scholarly journals Democratic Citizenship and Denationalization

2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATTI TAMARA LENARD
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
Citizenship Status ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
The Right ◽  
Terrorist Events

Are democratic states permitted to denationalize citizens, in particular those whom they believe pose dangers to the physical safety of others? In this article, I argue that they are not. The power to denationalize citizens—that is, to revoke citizenship—is one that many states have historically claimed for themselves, but which has largely been in disuse in the last several decades. Recent terrorist events have, however, prompted scholars and political actors to reconsider the role that denationalization can and perhaps should play in democratic states, in particular with respect to its role in protecting national security and in supporting the global fight against terror more generally. In this article, my objective is to show that denationalization laws have no place in democratic states. To understand why, I propose examining the foundations of the right of citizenship, which lie, I shall argue, in the very strong interests that individuals have in security of residence. I use this formulation of the right to respond to two broad clusters of arguments: (1) those that claim that it is justifiable to denationalize citizens who threaten to undermine the safety of citizens in a democratic state or the ability of a democratic state to function as a democratic state, and (2) those that claim that it is justifiable to denationalize dual citizens because they possess citizenship status in a second country that is also able to protect their rights.

scholarly journals Democracies and the Power to Revoke Citizenship

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patti Tamara Lenard
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The State ◽  
Democratic Citizenship ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Policy Goal ◽  
Citizenship Status ◽  
The Right

Citizenship status is meant to be secure, that is, inviolable. Recently, however, several democratic states have adopted or are considering adopting laws that allow them the power to revoke citizenship. This claimed right forces us to consider whether citizenship can be treated as a “conditional” status, in particular whether it can be treated as conditional on the right sort of behavior. Those who defend such a view argue that citizenship is a privilege rather than a right, and thus in principle is revocable. Participating in a foreign state's military, treason, spying, or committing acts that otherwise threaten the national security of one's state may all warrant revocation. This article assesses the justifications given for the claimed power to revoke citizenship in democratic states and concludes that, ultimately, such a power is incompatible with democracy.I begin with a brief account of the claims given by contemporary democratic states for the “right to revoke.” Democratic citizenship is today commonly understood to beegalitarian, that is, it protects an equal basic package of rights for all citizens; and to be “the highest and most secure legal status,” that is, it is meant to be secure from unilateral withdrawal by the state. Formally, many democratic states have revocation laws on the books, but most of these have long been in disuse. Although I argue in this article that all revocation laws are inconsistent with democratic citizenship, I focus on the recent surge in proposed and implemented revocation laws, which are justified as essential to protecting national security.In the second section I outline three reasons to object to revocation laws. First, revocation laws discriminate between citizens based on their citizenship status. Second, since they single out those who are eligible for revocation, they apply unequal penalties for the same crime. Third, they are inadequately justified, in general, but also particularly to those who may be subject to them, because they are not adequately connected to the policy goal they are said to fulfill. I conclude with some brief observations concerning the ways in which revocation permits states to abrogate their shared responsibility for protecting the global community from dangerous individuals.

scholarly journals Characteristic aspects of the state as the central institution of political system (from the perspective of the guarantor of national security)

Moldoscopie ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludmila Oleinic ◽  
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
The State ◽  
Main Role ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
European Standards ◽  
The Right

The establishment of a democratic state, an open society in which the citizen is the subject of social-political processes and feels safe, represent in essence a complex process. The main role in achieving these objectives largely depends by the state, by the public power, which is essentially obliged to create the right conditions and mechanisms for the involvement of all progressive forces in the construction of the new edifice. In this vein, the factor of awareness of the state’s correlation with national security is very important in order to make proposed objectives work. As a result, in order to increase the effectiveness the state focuses on reporting and accommodating to modern European standards and principles on the activity, organization and functioning of political processes and institutions in society as a whole in correlation with assuring national security issues.

Governments, Governance and War: What We Have Learned in Iraq An Introduction

Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Valerie Patterson
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Unique Approach ◽  
Eyewitness Account ◽  
The Right

Reflective of Public Voices unique approach, the works selected for the symposium represent a wide specter of genres: from analytical articles to an eyewitness account to several poems and a play. The symposium contributors, each through a different lens, examine issues of governance and war, democracy and freedom, national security and the right of nations to self-determination and discuss the lessons the conflict in Iraq has taught us about bureaucracy, civil service, political actors and the value of human life.

When the State Speaks, What Should It Say?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Brettschneider
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
The State ◽  
Hate Groups ◽  
New Approach ◽  
State Action ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Theory Of Value ◽  
The Right ◽  
Equal Citizenship ◽  
The Ideal

How should a liberal democracy respond to hate groups and others that oppose the ideal of free and equal citizenship? The democratic state faces the hard choice of either protecting the rights of hate groups and allowing their views to spread, or banning their views and violating citizens' rights to freedoms of expression, association, and religion. Avoiding the familiar yet problematic responses to these issues, this book proposes a new approach called value democracy. The theory of value democracy argues that the state should protect the right to express illiberal beliefs, but the state should also engage in democratic persuasion when it speaks through its various expressive capacities: publicly criticizing, and giving reasons to reject, hate-based or other discriminatory viewpoints. Distinguishing between two kinds of state action—expressive and coercive—the book contends that public criticism of viewpoints advocating discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation should be pursued through the state's expressive capacities as speaker, educator, and spender. When the state uses its expressive capacities to promote the values of free and equal citizenship, it engages in democratic persuasion. By using democratic persuasion, the state can both respect rights and counter hateful or discriminatory viewpoints. The book extends this analysis from freedom of expression to the freedoms of religion and association, and shows that value democracy can uphold the protection of these freedoms while promoting equality for all citizens.

Governmental Censorship in War-Time

1942 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 837-849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byron Price
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Radio Industry ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right ◽  
Free People ◽  
Magazine Articles

To a free people, the very word “censorship” always has been distasteful. In its theory, it runs counter to all democratic principles; in practice, it can never be made popular, can never please anyone.Everything the censor does is contrary to all that we have been taught to believe is right and proper. The Post Office Department, for example, has two proud mottoes: “The mail must go through,” and “The privacy of the mail must be protected at all hazards.” But censorship stops the mail, it invades the privacy of the mail, it disposes of the mail as may seem best. The same thing holds true in the publishing business. Censorship limits the lively competition and free enterprise of reporters. It relegates many a scoop to the waste basket. It wields a blue pencil—both theoretical and actual—on news stories, magazine articles, advertisements, and photographs. Censorship also enters the radio industry, where it may edit scripts and in some cases stop entire programs.Yet even the most vociferous critics of the principle of censorship agree that in war-time some form and amount of censorship is a necessity. It then becomes not merely a curtailment of individual liberty, but a matter of national security. It is one of the many restrictions that must be imposed on people fighting for the right to throw off those restrictions when peace returns.

Claiming Martin Luther King, Jr. for the right: The Martin Luther King Day holiday in the Reagan era

2021 ◽  
pp. 175069802199593
Author(s):  
Francesca Polletta ◽  
Alex Maresca
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Racial Inequality ◽  
Martin Luther ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Historical Figures ◽  
General Abstract ◽  
The Right ◽  
Reagan Era ◽  
Martin Luther King ◽  
Roll Back

The article traces how American conservatives laid claim to the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. We focus on a key moment in that process, when Republicans in the early 1980s battled other Republicans to establish King’s birthday as a federal holiday and thereby distinguish a conservative position on racial inequality from that associated with southern opposition to civil rights. The victory was consequential, aiding the New Right’s efforts to roll back gains on affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. We use the case to explore the conditions in which political actors are able to lay claim to venerated historical figures who actually had very different beliefs and commitments. The prior popularization of the figure makes it politically advantageous to identify with his or her legacy but also makes it possible to do so credibly. As they are popularized, the figure’s beliefs are made general, abstract, and often vague in a way that lends them to appropriation by those on the other side of partisan lines. Such appropriation is further aided by access to a communicative infrastructure of foundations, think tanks, and media outlets that allows political actors to secure an audience for their reinterpretation of the past.

Nepal’s Post Pandemic Diplomacy

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-170
Author(s):  
John Narayan Parajuli
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
South Asia ◽  
Regional Cooperation ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
Domestic Institutions ◽  
Small State ◽  
Policy Capacity ◽  
The Right ◽  
Middle Powers ◽  
Capacity Gap

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of priortising health and other social and environmental issues and treating them as national security concerns. Taking a small state policy capacity approach-a small state’s ability to make informed policy decisions, this article looks at the nascent efforts being made to pursue regional cooperation in dealing with non-conventional threats in South Asia; and both implications and opportunities for Nepal to diversify its diplomatic engagement with a view to bridging its own domestic capacity gap-heightened by the pandemic. This analytical article argues that this is the right time for Nepal to reframe the issue of health and other emergencies, recalibrate the roles of its domestic institutions and diversify its diplomacy with the regional players and pivotal middle powers for building domestic capacity.

scholarly journals The Dilemma of Australian Pacific Solution: The Non-Refoulement Principle Versus National Security

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 340-360
Author(s):  
Ninin Ernawati
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
The Other ◽  
Australian Government ◽  
Refugee Convention ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
The Right

The Australian Government has issued various policies to deal with refugees. One of the policies is the Pacific Solution and it is considered as a manifestation of national security principles. On one hand, the policy against the non-refoulement principle, which is the central principle of the refugee convention and Australia is one of the states that ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention. Obviously, Australia should not violate the non-refoulement principle. On the other hand, Australia has experienced a dilemma between prioritizing its interests and fulfilling international obligation to protect refugees who entering its territory. This article discusses whether the national security principle is contrary to the non-refoulement principle; and how Australia can accommodate both principles without neglecting the rights of refugees and still be able to maintain their interests. This article also reviews how Australia can implement policies based on national security principle when it has to face international obligations–in this case, the non-refoulement principle. This research concludes that the national security and the non-refoulement principle are basically contradictory. However, Australia can accommodate these two principles by counterbalancing actions, such as the establishment of national laws that still highly consider humanitarian standards contained in the non-refoulement principle. Australia has the right to implement number of policies based on its national law, while that the same time Australia cannot ignore their international obligation to protect refugees in accordance with the 1951 Refugee Convention that they have ratified. Reflecting on some previous policies, this study concludes that Australia has not been able to accommodate both principles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document