Hitskin.com

Guest

toxic avenger wrote:: Pissing on votes is very unhygienic, and quite uncouth too. Don't do it.

World Citizen - A Question for the Legal Forum - Page 2 A3088912

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:: My instinct is that you cannot have citizenship without a state.
There is no world state therefore there cannot be world "citizenship".
Only a state can guarantee and protect rights because only states own guns and have military and law enforcement capabilities.
Therefore the current approach has been for states to try to promote human rights through treaties.
Human rights attach to all humans whether "citizens" or not.

I don't think the concept of "world citizen" is going to be a politically important concept for the forseeable future. On the other hand, human rights will hopefully continue to be of huge importance the citizens of the various nations of the world.

I agree with Zhou Enlai. But the idea had appeal to me in my teens and pushed me along a road away from nationalism. It also played a part in my casting my precious ballot in favour of the EC first time the opportunity came. That and the assumption that wine would be cheap here! Hey, I was young.

If you would like a taste of the Goldsmith again, here's one:

"Among all the famous sayings of antiquity, there is none that does
greater honour to the author, or affords greater pleasure to the reader
(at least if he be a person of a generous and benevolent heart) than
that the philosopher, who, being asked what "countryman he was,"
replied that he was a citizen of the world. How few there are to be
found in modern times who can say the same, or whose conduct is
consistent with such a profession! We are now become so much
Englishmen, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Germans, that we are no
longer citizens of the world; so much the natives of one particular
spot, or members of one petty society, that we no longer consider
ourselves as the general inhabitants of the globe, or members of that
grand society which comprehends the whole human kind."

http://grammar.about.com/od/classicessays/a/goldsmithessay7.htm

Guest

Zhou_Enlai wrote:: My instinct is that you cannot have citizenship without a state.
There is no world state therefore there cannot be world "citizenship".
Only a state can guarantee and protect rights because only states own guns and have military and law enforcement capabilities.
Therefore the current approach has been for states to try to promote human rights through treaties.
Human rights attach to all humans whether "citizens" or not.

I don't think the concept of "world citizen" is going to be a politically important concept for the forseeable future. On the other hand, human rights will hopefully continue to be of huge importance the citizens of the various nations of the world.

Good points. There is an assumption not only of rights in citizenship, but also protection of those rights. Is the difference between human rights and citizenship that citizens have responsibilities as well as rights?

The activities of the US in abducting people and dragging them around the globe for torture is the opposite of that. There is a clear need for a global authority that can stop that kind of thing. There is no way at the moment for people to exercise the global responsibility they might feel for things outside the boundaries of their nation state apart from the UN. The UN is controlled by the US through the Security Council.

Guest

As we always used to learn in IR at College - "It is a jungle out there" - in the global community. Notions of global responsibility are all well and good but their enforcement requires an overarching order with power and military capacity. A huge amount of the concept of "State" revolves around there being a monopoly on violence to enforce the law - where this monopoly fails you generally also get a failed State. There is no monopoly on violence in the global order and there are many many States beyond the USA who would resist the creation of one.

Guest

I think most of us use the terms political, civil and social citizenship along the lines of Marshall's classic essay. An abstract covering the debates on Marshall and the limitations of his analysis is here. The notion of struggle in the evolution of rights is interesting and perhaps in what we have said here we are not looking at some ynamic between the various forms of citizenship.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/5/7/p97572_index.html

Guest

johnfás wrote:: As we always used to learn in IR at College - "It is a jungle out there" - in the global community. Notions of global responsibility are all well and good but their enforcement requires an overarching order with power and military capacity. A huge amount of the concept of "State" revolves around there being a monopoly on violence to enforce the law - where this monopoly fails you generally also get a failed State. There is no monopoly on violence in the global order and there are many many States beyond the USA who would resist the creation of one.

Unless of course it was their own.

But that's another good point. Some nation states have areas that want independence, but by and large they control their territory without internal challenge. Nation states would have to give up some of their power if there was to be a global state and global citizenship.

How could a global state be prevented from abusing its position?

Guest

cactus flower wrote:: How could a global state be prevented from abusing its position?

How does the notion of a global state differ from NWO ideas? I hate to think this will end in lizards and funny symbols (as I learned from you) since your questions arise from a very different idealism. While nation states have brought us war and division and various versions of exceptionalism and ethnic cleansing (some of it anyway) what lies between the two levels of state? A world army? a world education system? A world religion? A world currency?

How can one acknowledge difference, diversity and freedoms while promoting an ideal of a common humanity with common rights and responsibilities? Don't know but cannot see guarantees in the form of a global state.

Guest

candide wrote:

cactus flower wrote:: How could a global state be prevented from abusing its position?

How does the notion of a global state differ from NWO ideas? I hate to think this will end in lizards and funny symbols (as I learned from you) since your questions arise from a very different idealism. While nation states have brought us war and division and various versions of exceptionalism and ethnic cleansing (some of it anyway) what lies between the two levels of state? A world army? a world education system? A world religion? A world currency?

How can one acknowledge difference, diversity and freedoms while promoting an ideal of a common humanity with common rights and responsibilities? Don't know but cannot see guarantees in the form of a global state.

This is a lizard free topic. alien

Most of the nation states that exist now weren't there 250 years ago. Some self-formed, others had a visit from Napoleon. One thing that is certain is change will go on. I would see a global state being formed by voluntary alliances of nation states, as an alternative to blocs like the EU that essentially define themselves as localised entities in competition with other blocs and other states.

One of the basics of citizenship is the right to live anywhere in the territory. Is it possible to envisage a future world in which anyone can go and live anywhere ?

Guest

So relieved it's lizard free Smile

This answer is perhaps frivolous but guess what? It's my 100th post on MN where I took up residence so recently exercising my right to freedom of movement of persons. Yay! bounce

Guest

candide wrote:: So relieved it's lizard free

This answer is perhaps frivolous but guess what? It's my 100th post on MN where I took up residence so recently exercising my right to freedom of movement of persons. Yay!

Congratulations Candide.

Guest

Thanks Cactus flower. I am dying to see if I go from being a blasted cyst to being a centenarian now. Off topic definitely, so I need to head to the Sibín to see if they will stand me a glass of champagne, after all I got tea just for joining! Very Happy

» Sport - is there a legal grey area ?
» Lisbon II And the Government (split from Legal Challenge to First Legal Treaty)
» The Charter and site policies for feedback, comments, suggestions
» Online Legal Resources
» Legal position after the No vote on the treaty

Hitskin.com

World Citizen - A Question for the Legal Forum