalizing societies. New citizen-voters are selected based on their past achievements that may themselves be the result of socio-economic advantage; as a result, contributivist conditions benefit those that are already better off while further disadvantaging those who are already worse off. Contributivism therefore imbues a neoliberal logic on processes of naturalization and enfranchisement and transforms the right to vote from a human right into an instrument for national capital growth.

Read more here

Biography
Sandra Mantu is Assistant Professor of Migration Law at the Centre for Migration Law of the Radboud University in the Netherlands. Her work focuses on free movement of persons, EU citizenship, social rights and nationality law. She is a co-managing editor of the European Journal of Migration and Law. Her latest co-edited volume is “EU Citizenship and Free Movement Rights: Taking Supranational Citizenship Seriously” published by Brill in 2020.

Abstract title
The social dimension of EU citizenship: Insights from national implementation practices

Abstract text
The legal category under which EU citizens exercise their right to free movement – worker, jobseeker, student or economically inactive – determines access to social rights in the host state and leads to differential inclusion in the welfare state. The right to equal treatment in relation to welfare entitlements has been subject to constant litigation before the European Court of Justice, leading to the refinement of the conditions under which mobile EU citizens can access welfare and of the implications of such requests for the right to reside in an EU state. In practice, social rights are a contested aspect of EU citizenship since they disrupt nationally bounded welfare states by demanding the incorporation of EU migrants based on the principle of equality. This is an area where the tensions between the national and EU levels are very much at play. While the EU level creates transnational social rights and sets out the conditions of access to an EU host state’s welfare system, the delivery of welfare takes place at the national and local levels, making national administrations and bureaucrats important actors in the governance of welfare.
The aim of this contribution is to tease out the relationship between different levels of jurisdiction in the governance of access to the welfare state. It relies on data from eleven Member States concerning the application of the relevant EU legislation and case law during the time frame 2016-2020. The main trends identified are a growing interdependence between immigration and welfare authorities underpinned by technological fixes and a move towards the systematic control of all EU applicants for social assistance in several states. These developments are facilitated by the turn in the CJEU’s jurisprudence that limits entitlement to welfare for economically inactive EU citizens and emphasises conditionality and legal residence as the main axes determining access to the welfare state. Equally, they suggest that the social dimension of EU citizenship is refashioned in the logic of migration control where equal treatment becomes an exception.

Read more here

Biography
Niamh Nic Shuibhne is Professor of European Union Law at the University of Edinburgh. She is one of the Joint Editors of the Common Market Law Review. She was Joint Editor of the European Law Review from 2009-2014 and remains a member of its Editorial Board. Her research examines questions of substantive EU law from a constitutional perspective, with a particular focus on principle-based analysis of free movement law and European Union citizenship. She was awarded a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellowship (2016-2019) to examine how protection of the foundational commitment to equal treatment in EU law came to represent an ideological challenge to the sustainability of the Union more generally: how it became a ‘confounding’ rather than founding EU value. Her current research explores the integrity of the EU legal order in a wider sense, with specific focus on the concepts and principles that constitute and distinguish that system.

Abstract title
Union citizenship: the next thirty years?

Abstract text
This presentation has two main aims, both of which relate to the objective of ‘legal foresighting’ – an exercise that, broadly speaking, entails ‘the identification and exploration of possible and desirable future legal or quasi-legal developments’ – for EU citizenship law.
First, the presentation will reflect on key questions and themes that emerge across the contributions to the Conference generally. Second, the paper will reflect on the next phase of Union citizenship’s legal evolution. At this stage, then, what the presentation will end up discussing can necessarily only be partially predicted. Anticipating some of the likely content, however, this abstract takes as its basic point of departure the astonishing legal construction of Union citizenship over the preceding three decades and asks: where do we (need to) go next?
Three different aspects are likely to be considered in response to that question: the status of Union citizenship; the principles that shape its legal development; and the progressing of its substantive legal content. The last of these points is perhaps the easiest to consider, since the material or substantive legal content of Union citizenship will inevitably continue to evolve. Both through judicial and legislative development, questions that are relevant in this context include whether and to what extent Directive 2004/38 needs to be recast so that significant change – in legal, social, and political senses – since its adoption might be better captured in its provisions. Examples could include the Directive’s quite narrow conception of the family or the complicated way in which the rights of jobseekers are patched together across several of its provisions. At the same time, the presentation will highlight that the need to be alert to the risks produced by any attempt to revisit and open up for debate the protections guaranteed by the Directive at present.
With respect to the principles that shape the legal development of Union citizenship, the principles of equal treatment on nationality grounds and proportionality were especially pivotal in the first phase of EU citizenship law. The protection of fundamental rights has also acquired more significance in recent years. Animating threads already emerging in the case law, three examples of legal principles that might (and/or should?) become even more important as Union citizenship advances into the future will be suggested: discrimination beyond nationality; dignity; and solidarity. That discussion will connect to developments in EU constitutional law more generally on the legal hardening of the Union’s values and both EU and Member State commitments to respecting them.
Finally, on the status of Union citizenship, two main questions will be introduced: first, the extent to which concepts and rights within EU citizenship law are (already) shared beyond the boundaries of Union citizenship; and second, how citizenship as a legal status has relevance for EU law and wider Union policymaking beyond the rights set out in Articles 21-25 TFEU. What we are discussing is not citizenship in the abstract, in other words, but citizenship of the Union: how might that status both draw from and feed into the goals and security of the Union itself, and what makes Union citizenship (legally) special? How, in turn (and often, in contrast?), should the protection of those in the Union but not holding its citizenship be ensured?

[1] G Laurie, S Harmon and F Arzuaga, ‘Foresighting Futures: Law, New Technologies, and the Challenges of Regulating for Uncertainty’ (2012) 4 Law, Innovation and Technology 1.

[2] Ibid 3.

[3] Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, 2004 OJ L158/77.

[4] In different contexts: e.g. past membership of the Union (Part 2 of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, OJ 2019 CI 384/01); and ‘special relationships’ between the EU and certain third countries (e.g. concerning Iceland, Case C-897/19 PPU IN, EU:C:2020:262).

[5] E.g. A Iliopoulou-Penot ‘The Construction of a European Digital Citizenship in the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU’ (2022) CML Rev 969.

Read more here

Biography
Leonardo Pierdominici (LL.M – Ph.D. EUI 2016) is currently a tenure-track assistant professor at the Alma Mater Studiorum – Università di Bologna

Abstract title
The transformative capacity of European citizenship. A comparative perspective

Abstract text
The idea is to provide a first overview of the EU citizenship’s transformative impact over national ones. My intervention will focus on the capacity of EU citizenship to evolve and modify national citizenship laws by interacting with them. The analysis corroborates these links by looking at three domains and conceptual dimensions: citizenships as bundles of rights, as status, as elements of identity. I will try to argue that a natural coexistence of casuistry and logic nourishes the evolution of this interaction, and will do so in the future.

Read more here

Biography
Professor Devyani Prabhat is a Professor in Law at the University of Bristol Law School, UK, with legal practice experience in Constitutional law. She holds a LL.M and a PhD from New York University and is an Attorney at Law, New York. She researches and teaches Migration, Citizenship and Nationality from a socio-legal and comparative perspective.
She is an ESRC research grant holder on British Citizenship and the Practice of Nationality laws (2014-2017). Project website: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/research/centres-themes/citizenshipandlaw.html. The project focused on the processes of gaining, holding, and losing of citizenship and the role of nationality law practice for long term residents or British citizens. She supervises doctoral students researching on citizenship, migration, children’s rights, human rights, the legal profession, and sociolegal theory and methods.
Professor Prabhat’s book Unleashing the Force of Law: Legal Mobilization, National Security, Basic Freedoms ( Palgrave Macmillan Socio-legal Studies Series) has won the Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship (Society of Legal Scholars ) 2017.
The book was shortlisted by both the Society of Legal Scholars (2017) and the Socio-Legal Studies Association (2016) for book prize awards.
Her book on British Citizenship with Policy Press (2018) titled Britishness, Belonging and Citizenship is available open access at
: http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=647390
Professor Prabhat works closely with practitioners and civil society actors in a number of countries. for e.g., she has edited a book on British Citizenship (Elgar: 2019) which is based on academic-practitioner collaborations in the field of immigration law.
She serves on the Executive Committee of the UK Society of Legal Studies, the editorial board of the Social and Legal Studies Journal and the advisory board of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS).

Abstract title
‘Trends in Citizenship Policy’: Brexit and Exclusive Loyalty Once Again

Abstract text
This paper presentation is about the new trends post Brexit in the area of nationality laws and rights connected to citizenship. It will cover a number of examples such as derived rights, acquisition of nationality, welfare rights linked to citizenship and EU membership, loss of citizenship, diplomatic protection, and running for political office as a multiple nationality holder, to argue that Brexit and subsequent developments indicate a turn towards re-bordering along ethnicised national borders and issues of national belonging. The examples illustrate that sometimes when rights attach at a supra-national level, nation states retaliate.
The EEA/EI created an area of free movement. But for whom? Mostly EEA nationals could work and travel throughout the territory, but this does not extend to third country nationals. Indeed, Europe has been called ‘fortress Europe’ for its migration/asylum policies targeting third country nationals. Even with its formidable bordering policies, membership of the EU has been seen as a liberal expander of national borders and citizenry. This is both because of the substantive thickening of EU linked rights for member state nationals and associated third party nationals as well as the expansion in membership of the EU with new member states being admitted and being considered for future candidacy. In terms of increase in membership of nation states, several Eastern European countries joined the EU in 2007 (Bulgaria and Romania), and there were talks of Turkey being admitted as well, leading to political dissatisfaction within the UK .
Regarding the thickening of rights in the beginning, the rights for residence and movement in the EU were strictly tied to being a worker but this changed in the 1980s when the court started looking broadly at who is a worker and made it sufficient to be just economically active (and not necessarily employed in the host state). Freedom of movement for job seeking and non-discrimination rule (between nationals of a state and outside jobseekers) meant the worker status requirement was considerably loosened in case law.
The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of member state nationality is a constitutional principle of Community law. Despite this, welfare states and social systems in Europe remain national in nature. Member states can thus exclude individuals in spite of shared EU citizenship, but legal judgments emphasise that member state competence concerning citizenship must be exercised in accordance with the Treaties. Member states can still require a ‘link’ to their territory when social benefits are concerned but most EEA nationals obtained full flexibility in movement throughout the EU.
Associated third country nationals could obtain derived immigration status (through their EEA family members) and also transmit the status to their children. This meant that an expansion of rights of third-party nationals also took place. In some instances, EU national linked third-party country family members had better protections than citizens of the host country (for instance, in the UK, EU nationals and their family members did not have to satisfy the minimum income rules that British citizens and their third country nationals had to meet for family reunification inside the UK, for e.g. the MM Case in the Supreme Court) . Perceptions of such advantages (both real and perceived) have contributed to the ‘take back control of our borders’ narrative which was a constant feature of the pro-Brexit campaign and post-referendum politics. It also resonates with the withdrawal of generous jus soli citizenship regimes in other EU member states where birth nationality acquired by third country nationals in EU host countries created a backlash.
A prominent example of birth right citizenship until more recent times is Ireland. Irish citizenship was available to all born in Ireland through unconditional jus soli. When faced with third country nationals claiming this birth right citizenship and seeking to transmit it to non-white ethnicities, things changed in Irish law. The Chen Case (decided in 2004) , in which a Chinese woman moved to Ireland to give birth, is especially important for understanding the context of derived rights for immigration status and link to free movement in Europe as well as the subsequent backlash. After the Chen case, on 11 June 2004, a referendum in Ireland resulted in a large majority in favour of restricting the entitlement of all those born on the island of Ireland to citizenship. It is only a matter of historical pre-determination that the UK did not encounter this issue; it had already rolled back jus soli in 1983 when it moved out of being solely a jus soli regime towards one mixed with blood links, ostensibly to curb irregular migration. These developments exemplify what Etienne Balibar’s writes about the borders of Europe: it may be vacillating; changing and multiplying but not simply disappearing.
Some of the restrictive changes did not go far enough for individual nation states. In the UK, the more limited operation of the mixed regime of jus soli (birth right citizenship) and jus sanguinis (citizenship through blood links) still created resentment that children of settled (having EU nationality) parents in Britain could obtain British citizenship. EU law suddenly became the enemy as it rendered member state decisions about naturalisation and denaturalisation amenable to judicial review carried out according to EU law review standards. The Long-Term Residence Directive (European Council 2003) guaranteed that third-country nationals enjoy permanent rights after five years and are ready to naturalise. In effect, the Directive created a ‘subsidiary form of EU citizenship’ which was outside the direct control of the member states. These safeguards for third country nationals as well as EU nationals were negated after Brexit when millions of EU nationals residing in the UK became foreign and needed to regularise their status within a few months. Many were not even aware that their children had acquired birth right British citizenship during their stay in the UK. In this manner, newly redrawn borders created foreigners overnight through the operation of law.
This pattern of categorical limitation of nationality-like rights, acquired and held over time for EU nationals, is one that has been already seen in the past in the UK for migrants from erstwhile British colonies. The 1948 British Nationality Act welcomed all with open arms in order to consolidate Britain’s post-War position as ‘first amongst equals’. There was active recruitment from former colonies for jobs that lacked adequate labour force in the UK (for e.g., in manufacturing, construction, and agriculture). Yet, throughout the 1960s-1970s there was a rollback in law and future migration was restricted owing largely to racialised politics (e.g., Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘rivers of blood’ speech). The major difference was that for people from former colonies there was no requirement to register or document their arrival (a matter which subsequently became a problem and resulted in the illegal monitoring and deportations of the Windrush generation).
When rights thicken or expand, these patterns of re-bordering seem to emerge again. Brexit itself is an instance of intolerance of other or multiple nationalities co-habiting within the same national space with protected status. Despite some suspicions about multiple allegiances, holding multiple nationality or multiple permanent residentships was considered an asset when countries opened up the possibility of holding more than one (mostly in the 1990s). Holding multiple nationalities was seen as a hallmark of globalisation in which the nation state was becoming submerged in other kinds of global associations. Commentators used new terms such as flexible” (Ong, 1999), post-national” (Soysal, 1994), “diasporic” (Laguerre, 1998), ” or “transnational” (Baubock, 1995) for the new forms of citizenship. It was at this point that EU citizenship as a form of supra-national free movement membership also became a valuable commodity.
After Brexit, multiple and supra-national citizenship holding (which was considered an investment or desirable for travel and work in multiple jurisdictions) became suspect. Arguably it is not just Brexit, but also the vulnerabilities for national security which have led to such suspicions. Greater citizenship stripping (for example, Begum case, [2021] UKSC 7) has affected ethnic minorities disproportionately. An immediate implication of the Begum case is that anyone with any other national connection is now at greater risk of losing their British citizenship and becoming effectively stateless. Further, many would find appealing from outside the country an inaccessible process. The situation has worsened in 2022 as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has now removed the requirement to provide notice of deprivation. People are even less likely to be able to challenge cancellation of their British citizenship while overseas when they are unaware of the decision to deprive them. The North-South differences in diasporic citizenship are also playing out in citizenship stripping. While the North, when accepting multiple nationality, has devised comprehensive rules, similar initiatives for global south diaspora have not always been received well in economically powerful countries and have led to the Begum and other similar scenarios. Multiple citizenship was a liability for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe who was in Iranian prison from 2016 and she was eventually released only in 2022 and flown back to the UK to be reunited with her family. Her situation also serves as a cautionary tale on the challenges of multiple nationality as well as the scope and limits of diplomatic protection. Multiple residentship has been a challenge for holding public office for politicians for e.g., Rishi Sunak when he was running as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The suspicion with which multiple nationality holders are perceived (despite often being inadvertent nationality holders) is based on the same concerns about loyalty and allegiance as underlining the cancellation cases.
The paper concludes with observations on these trends. It appears that having access to a wider bundle of citizenship rights than just those guaranteed by one nation state is now viewed with renewed suspicion. It can be argued that there has been a resurgence of the nation state and nation borders as states seek to redefine who they are in highly ethnicised manners in this century. Perhaps, at least in the case of the UK, this ushers in a new post-human rights era.

Read more here

Biography
Fulvia Ristuccia is contracted lecturer of EU law at Bocconi University and researcher at BLEST (Bocconi Lab for European Studies). She holds a PhD in International and European Law from Bocconi, an LLM in European Law from the College of Europe (Bruges), and the master’s degree in law from Università degli Studi Roma Tre. Her research interest lies in EU constitutional law, with particular focus on free movement of persons, EU citizenship, and social rights.

Abstract title
The resistible rise of the economic rationalisation of the free movement of market citizens in the EU

Abstract text
Thirty years after its establishment, many hold the view that Union citizenship has failed the hopes it had raised that it would establish transnational solidarity beyond the exercise of an economic activity. Instead of losing relevance as the boundary of the scope of EU law, the link with economic activity seems to be still a dealbreaker in access to social citizenship for mobile persons, as – in light of the restrictive trends in the case-law of the CJEU – economically inactive citizens’ rights are shrinking. Against this background, economically active and inactive citizens have increasingly differentiated access to social citizenship when they move and the stark dividing line between them prompts an all-or nothing approach that has multiple and intersecting exclusionary effects on those who fail to establish that market connection.
It is a common assumption that this difference between market citizens (ie those who have some meaningful link to economic movement) and the others is justified based on a commutative view of welfare benefits. In this perspective, while equal treatment for economically active citizens does not entail a strictly contributory logic, their privileged position is nonetheless linked to some form of participation in the production process, in contrast to economically inactive citizens’ movement. In other words, market citizens’ mobility was established for economic reasons and the associated rights also find their roots in those economic goals.
This research challenges that view and shows that market citizenship has over-expanded to cover situations that have a rather thin connection to market participation. On the one hand this trend to over-expansion often makes the distinction between market and non-market citizens arbitrary. On the other hand, in light of the scope and the objectives of the rights granted to market participants at a time when the connection to economic activity was the only way to fall within the scope of EU law (ie before the establishment of Union citizenship) the research shows that the narrative of economic rationality in free movement is unsatisfactory as a justification for market solidarity. The social and political relevance of free movement of persons – in connection also with the principle of indivisibility of the internal market – offers a sounder rationalisation.

Read more here

Biography

read economics, languages and law at King’s College Cambridge and did inter-disciplinary research at Corpus Christi College Oxford before being called to the English Bar in 1980. She spent the next 25 years practising EEC / EC / EU law as well as taking pro bono cases involving the ECHR, becoming a ‘silk’ (Queen’s Counsel: ‘QC’) in 1999. In parallel, she had a distinguished academic career, lecturing in EU law and comparative law first at University College London and then for many years at Cambridge University.
She served as an Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from 2006 to 2020, where she presented over 340 Opinions covering many major aspects of EU constitutional, substantive and procedural law.
Since leaving the CJEU in 2020 following Brexit, she has turned more towards environmental law and now serves as a member of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. As an emeritus fellow of King’s College Cambridge and an honorary fellow of both Corpus Christi College Oxford and the British Academy, she maintains academic links with the United Kingdom. She is also a visiting professor at the Riga Graduate School of Law in Latvia and an adjunct professor at Trinity College Dublin; and holds honorary documents from Glasgow, Nottingham Trent, Stockholm and Edinburgh.
She remains firmly based in Luxembourg, her adopted country, whose nationality she is proud to hold in parallel with her British nationality of origin. When not doing something connected with the law, she is usually to be found walking in the Luxembourg woods with her beloved dogs, Boris the samoyed and Rudy the hovawart, or playing or listening to classical music.

Abstract title
-To be added-
Abstract text
-To be added-

Read more here

Biography
Dr Martin Steinfeld is the college lecturer in law, director of studies in law, Dean and fellow in Law at Hughes Hall as well as an Affiliated Lecturer in EU law at the Faculty of Law and the University Advocate, the University of Cambridge.

He was also previously in practice as a barrister at the Chancery Bar and worked at both the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

His PhD thesis at the University of Cambridge, entitled “Social Constructivist approaches to the law on Free Movement of Persons within the European Union” was supervised by Professor Sir Alan Dashwood CBE QC KCMG and sponsored by the Arts and Humanities Research Council in the UK.

Martin also holds a BA in Political Science from the University of Birmingham (graduating with the highest first in the year), an LLM from the University of Cambridge (gaining a starred first and the highest mark in the year for a dissertation on EU Citizenship) and is a scholar of Lincoln’s Inn.

His recent book, Fissures in EU Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2022) examines whether there were latent fissures in the legal construction of EU Citizenship that may have played a more significant role that previously supposed in providing the framework for Brexit and other populist movements and has been nominated for the International Studies Association Prize for the best book in interdisciplinary studies.

He is currently working on a project funded by the Newton Trust to produce a new text on EU law to make the subject more interesting and relevant from the perspective of Brexit and beyond. In addition, his recent research relates to Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine. He has recently presented papers relating to Ukraine’s potential membership of the EU and whether it would make any difference to its situation from a security perspective.

Dr Steinfeld is also conducting research on the impact of the EU’s economic sanctions against Russia and will soon publish a chapter in the Edward Elgar handbook to the WTO on the matter.

From an interdisciplinary perspective and in the aftermath of his book, he is now expanding his research on citizenship beyond that of the EU model, with particular emphasis on US and Singaporean Citizenship.

Abstract title
Solidarity Recomposed? European solidarity in the aftermath of Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine.

Abstract text
Solidarity is an essentially contested, frequently discussed and yet a core component of any meaningful construction of EU Citizenship. In my recent publication, Fissures in EU Citizenship, I reflected, thirty years on, at the evolution towards EU Citizenship understood as a discursive construction via judicial creation in the thirty years prior the formal creation of EU Citizenship via Treaty amendment at Maastricht. The point made in the book was that there were latent fissures inherent in the evolution towards EU Citizenship that critically impact an understanding, today, of the concept in the light of an era of populism of which Brexit was arguably one significant (but not sole) part. However, in between its formal legal creation thirty years ago and now EU Citizenship as both a legal evolution and normative concept in any meaningful sense (and thus inexorably intertwined with notions of supranational identification) EU Citizenship has certainly had its fair share of ups and downs. In particular, solidarity has variously been expressed (Grzelczyk), “decomposed” (Somek), “poetic and portentous…certainly [a] brim full of possibilities” (O’Brien) but yet at the same time being characterised as having “elusive limits” (Thym). Much of the discussion about Citizenship (and all its controversies) focuses on the notion citizens as ‘economic contributors’ and relatedly, ‘rights-holders’ (viewed in a somewhat instrumental and economic or quasi or even beyond economic sense).

In the Grzelczyk case, arguably the watershed moment in the construction of EU Citizenship in a legal sense, Belgium was supposed to simply accept the fact that the litigant, a French student who had got to the point where he was unable to financially support himself mid-way through his studies in Belgium, must be entitled (in effect as a judicially created quasi-rights holder (absent of explicit legislative entitlement)) to claim a minimum subsistence allowance in the interests of “financial solidarity”(2001). The CJEU was not explicit at the time as to whom this duty of solidarity is to be expressed by and to whom. It could, for instance, have been seen as a notion of solidarity as expressed between Member States, or between Members States and EU Citizens, or possibly even between EU Citizens more generally. Somek questioned in the aftermath of cases such as Grzelczyk whether “transnational solidarity” might have “decomposed” because it is in a “strangely indeterminate state” by virtue of an inevitable tension with national solidarity (2007). Thym reflected on ten years of development to EU Citizenship cases post Grzelcyzk to suggest that what had evolved was a model based on degree of residence and integration (2015). On the other hand, O’Brien characterises such a legal development in a negative sense in suggesting that notwithstanding the construction of citizenship through the apparent narrative of “fundamental citizenship-based rights…economic personhood has been endowed with the ultimate moral value” (2013). In other words, despite pretensions to the contrary, EU Citizenship can still be understood as a form of market citizenship and the concept of solidarity underpins this with the evolution of the concept emerging from CJEU cases relating to EU Citizens attempting to claim social or health assistance or welfare in their host state.

This paper, though, will go beyond a traditional legal definition of solidarity as elaborated by the CJEU and examine the potential for a new form of European solidarity to emerge in the aftermath of Russia’s unlawful invasion of Ukraine. It will examine the potential for such a notion of solidarity in socio-political sense to emerge or, conversely, to reveal itself to possess further latent fissures in an era of populism that has not dissipated despite the invasion of Ukraine. It will be suggested that the war in Ukraine might have unwittingly facilitated the construction of long-lasting notion of EU Citizenship that might finally have created an inexorable bond between citizenship as a legal concept and citizenship as a form of post-national identification. The paper will examine whether solidarity has been recomposed in an entirely novel and unexpected sense. It will firstly examine whether a form of European solidarity has genuinely emerged in the socio-political sphere. As Commission President von der Leyen stated in her 2022 State of the Union Address: “Never before has this Parliament debated the State of our Union with war raging on European soil…But from that very moment, a whole continent has risen in solidarity.” However, it will go further than examining mere sound bytes from political elites and attempt to explore whether a ‘bottom-up’ form solidarity has also emerged. The paper will then go on to explore whether such an evolution, if genuine, is normatively desirable given the fact that it is dependent on constructing an existential ‘other’. Finally, the paper will explore whether there is a form of intersectionality between such a socio-political development and a reflection in the past, present and potentially future case law on EU Citizenship. Fundamentally the paper will explore whether this contemporary development might more appropriately reflect the normative aspirations of Advocate-General Sir Francis Jacob’s suggestion, more than thirty years ago, that one day we may all “be entitled to say Civis Europeus Sum” (1991).

Read more here

Biography
Francesca Strumia is Professor of Law at City, University of London, where she teaches in the areas of Public Law, European Law and Immigration Law. Prior to joining City, she has been a Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield for eight years. Francesca’s research and writing focus on the concept, use and implications of citizenship in the transnational arena as well as on the relation between the status and rights of citizens, and the status and rights of migrants. She has published several articles and two books on these issues, including “Supranational Citizenship and the Challenge of Diversity-Immigrants, Citizens and Member States in the EU” (Martinus Nijhoff, 2013). Her most recent work on the ‘state and the citizen-as-migrant’ in the EU is available here. Francesca has taught law in the US and in Italy, and prior to starting her academic career she has practiced law in major international law firms in London and Milan. She holds an SJD from Harvard Law School and a PhD in Comparative Analysis of Law, Economics and Institutions from the University of Torino.

Abstract title
Migrant Citizenship

Abstract text
One of the most momentous implications of European citizenship has been the association it has brought about between the status of citizenship and the right to free movement. Much ink has been spilt over this association, its problems, and its promise. However the attention of the legal literature has been focused mostly on the relation between intra-EU migrants and their host Member States. Much less attention has been paid to the implications of European citizenship for the relation between each Member State and its own citizens. That relation is transformed through European citizenship. This paper highlights how. European citizenship challenges the assumption that citizenship is a settled condition. Citizenship can be lived either in a settled or mobile manner, at the citizen’s choice. This engenders novel obligations for the EU Member States: obligations to mediate between the interests of their settled population and those of the part of their citizenry that actively pursues the right to free movement; and obligations to preserve international mobility as a free and non-compelled citizen choice. This forces Member States in turn to protect movement also in its negative aspect, that is, the right not to move. Through the unravelling of these obligations, European citizenship proposes a novel model of migrant citizenship.
In sketching the conceptual traits of this migrant citizenship model, the second part of the paper distinguishes it from two other models of the relation between citizenship and movement, thereby proposing a novel taxonomy of the latter relation. A first model is the federal one, where federal citizenship acts as enabling status for interstate mobility, and the right to move and reside anywhere in the federal territory is a constitutional right. A second model is the international one, where national citizenship is a settled condition. It only enables short term movement through the recognition of the passport that embodies national citizenship. Any longer term migration right is only weekly protected under international law and as a human right. The third model is the regional model, where a proper concept of migrant citizenship can be identified. The right to international movement follows from a regime of mutual recognition among distinct regimes of national citizenship, whereby the legal and political spaces of these distinct citizenships become interdependent and enmeshed.
The third part of the paper delves more deeply into the concept and practice of migrant citizenship. It reflects on the implications of a migrant conception of citizenship for the worth of the status of citizenship beyond the national domain. It brings novel insights in this sense to the literature on post-, trans-, and inter-national citizenship. It also proposes, on the back of that conception, a non-dominating model of international movement, where migration becomes part and parcel of the experience of citizenship and as such needs to be reconciled with the interests of political closure and communal life. From this second angle, the concept of migrant citizenship adds a new perspective to the literature on citizenship and migration.

Biohraphy
Daniel Thym is Professor of Public, European and International Law and Director of the Research Centre Immigration and Asylum Law at the University of Konstanz. Thym regularly appears as an expert witness in the home affairs committee of the German Bundestag, contributes to the pan-European ‘Odysseus Academic Network’, and serves as the Vice-Chairperson of the German ‘Expert Council on Integration and Migration’. He has published widely on diverse issues of European law.
Abstract title
Sociocultural Deservingness and Economic Merit in the Evolution of Citizens’ Rights
Abstract text
The debate about Union citizenship has always been dominated by the novelty factor of rights across borders, with regard to free movement in the single market as well as the social and political rights it brings about. However, these transnational guarantees are an, albeit important, subsegment of what European law has to say about ‘citizenship in Europe’ or ‘European citizens’ (as the confer-ence outline aptly puts it in an act of ambiguity about the object of analysis). The first part of my intervention will argue, on the basis of multidisciplinary debate about citizenship, that an overarching frame of analysis is warranted: it discloses feedback loops between the rights of EU citizenship sensu stricto, human rights, the status of the mobile citizens, and third country nationals. In a second step, our thoughts will explore the degree of (cultural) deservingness and (economic) meri-tocracy in the evolution of citizens right understood broadly. The precise focus will have to be defined during the preparation.

Read more here

Biography
I am a political and legal theorist with research interests in political obligation and authority, migration, and the ethics of resistance. I am currently an Associate Professor and Queen’s National Scholar in Legal & Political Philosophy at Queen’s Law School in Canada. I hold an AB from Harvard, a JD from Yale Law School, and a DPhil from Oxford, where I studied as a Canadian Rhodes Scholar. My first book, The Ethics of Exile, was published by Oxford University Press in 2021. I am working on my second book on victims’ duties in the face of their oppression.

Abstract title
Diasporas, Citizenship, and Transnational Politics

Abstract text
Migration has prompted the reconceptualising of citizenship and cultural belonging, typically with a focus on the changing norms and practices of migrant-receiving states. However, immigrants are also members of diasporas–communities of shared national origin that are dispersed across multiple states–as well as emigrants from their countries of origin. In addition to, and sometimes in tension with, their political membership in their countries of residence, migrants have political relationships with diaspora communities and the political communities they have left behind. Sending and receiving states often seek to harness diasporas as a resource to be used in economic or foreign policy interests, or (and sometimes simultaneously) to discipline and demonise them as political irritants. I consider the potential for diasporas to engage in a transnational politics that does not serve state interests, but instead, corrects for failures of political institutions in their countries of origin, and counters the asymmetries between states. I outline some of the roles that diasporas can play, the dangers of, among things, long-distance nationalism, and the ways in which transnational politics can advance transnational justice.

Read more here

Biography

I am part of the hosting Contributivism project and within that I have studied attitudes toward voting-rights requirements in Europe and the US (See Hultin Rosenberg, Wejryd, Attitudes toward competing voting-right requirements: Hultin Rosenberg, Jonas och Johan Wejryd. 2022. ”Attitudes toward competing voting-right requirements: Evidence from a conjoint experiment”. I Electoral Studies 77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102470. I received my PhD at the Department of Government, Uppsala University, and do political science that draws on insights from political theory and empirical political sociology. I address neighboring issues about citizenship in two newly started projects, one in which I study political participation among persons with intellectual disabilities, and one in which I study attitudes toward family migration in Europe.

Abstract title
Attitudes on Immigrant Enfranchisement Prior to Naturalization – Insights from a Conjoint Experiment

Abstract text
International migration has put pressure on the connection between citizenship and the right to vote. Today, the number of foreign born resident non-citizens is large, and growing, in many countries and this group lacks the right to vote in national elections almost everywhere. This has resulted in a situation where a significant proportion of the adult population of many established democracies are disenfranchised.

This situation has received significant attention from scholars of democratic theory that argues that the disenfranchisement of resident non-citizens amounts to a “democratic deficit” (Blatter et al, 2017). Comparative empirical studies on voting-right regulations covering the current practices and the main trends indicates that most democratic states have only taken limited steps to remedy this deficit. However, although studies on the popular support for change in more democratic directions are still rare, there are a couple of recent papers suggesting that a significant minority both in the US (Hultin Rosenberg and Wejryd, 2022) and in Europe (Michel and Blatter, 2020) supports such changes.

This paper aims at contributing to this emerging literature by studying how immigrant attributes affect attitudes toward immigrant enfranchisement. We study this by means of a conjoint experiment conducted on 5000 respondents in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK). Conjoint experiments have become widely used in political science after the introduction of Hainmueller et al. (2014) and are usually employed as full factorial survey experiments measuring how respondents’ attitudes are affected by a fictional object’s characteristics, which are randomized along several uncorrelated dimensions. The study at hand follows this convention. In the conjoint experiment, the respondents were to choose and rate profiles of fictional, potential voters. Each voter was described with six different attributes: citizenship, residency, taxpaying, country of origin, education, and gender.

The results indicate that the support for enfranchising immigrants prior to naturalization is significantly higher if the immigrant is described as an income-tax payer. The results also indicate that the support for enfranchising immigrants is slightly higher if the immigrant is described as an EU-citizen (compared to a third country citizen) and if the immigrant is described as a long-term resident (compared to a short-term resident).

References

Blatter, Joachim, Samuel D. Schmid, and Andrea C. Blättler. 2017. “Democratic Deficits in Europe: The Overlooked Exclusiveness of Nation‐States and the Positive Role of the European Union.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 55 (3): 449–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12491

Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J. and Teppei Yamamoto. 2014. “Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments” Polit. Anal., 22 (1) , pp. 1-30.

Hultin Rosenberg, Jonas, & Wejryd, Johan (2022). “Attitudes toward competing voting-right requirements: Evidence from a conjoint experiment”. Electoral Studies, 77, 102470.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102470

Michel, Elie, and Joachim Blatter. 2020. “Enfranchising immigrants and/or emigrants? Attitudes towards voting rights expansion among sedentary nationals in Europe.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1–20.

Read more here

Biography

Dr. Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler is Associate Professor in International Refugee Law at the University of Reading, School of Law, where he is the Director of Postgraduate Taught Programmes and co-Chair of the LGBT+ staff network. Ruvi is an Associate Academic Fellow of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple; Research Associate of the Refuge Studies Centre, University of Oxford; Editor of the Reporter and Co-convenor of the Migration and Asylum Section of the Society of Legal Scholars; Senior Research Associate of the Refugee Law Initiative (Institute for Advance Legal Study, University of London) and Editor-in-Chief of its Working Paper Series. He is a Visiting Professor at the University of Johannesburg and at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Ruvi’s public engagements include serving as Chair of the Board of Trustees of New Europeans Association UK; Chair of the Oxford European Association; A Britain in Europe academic expert; and an advisory council member of Rene Cassin. Previously, Ruvi was a visiting researcher at Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinic and with the Human Rights Program; and a Tutor in Public International Law at Oxford. Ruvi is the author of Voting Rights of Refugees (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Ruvi’s areas of research interest include International Refugee Law, Electoral Rights and citizenship, Comparative Constitutional Law, and International Humanitarian Law. Ruvi holds DPhil, MPhil, and BCL degrees from Oxford University. For more information see: www.reading.ac.uk/law/about/staff/r-ziegler.aspx. Follow Ruvi on twitter @ruviz

Abstract title
Who decides my right to vote? Political equality after Delvigne

Abstract text
European Parliamentary elections are central to ‘the democratic life of the Union’ in which ‘every citizen shall have a right to participate’ (TEU Art 10(3)). MEPs ‘shall be elected by direct universal suffrage’ (CFR Art 39(2)) and ‘Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union’ (TFEU Art 20).
The paper (oc-authored with Julian Nowag) argues that eligibility to vote in EP elections must be harmonised across EU Member States, as it is analogous to uniform eligibility criteria in domestic settings, given that in regulating elections EU Member States are acting for/on behalf the Union.
This argument about harmonisation and equal (EU) citizenship is made in a context in which Member States are still gatekeepers controlling access to EU citizenship through their divergent processes (notwithstanding qualifications arising from the ramifications of citizenship stripping for continued enjoyment of EU citizenship.
Notably, the paper does not address eligibility to vote in municipal elections of EU member states, which raises EU law questions of national treatment/non-discrimination of Second Country Nationals but not ones of harmonisation.

Read more here