Disputes involving Olympic athletes can arise from a wide range of decisions made by a host of entities. A disputed decision may involve the eligibility of an athlete, employment of coaches and staff, organizational governance, doping, and commercial contracts. Three disputes involving athletes and the modern Olympic games show how arbitration has come to play a central role in resolving contested decisions of sporting associations. First, the case of sprinter Harry Reynolds illustrates the limitations of using national courts to challenge doping-related sanctions. Second, the eligibility struggles of Oscar Pistorius demonstrate how athletes and national sporting associations can benefit from arbitration’s efficiency. Finally, the case of Claudia Pechstein offers a recent example showing the deference given arbitration by national courts, for better or worse.
Erin Aeran Chung
This chapter surveys the major challenges, opportunities, and insights of scholarship on citizenship and migration in the so-called non-Western world in order to move the field of citizenship studies forward by critically reevaluating our assumptions about the concept of citizenship, its associated rights, and the lived realities of citizenship practices in various parts of the world. The study of citizenship in various non-Western contexts provides a distinctive lens through which we can analyze its contradictions. Rather than begin with the assumption that citizenship is universal, democratic, and inclusive, research in this area highlights how citizenship—as a legal status, symbol of national and/or ethnic identity, institution, and practice—is contingent. The chapter explores how technologies of citizenship create hierarchies of citizens and noncitizens that prioritize meso-level membership over individual rights, that extend beyond national boundaries, and that generate “in-between” statuses among both native and migrant populations.
Cosmopolitan citizenship is a controversial notion. But it has also been taken to mean different things. In this chapter, I first outline three ways in which “cosmopolitan citizenship” has been understood. The first understands cosmopolitan citizenship as a legal-political ideal, as an actual political membership under a world government. The second understand the cosmopolitan citizen to be someone who is empowered and has the capacity to participate in global democratic decision-making and governance. I will call this the democratic conception of cosmopolitan citizenship. This is the conception of cosmopolitan citizenship associated with the idea of cosmopolitan democracy. The third sense of cosmopolitan citizenship understands it more metaphorically, to express a normative perspective or point of view the globally engaged individual should adopt. I call this the normative conception of cosmopolitan citizenship. This is the conception of cosmopolitan citizenship that is assumed when invoked in discussions of cosmopolitan justice. I grant that while the legal-political and democratic conceptions of cosmopolitan citizenship are questionable, the normative conception is a coherent and morally galvanizing ideal.
This chapter examines the use of force from a feminist perspective and its prohibition in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Using structural bias feminism, it demonstrates how the gendering of international legal categories contributes to the harm and discrimination experienced by women worldwide. The chapter cites UN Security Council action in Libya in 2011 as an example of the normative and organizational exclusion of women and the justification of the use of force. It discusses the relationship between race and gender privilege in international law and argues that the Council’s resolutions on women, peace, and security, support, and legitimate use of force undermine feminist peace activism. It proposes a transformative approach to the foundations of international law that articulates the prohibition on the use of force as a useful first step for imagining the potential of humanity rather than justifying further force, further violence, or further destruction.
Like most liberal democracies, the western settler states supplement jus sanguinis rules with jus soli principles that accord birthright citizenship to most people born in their territory. Indigenous tribal nations in those states, on the other hand, do not include birthplace criteria in their allocation of birthright citizenship. Thus while settler states and tribal nations both permit naturalization, tribal nations continue to use ‘jus sanguinis’ descent rules as the exclusive determinant of tribal birthright citizenship. This chapter examines the tensions that arise in settler and tribal law as a result of this divergence, and argues that the tribal preference for unlimited jus sanguinis rules is a legitimate one.
Dual citizenship was historically disfavored by states. In the nineteenth century, the incidence of dual nationality threatened bilateral relations as states contested control over individuals. Although dual nationality persisted as states refused to harmonize nationality practice, states used expatriation, election, and renunciation as tools to suppress the status. Through international law doctrines and bilateral arrangements, the negative consequences of dual nationality were mitigated by the mid-twentieth century. However, sticky social norms against the status, the perception of emigrants as traitors to states of the Global South, and the largely unfounded association of dual nationality with security threats retarded acceptances of the status. More recently, a clear majority of states have come to tolerate and even embrace dual citizenship as advancing state policies, especially among immigrant-source states. Individuals increasingly value the status for instrumental and sentimental reasons. Even though dual citizenship challenges equality norms, this acceptance is unlikely to be reversed.
This chapter explores the relationship between citizenship and refugeehood. In particular, it examines the extent to which loss of meaningful citizenship defines the predicament of the refugee. It then examines the status of refugee and refugee rights. Thirdly, it considers how refugeehood comes to an end, in particular the role of citizenship (new or restored) in ending refugeehood. Citizenship is formally viewed as bringing refugeehood to an end, whether that emerges as return to the home country or naturalisation in a new state. However, in practice, a new citizenship for many refugees remains out of reach, and the status of refugee often becomes an intergenerational carrier of civic and social exclusion. The reflects the realities of refugee containment, in contrast to the vision of shared responsibility that underpins the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees and the refugee regime.
This chapter analyzes the development of citizenship in postcolonial states. Imperial subjects within Empire are disaggregated into four categories. Imperial racial hierarchies and the legacies of divide-and-rule colonialism mark the transition from imperial subject to post-colonial citizen at independence. A uniting anti-colonial nationalism is in tension with majoritarian nationalism. While initial citizenship was an outcome of struggles over defining a national political identity, the postcolonial state was soon expanding to deliver and realize socio-economic citizenship for the marginalized and the poor. Strengthening postcolonial citizenship through welfare generated contestations over the eligibility of groups deserving of state sponsored welfare, which led to more political and social fragmentation. Inclusionary welfare for some groups meant the exclusion of others. Contemporary postcolonial citizenship building is being advanced through political and legal activism over specific rights. Future research will benefit from analyzing the role of bottom up political and legal activism in producing new types of citizenship.
Jan Aart Scholte
This chapter examines the forms, consequences, and challenges of civil society involvement in contemporary global governance. It is organized as follows. The first section considers definitions of civil society. The second section maps the various involvements of civil society actors in global regulatory processes. The third section surveys different theoretical understandings of the relationship between civil society and global governance. The fourth section assesses the substantive impacts of civil society interventions in global governance, that is, how NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and other civil society groups affect institutional developments, agendas, decisions, discourses, and deeper structures of global governance. The fifth section considers the relationship between civil society and legitimacy in global governance. The conclusion includes several suggestions for future enhancement of civil society engagement of global-scale regulation.
Reut Yael Paz
This chapter explores the inseparable nature of the relationship between religion—more specifically, Christianity—secularism and international law. As the history of international law itself reveals, its inauguration as a liberal profession depended on a group of men who shared a particular universal intuition and cultural agenda that mirrored their western Christian European and cosmopolitan backgrounds at the end of the nineteenth century. Thus, the chapter scrutinizes the Catholic School of Salamanca as a case study that mirrors how Christianity—Catholic missionarism more accurately — became an integral part of international law to date, focusing on how and why the Salamancans’ specific re-configuration of the public/private has become a resilient and persistent formula to this day.
Noora A. Lori
This chapter explains why a growing number of people across the globe experience precarious citizenship--they cannot gain access to secure and permanent legal statuses for protracted periods. Ambiguous and temporary legal statuses are spreading because they represent a strategic government response to avoid resolving dilemmas about citizenship (especially questions about the incorporation of minorities, refugees, or labor migrants) by postponing those decisions, perhaps indefinitely. Moreover, the very processes of boundary-enforcement (biometric IDs and deportations) have pulled more people into the documentary power of the state without providing them a secure place within it. Four categories are discussed: 1) individuals who cannot obtain national identity documents and become stateless; 2) individuals who may have identity documents but lack residency authorization and become ‘illegal’; and a spectrum of groups with temporary statuses that are neither stateless nor fully unauthorized, including (3) temporary humanitarian protection or (4) temporary labor statuses.
Supranational citizenship, as a concept, sits somewhat uncomfortably between the regional experience of European citizenship and discourses on global or cosmopolitan citizenship.European citizenship is too narrow to exhaust the concept, and global or cosmopolitan citizenship is too broad to embrace it firmly. Hence the contours of supranational citizenship remain rather fuzzy. This chapter endeavors to dispel this fuzziness. It traces a conceptual definition of supranational citizenship focusing on the re-articulation of citizenship beyond national boundaries on the basis of a norm of mutual recognition of belonging. It then distils from the concrete experience of European citizenship further elements to reinforce this definition. Ultimately, the chapter relies on the reinforced definition to identify contemporary examples of supranational citizenship beyond the EU context - such as Mercosur citizenship or CARICOM citizenship - and to chart the theoretical prospects of the concept.
This chapter examines the utopias called forth by the marriage of human rights accountability mechanisms on the one hand, and, on the other, arguments about the practical significance of these initiatives as preconditions for development, democracy, and political society. Transitional justice is seen to marry the ethical charge of the human rights field’s march against impunity, with an instrumental potential facilitating transition from the rule of violence into the rule of law. If the normative theories and agendas implicated by this marriage are advanced as being in the interests of justice, the accompanying instrumental theories and agendas are advanced in the interests of transition. Justice and transition operate here as allied and mutually reinforcing aspirations of and rationales for transitional justice institutions. Thus, this chapter identifies and analyses the stakes that attend this marriage of ‘ethics’ and ‘expertise’ in constituting the utopian political imagination of transitional justice.
This chapter emphasizes the role of political economy, and the ways in which global governance has affected (or failed to affect) it, in generating immigration crises. Going beyond politics toward political economy illuminates both the origins of US intervention in Central America, and the ways in which that intervention has shaped migration from the region. US involvement stemmed from global power struggles over the organization of economic production: namely, its concerns about the turn to socialism, particularly after the Cuban Revolution. If foreign policy origins stemmed from economics, often so did policy tools; such measures oriented Central American economies towards the US as a destination for its exports, and increased the Central American presence of US investors and imports. They also engendered profound changes in Central American economic life: changes that each in their own way have reinforced patterns contributing to the current migration surge.