What’s the Added Value of Legalising City-zenship?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterAcademic

Abstract

In his kick-off, Rainer Bauböck discusses the influence of citizenship, both urban and national, on the relationship between cities, states and the people that reside in them. His position is that urban citizenship should not, and cannot, replace national citizenship; rather, the future lies in an urban citizenship “derived from residence rather than nationality … that complements national citizenship”. Bauböck believes that such a multilevel citizenship would be able to create a ‘status of equality’ shared by urban and non-urban populations. My response to Bauböck’s reflections on urban citizenship considers some legal implications of the postnational view that Bauböck finds most promising. Specifically, it questions how suited citizenship is – as a legal instrument – for accommodating the concerns raised in Bauböck’s contribution.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationCities vs States:Should Urban Citizenship be Emancipated from Nationality?
EditorsR. Bauböck, L. Orgad
Place of PublicationSan Domenico di Fiesole
Pages17-19
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2020

Publication series

NameEUI Working Paper RSCAS
Number2020/16
ISSN (Print)1028-3625

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'What’s the Added Value of Legalising City-zenship?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this