Union Citizenship Research Articles

Evaluating Union Citizenship: Belonging, Rights and Participation Within the EU

Union citizenship often gets criticized for complementing rather than offering an alternative to citizenship at the member state level. By contrast, this article defends this complementarity as the most sociologically plausible and normatively acceptable role for this status. Citizenship as it developed within the member states combined the values of belonging, rights and participation. EU citizenship has attempted to develop the first from an attachment to the second, and to employ new and more selective forms of the third. However, neither rights nor participation prove sustainable without a fairly strong sense of belonging, such as has already developed within the member states. To seek to unravel the different ways these three values have modified and promoted each other in each of these states, as certain European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases threaten to do, undermines rather than enhances citizenship and its main achievements: the development of inclusive, democratic welfare systems.

Union Citizenship and the Legality of Durational Residence Requirements for Entitlement to Student Financial Aid

The recent ruling in Förster demonstrates that Union citizenship is not a magic judicial tool for expanding citizens' rights. The Court upheld a national rule that makes entitlement to maintenance grants for economically inactive nationals of other Member States conditional upon five years of prior residence on the national territory. The Court did not support its conclusion by persuasive reasons. The ruling suggests that the Court merely accepted the five-year residence requirement simply and only because the EU legislator had authorized it. While there is in principle nothing wrong with respecting legislative choices, this contribution argues that the Court showed far too much deference to the EU legislator. Förster constitutes an unnecessary step back on the road to a meaningful Union citizenship.

Family Reunification Rights of (Migrant) Union Citizens: Towards a More Liberal Approach

AbstractOver the years, in the case‐law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) determining the availability of family reunification rights for migrant Member State nationals, the pendulum has swung back and forth, from a ‘moderate approach’ in cases such as Morson and Jhanjan (1982) and Akrich (2003), towards a more ‘liberal approach’ in cases such as Carpenter (2002) and Jia (2007). Under the Court's ‘moderate approach’, family reunification rights in the context of the Community's internal market policy are only granted in situations where this is necessary for enabling a Member State national to move between Member States in the process of exercising one of the economic fundamental freedoms; in other words, where there is a sufficient link between the exercise of one of those freedoms and the need to grant family reunification rights under EC law. Conversely, under the Court's ‘liberal approach’, in order for family reunification rights to be bestowed by EC law, it suffices that the situation involves the exercise of one of the market freedoms and that the claimants have a familial link which is covered by Community law; in other words, there is no need to illustrate that there is a link between the grant of such rights and the furtherance of the Community's aim of establishing an internal market.The recent judgments of the ECJ in Eind and Metock (and its order in Sahin) appear to have decidedly moved the pendulum towards the ‘liberal approach’ side. In this article, it will be explained that the fact that the EU is aspiring to be not only a supranational organisation with a successful and smoothly functioning market but also a polity, the citizens of which enjoy a number of basic rights which form the core of a meaningful status of Union citizenship, is the major driving force behind this move. In particular, the move towards a wholehearted adoption of the ‘liberal approach’ seems to have been fuelled by a desire, on the part of the Court, to respond to a number of problems arising from its ‘moderate approach’ and which appear to be an anomaly in a citizens' Europe. These are: a) the incongruity caused between the (new) aim of the Community of creating a meaningful status of Union citizenship and the treatment of Union citizens (under the Court's ‘moderate approach’) as mere factors of production; and b) the emergence of reverse discrimination. The article will conclude with an explanation of why the adoption of the Court's liberal approach does not appear to be a proper solution to these problems.

Social Blind Spots and Monocular Policy Making: The ECJ’s Migrant Worker Model

Despite the development of Union citizenship it is still work that acts as the key to Community rights. The right to equal treatment of workers on the grounds of nationality is accorded greater weight not only than that of Union citizens, but also than rights regarding other discrimination grounds, as all distinctions are eclipsed by that between workers and non-workers. Economic categorization is a process precedent to and isolated from social objectives of the Union, and its predominance suggests constitutional asymmetry – the relegation of social rights to a position beneath and after the guarantee of economic freedoms. It fails to deal with issues of intersectional discrimination where nationality is not the only factor. By patching together a set of generally applicable criteria to define migrant workers, the current regime both treats differently people who are in a similar situation – thanks partly to the arbitrariness of the criteria landed upon – and fails to treat differently people in different situations, by subjecting all migrants to the same test. This article argues in favour of an integrated interpretation approach: that the reach of free movement rights should be defined according to a duty of both formal and substantive equal treatment. The scope of migrant work should be subject to the same principles as the content of Community law. In this way some asymmetry could be redressed; not by attempting to Europeanise the social, but by socializing the (already European) economic.

Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany (review)

Reviewed by: Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany Patryk J. Polec Eley, Geoff, and Jan Palmowski (eds.) — Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008. Pp. 304. The post-1989 political reorganization of central and eastern Europe and the challenges of globalization and migration have prompted scholars to revisit modern German history through the lens of "citizenship." The inception of a European Union citizenship as well as migration and immigration have significantly changed the political, cultural, and economic dynamic of Germany. This has sparked an evaluation of the German citizenship law and its exclusive conception based on the ius sanguinis. Citizenship analysis deconstructs political-legal concepts to determine how identity and citizen rights are defined through public and political debates. T. H. Marshall's contention that citizenship denotes "the full membership of the human community" has been challenged by sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and social historians who believe that such a simplified definition does not accurately define the culture of citizenship (pp. 3–5). Most social scientists and historians examine "thin" and "thick" concepts of citizenship. The former is concerned with the legal nature, that is, how interest groups "vie for recognition [End Page 240]before the law for their ability to exercise legal and formal citizenship rights in theory and in practice" (p. 5). The "thick" conceptions focus on the construction of citizenship through "culture." Scholars who view citizenship through this approach are interested in how cultural constructions, communication, and material artifacts define perceptions of citizenship. Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germanyaddresses questions that are central to the social sciences by breaking down the rigid dividing lines among cultural, political, social, and legal history. Edited by Geoff Eley (University of Michigan) and Jan Palmowski (King's College, London, UK), it is based on papers delivered at the conference "Citizenship and National Identity in Twentieth-Century Germany" in 2004. It constitutes the most important attempt, to date, to consider citizenship as a prime model for deciphering identity in modern German history. Its contributors investigate major themes in Germany's past to demonstrate how, and by whom, citizenship was defined in order to unearth the intricate relationship between citizenship and the nation. The text is divided into three broad categories that consider both "thin" and "thick" conceptions of citizenship. The first deals with the historical development and construction of the political-legal concepts. Dieter Gosewinkel's comparative examination of France and Germany suggests that demographic, political, and economic conditions forced Germany to define its national community increasingly through culture rather than by place of birth. Peter C. Caldwell and Annemarie Sammartino focus on the Weimar Republic to show that the relationship between individuals and the state was constantly renegotiated to preserve the survival of the Republic. In the final chapter of this section, Jan Palmowski's examination of the German Democratic Republic promotes the argument that socialist citizenship established a feeling of local togetherness, but ultimately failed to solidify an identification between citizens and the state. The second section explores how citizenship is constructed through Alltagskultur(everyday culture) and how identity and "otherness" are defined. Jennifer Jenkins examines the Wohnkultur(culture of dwelling) through the Werkbundto demonstrate how German identity was fashioned by architecture, home furnishings, and consumption. S. Jonathan Wiesen broadens this perspective by looking at the manufacturing sector during the Third Reich. He argues that company public relations transferred and reinforced Nazi racial ideals by excluding various groups. At the same time, during times of shortages and limited citizenship rights, companies worked against the state by promoting individual consumption and self-gratification instead of placing the Volkabove everything else. Wiesen suggests that companies helped create a sense of individual normality even though they did not hide political and economic realities. Other important contributions in this section include Thomas Lindenberger's analysis of law enforcement. He argues that cultural codes, police camaraderie, and expectations about the inviolability of the human body defined the protection and the enforcement of citizenship. Cornelie Usborne provides insights on gendered contestations around political rights during the transition from the late Empire to the Weimar Republic. She reflects on how the abortion laws...

The Future of EU Citizenship: Corrosion of National Citizenship?

Ever since the introduction of Union citizenship, worries have been expressed that it would affect national citizenship. This paper seeks to analyze, on the basis of case law of the European Court of Justice, the general directions in which developments at EU level are taking Union citizenship and the impact this has on the relationship Union versus national citizenship.

Evaluating Union citizenship: belonging, rights and participation within the EU

Union citizenship often gets criticized for complementing rather than offering an alternative to citizenship at the member state level. By contrast, this article defends that complementary status as the most sociologically plausible and normatively acceptable role for this status. Citizenship as it developed within the member states combined the values of belonging, rights and participation. EU citizenship has attempted to develop the first from an attachment to the second, and to employ new and more selective forms of the third. However, neither rights nor participation prove sustainable without a fairly strong sense of belonging, such as has already developed within the member states. To seek to unravel the different ways these three values have modified and promoted each other in each of these states, as certain European Court of Justice (ECJ) cases threaten to do, undermines rather than enhances citizenship and its main achievements: the development of inclusive, democratic welfare systems.

The Evolution of European Union Citizenship

In the 1990s most scholars saw European citizenship as a purely decorative and symbolic institution which added little new to the ‘pre-Maastricht’ regime of free movement rights. In addition, many felt the need to defend the primacy of national citizenship by highlighting the derivative nature and weak content of European citizenship. Accordingly, its transformative potential remained at the margins of the debate. Despite such assessments, European Union citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive (Dir 2004/38).

Seeing the Wood Despite the Trees? On the Scope of Union Citizenship and its Constitutional Effects

The article looks at the impact of the introduction of Union citizenship on the scope of application of the Treaty. In particular it considers how the citizenship provisions have affected the personal and the material scope of the Treaty. By virtue of Article 17 EC the personal scope of the Treaty is expanded so that any Union citizen, and not only the migrant citizen, now falls within the personal scope of the Treaty. The significance of this finding then depends on the definition of the material scope of the Treaty, i.e. on the identification of the rights that Union citizens can claim qua citizens. In this respect, it is clear that Union citizens have a right to move; and a right to reside in any of the Member States (subject to limitations and conditions). Union citizens have also a right to equal treatment deriving from Article 12 EC. In this respect, the article argues that such a right to equal treatment is not merely an ancillary right which is conditional upon migration; rather, Article 12 EC is a self-standing right pertaining to all those who fall within the personal scope of the Treaty. As a result, Article 12 EC is capable of being invoked by static union citizens to challenge reverse discrimination.

Reverse Discrimination in Purely Internal Situations: An Incongruity in a Citizens’ Europe

Reverse discrimination suffered by Member State nationals in purely internal situations has traditionally been considered by the Court of Justice to be a permissible difference in treatment that falls outside the scope of EC law. The principal aim of this article is to argue that, in the light of the introduction of the status of Union citizenship and, in particular, the interpretation afforded by the ECJ to some of the citizenship provisions, the Court should reconsider its stance on the issue of reverse discrimination. It will be explained that the Court has already made some tentative steps towards this direction: in line with the overall developments in the EC since 1993, the Court in recent years, in some of its case-law, has extended the scope of application of the free movement Treaty Articles to situations which presented a very tenuous link with those provisions, preventing, in this way, the emergence of reverse discrimination. It will be concluded that, although the Court’s underlying objective in those cases has been correct, the approach it has followed in attaining that objective has, nevertheless, been the wrong one. Reverse discrimination is, indeed, an incongruity in a Citizens’ Europe, yet, the scope of the fundamental freedoms provisions can never be extended in such a way as to encompass this difference in treatment since it does not impede the achievement of their sole aim (the establishment of a single market). Therefore, some other way should be employed for bringing reverse discrimination within the scope of EC law and, where appropriate, for ruling that it amounts to a prohibited difference in treatment. Reverse discrimination will be re-proposed as an unjustified violation of the general principle of equality, the latter being one of the core principles that must be respected in a Citizens’ Europe.

The origins of European citizenship in the first two decades of European integration

By tracing conceptions of citizenship in the early period of European integration until 1971, this article argues that the Maastricht Treaty was not year zero in the EU citizenship discourse. In contrast to previous research, this article contributes theoretically by studying citizenship as a status of individuals in relation to a political unit, differentiated analytically into membership, identity, rights and participation, and subsequently focuses on the interplay between them. Further, it contributes empirically by highlighting those treaties, judicial decisions, policies and practices that affected the status of individuals. The analysis finds that citizenship elements in early European integration created a frame upon which later conceptions of citizenship developed, including Union citizenship. It must, however, not be overstated as anything resembling a status akin to national citizenship. European citizenship should rather be understood as a status emerging from concrete judicial, legislative and political practices.

Transformational Leadership in Labor Organizations: The Effects on Union Citizenship Behaviors

This study suggests that transformational leadership influences union citizenship behavior by fostering a covenantal relationship between the union and the union member. A framework for covenantal relationships is developed from social exchange and social identity theories. Transformational leadership behavior was found to be strongly related to perceived union support, a social exchange construct. The results also indicated that there are positive and significant relationships between other social exchange constructs such as felt obligation and trust. Social identity theory is used to augment social exchange theory in explaining the process by which transformational leadership behaviors relate to union citizenship behaviors through union-based self-esteem. Limitations of the study, implications for union management, and directions for future research issues are discussed.

Borderlines of Union Citizenship

Borderlines of Union Citizenship

European Union Citizenship: Writing the Future

Abstract: EU citizenship has matured as an institution, owing to a number of important interventions by the European Court of Justice and legislative initiatives, such as the Citizenship Directive 2004/38/EC, which has recently entered into force. In this article, I critically examine minimalist and cosmopolitan conceptions of European citizenship and argue that once we dispense with the preoccupation of assigning primacy to a specific level of citizenship and establishing some kind of hierarchy among them, we can begin to address the questions and issues that really matter. Among these are the future governance of citizenship and the design of a more inclusive, multilayered and multicultural conception of citizenship. European citizenship entails a number of fruitful ideas for a more ambitious transition to a post‐national tableau and can be the prototype for institutional experimentation on citizenship on a global scale.

Solidarity Decomposed: Being and Time in European Citizenship

In this paper, argue that Union citizenship cannot be understood as the elevation of national solidarity, however thinly conceived, to the transnational level. On the contrary, Union citizenship acts on national solidarity, thereby altering its shape. It lends expression to an individualistic view of the political realm. I attempt to explain why owing to the preponderance of this view, national solidarity comes to be perceived as ungenerous and unkind, even in the eyes of its own beneficiaries.

Civic Citizenship and Migrant Integration

In the 1999 Tampere Agenda, the European Council committed itself to creating ‘a set of uniform rights’ for third country nationals with a view to promoting better integration. Subsequently, the Commission suggested that this could lead to a new status of ‘civic citizenship’. Since this idea was floated, the Union has adopted a considerable body of legislation on immigration. This article examines these instruments, most notably the Long-Term Residents Directive, in order to decipher both the criteria for membership of civic citizenship and the rights and duties attached to this imagined status. A fragile and complex framework has been constructed for third country nationals, whilst in the same period the status of Union citizenship has been strengthened by the Court of Justice. This reveals a tension between the exclusive prerogatives of Union citizenship and the objective of improving migrant integration.

Au nom de qui? The European Court of Justice between Member States, Civil Society and Union Citizens

Abstract: How does the quest for legitimacy of the European Union relate to the view the European Court of Justice(ECJ) accords to Union citizens, civil society and to private actors? It is submitted that the ECJ is currently developing a jurisprudence under which citizens, as well as their organisations and corporate private actors, are gradually, and in almost complete disregard of the public/private distinction, being included in the matrix of rights and—a crucial point—obligations of the treaties. The ECJ incorporates civil society actors and citizens, beyond notions of representative (citizenship) and participatory (civil society) democracy, into the body of law and thereby reworks its own and the Union's identity. Two core aspects are explored: the first is the reconfiguration of Union citizenship as a norm which triggers the application of the substantive norms of the EC Treaty. The second aspect of this evolution is the creation of ‘private governance’ schemes, i.e. processes in which, as a rule, private action is regarded as action that has to meet the standards of the Treaty. The analysis shows that the court is disentangling itself from the State‐oriented Treaty situation and drawing legitimacy directly from citizens themselves so that judgments should be pronounced ‘In the Name of the Citizens of the European Union’. ‘Union Citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States.’1

Perinatal Risk Factors for Hospitalization for Pneumococcal Disease in Childhood: A Population-Based Cohort Study

The objective of this study was to examine the relation of factors that are present at birth to subsequent hospitalization for childhood pneumococcal disease. We conducted a cohort study of all singletons born in 3 counties in western Denmark from 1980 through 2001, using population-based registries to obtain data on pregnancy- and birth-related variables and hospitalizations through age 12. We calculated incidence rates of pneumococcal disease hospitalization overall and within strata of study variables and used Poisson regression to estimate rate ratios for pneumococcal disease hospitalization while accounting for other birth characteristics. Among 338,504 eligible births, 1052 children were later hospitalized for pneumococcal disease. Pneumonia accounted for most hospitalizations (81.9%). The pneumococcal disease hospitalization rate was highest among 7- to 24-month-olds, followed by 0- to 6-month-olds and 25- to 60-month-olds. The highest rates, typically over 200 hospitalizations per 100,000 person-years, were in 0- to 6- and 7- to 24-month-old children who were born preterm or with low birth weight, a low 5-minute Apgar score, or birth defects. The hospitalization rate was lower for first-born children at 0 to 6 months but not at older ages. At older ages, hospitalization rates were not substantially different for children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy, but at 0 to 6 months, the rate was higher for children of multiparous nonsmokers than for others. Adjusted rate ratios were elevated across all age categories for several variables, including low birth weight, presence of birth defects, and low 5-minute Apgar. For several others, including preterm birth, maternal multiparity, age < or = 20 years, and non-Danish/European Union citizenship, adjusted rate ratios were elevated only for 0- to 6-month-olds. This large cohort study of hospitalization for childhood pneumococcal disease clarifies the roles of some gestation and birth factors while raising new questions about how these factors work.

The European Union's Citizenship Regime. Creating Norms and Building Practices

This article deploys the concept of citizenship regime to describe the citizenship norms and practices of the European Union (EU). The EU is, and has been since 1957, involved in building citizenship practices. The goal of the article is to reanimate discussions of European citizenship and to recapture them from the almost exclusive control of political philosophy and a focus on the standard liberal democratic model. Instead, it presents the European citizenship regime for what it is: a set of norms and practices in motion. Its characteristics are captured by analysing four dimensions of any citizenship regime: the responsibility mix; acquired rights and duties; governance; and belonging. On each dimension, current citizenship practices of Union citizenship are briefly described. When this is done, the EU is observed to be adjusting its borders and boundaries of citizenship.

Marginal Stories? The Perspectives on Citizenship of Multiple Citizens and Multicultural Persons of Estonia

This article focuses on practices of citizenship in Estonia by persons with multiple citizenship or multicultural background. In the previous stages of research on this topic primary attention was paid to national citizenship, multiple citizenship and European Union citizenship as institutions, as well as the role of citizenship in the construction of European space. Expected "configurations" of multiple citizenship as articulated in Marshallian (1992) terms, as well as linkages between different spaces of membership (national and not-national) of citizenship as perceived by the national decision makers, mapped both avenues and bottleneck s for the future. Our research raises questions and problems related to citizenship as both an essential tool of nation building and of EU integration (cf. Ruutsoo and Kal ev 2006, Ruutsoo and Kalev forthcoming).