Beyond existing theories of citizenship: towards securing the rights of stateless groups through legal self-determination

超越现有的公民理论：通过合法自决确保无国籍群体的权利

• 批准号: 2280238
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of York
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2019
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2019 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2280238
• 关键词: Beyond; existing; theories; citizenship; towards

The empirical problem of statelessness takes many forms. Defined as the absence of legal recognition by any state, individual instances of statelessness can arise when a state does not support birthright claims to citizenship, or when its laws conflict with other jurisdictions. Statelessness can also occur due to discriminatory immigration policies or administrative barriers resulting from a lack of identity documentation. If left unresolved, these kinds of issues can lead to the invisibilisation of entire communities through inherited statelessness, as this lack of recognition passes from parent to child. There are also cases wherein an entire ethnic or religious group has their citizenship status withdrawn by their home state. This results not only in an initial wave of forced migration driven by persecution, but also leads to intergenerational marginalisation, exclusion, and oppression, as these communities are not afforded rights to reside in any state. While some individuals may be able to make successful claims to asylum, current international conventions on statelessness and nationality do little to secure the rights of a stateless group as a whole. Contemporary cases of group statelessness see large numbers of individuals left at risk of homelessness, destitution, and even unlimited detention. My thesis will propose that the shortcomings of international policies designed to reduce statelessness come about in part because leading theories of citizenship have generally failed to recognise the rights-bearing capacity of certain kinds of groups.There is plenty of ongoing debate in the literature around citizenship and group rights. Indeed, the idea that groups can properly be considered right-holders is still a matter of contestation. A liberal theory of citizenship, for example, prioritises individual autonomy but does not view groups as intrinsically valuable and therefore has no capacity to resolve statelessness at a group level. That being said, many rights theorists have convincingly argued that certain kinds of groups are capable of bearing rights on the basis of shared interests or value. One such example is the right to linguistic security, which is deemed to be held by all linguistic communities and is particularly significant for minority language-speaking groups in matters such as education policy. This right is held at group level because all the members of the linguistic community find value in their language, and this value is only maintained because of the shared practice of language use. Another centre of debate relates to the duties, or responsibilities, associated with being a citizen. Republican theories of citizenship define the citizen in relation to political participation, but this approach provides little recourse for socially marginalised and politically disenfranchised persons to secure their rights in modern states. Adding to the debates around rights and duties, a third central theme in citizenship theory is that of identity. Some nationalist arguments will select arbitrary markers of identity to determine group membership. This approach can actually excuse or even reinforce the kind of exclusionary principles that often give rise to statelessness. Moreover, citizenship theories that focus on territorial claims are unable to reconcile new and existing claims to sovereignty in a world that has no unclaimed land available. Displacement is therefore inevitable under this model. In this way, existing theories of citizenship have little to offer stateless groups in terms of the relative security that citizenship provides to those hold it. However, if it can be shown that a stateless group holds a shared interest in its own existence (as a linguistic community purportedly does), this could provide the foundation for their group-based rights-bearing capacity and thus a path to legal recognition.

无国籍的经验问题有多种形式。无国籍的定义是没有得到任何国家的法律承认，当一个国家不支持对公民身份的与生俱来的权利主张时，或者当它的法律与其他司法管辖区发生冲突时，可能会出现个别的无国籍情况。由于歧视性的移民政策或因缺乏身份证件而造成的行政障碍，也可能出现无国籍现象。如果不加以解决，这类问题可能会通过遗传的无国籍状态导致整个社区的隐形，因为这种缺乏认同感的现象会从父母传给孩子。还有一些情况是，一个完整的族裔或宗教群体的公民身份被其原籍州撤销。这不仅导致了由迫害推动的第一波强迫移徙，而且还导致了代际边缘化、排斥和压迫，因为这些社区没有被赋予在任何州居住的权利。虽然一些个人可能能够成功地申请庇护，但目前关于无国籍和国籍的国际公约对保障无国籍群体的整体权利几乎无济于事。在当代的群体无国籍案例中，大量个人面临无家可归、贫困甚至无限制拘留的风险。我的论文将提出，旨在减少无国籍状态的国际政策的缺陷在一定程度上是因为主流的公民身份理论通常没有认识到某些类型群体的权利承受能力。在文学中，关于公民身份和群体权利的辩论一直在进行。事实上，集团可以适当地被视为权利持有人的想法仍然是一个有争议的问题。例如，一种自由的公民身份理论优先考虑个人自治，但不认为群体具有内在价值，因此没有能力在群体层面上解决无国籍问题。话虽如此，许多权利理论家已经令人信服地辩称，某些类型的群体能够在共同利益或价值的基础上享有权利。其中一个例子是语言安全权，它被认为是所有语言界都享有的权利，在教育政策等事项上对说少数语言的群体特别重要。这项权利是在群体层面上持有的，因为语言界的所有成员都在他们的语言中找到了价值，而这一价值只有在共同使用语言的实践中才能得到维护。另一个争论的焦点是与公民身份相关的义务或责任。共和党的公民身份理论将公民定义为政治参与，但这种方法几乎没有为被社会边缘化和被政治剥夺公民权的人提供什么途径，以确保他们在现代国家的权利。除了围绕权利和义务的争论之外，公民身份理论的第三个中心主题是身份认同。一些民族主义论据会选择任意的身份标志来确定群体成员身份。这种做法实际上可以为经常导致无国籍状态的排他性原则开脱，甚至强化这种原则。此外，专注于领土主张的公民身份理论无法调和在一个没有无人认领的土地的世界里新的和现有的主权主张。因此，在这种模式下，流离失所是不可避免的。在这种情况下，现有的公民身份理论几乎没有为无国籍群体提供公民身份为持有公民身份的人提供的相对安全。然而，如果能够证明一个无国籍群体对其自身的存在拥有共同的利益(就像一个语言社区据称所做的那样)，这就可以为他们基于群体的权利承受能力提供基础，从而为法律承认提供一条途径。