Comparative Analysis of Citizenship Models and the

impact of Globalization with regards to National identity

and the concept of Citizenship
Context:
Over the past three decades, national citizenship laws worldwide have undergone significant
reforms in response to the persistent impact of international migration and the emergence of
transnational and supranational forms of citizenship. Converging trends appear in comparative
analyses of citizenship laws around the world. These include the extension of jus sanguinis(right
of blood), the growth of mixed citizenship models, increased tolerance toward multiple
citizenship, and incorporation requirements within naturalization procedures. Statelessness
prevention initiatives and the phenomenon of transnational citizenship are also growing in
strength. Yet, there isnt a uniform global model of citizenship as each country has its different
historical, cultural, and political contexts which require distinct specific understanding as well.

Development of Citizenship as a National Institution:

Citizenship is a comprehensive concept that entails its context through historical and legal
developments. It roots from several disciplines, including law, sociology, philosophy, and
politics. This multidisciplinary nature has brought forth diverse interpretative traditions, often
leading to confusion and ambiguity with regards to its intersection with the concept of
Nationality, however, when examining citizenship, it's essential to consider historical and
political contexts, as well as nationhood. For instance, the dynamic nature of individual-state
relationships is evident in the challenges posed by cross-border mobility and regional and
international human rights organizations. This highlights that citizenship is not a static concept;
rather, it has evolved and continues to do so. From a legal perspective, citizenship is a state
institution that categorizes individuals as citizens, conferring a legal status that entails shared
rights and obligations. Historical events are just one factor influencing the evolution of
citizenship laws. Building on R. Brubaker's work, it's clear that varying notions of nationhood –
such as civic nationhood, exemplified by France, and ethnic nationhood, seen in Germany –
shape state interests and, in turn, inform citizenship policies. Citizenship laws have been adapted
over time by national lawmakers in response to external factors, including immigration, while
aslo by both identity politics and interest-driven politics. State nationality can confer citizenship,
while citizenship is closely linked with the nation-state. D Miller's book on nationality proposes
three connected claims: nationality as personal identity, bounded duties, and political
self-determination.
Despite their connections, nationality and citizenship have different aspects. Nationality involves
a sense of community, historical continuity, activism, territory, and shared traits. In contrast,
citizenship implies social closure, as modern states are both territorial and nation-states.
Ancient Models of Citizenship - Evolution to the Modern Age:
In ancient Greek city-states, the concept of citizenship was centered on the dichotomy of citizens
and non-citizens, rather than citizens and outsiders. Notably, in Athens, citizenship was viewed
as a political affiliation, rather than a cultural identity. Aristotle's definition of a citizen as "one
who participates in ruling and being ruled" reinforces this perspective. The core belief by which
the Athenians conceptualized their notion of civic engagement was rooted in the capacity for
self-governance, which could only be achieved through reciprocal rule among equals. Citizens
were meant to participate in the political process while following the rules and regulations of the
polis. Failure to do so came with consequences, such as loss of citizenship or exile. Despite this
democratic system of governance, Athenian citizenship was very exclusive. It was granted only
to those who participated in the public sphere, creating a patriarchal system, whereas slaves and
women managed the domestic sphere.1
In contrast, the Roman conception of citizenship was formal and legal in character, consisting of
rights and obligations. According to Roman jurist Gaius, people interact with others and own
property, which calls for legal regulation. Citizens were thus defined as people who are
empowered to act within the legal framework, who can sue and be sued. Therefore, citizenship
became identified with the right to legal protection and redress.
During the Medieval Age, the idea of citizenship largely disappeared with the domination of
feudalism, establishing master-servant relationships. However, citizenship survived in the form
of bourgeois status, giving some rights of self-governance within municipalities.
Modern citizenship thus came into being with the rise of modern states that required a unified
state membership. This happened in two stages: first, through the absolute state that created the
citizenship-subjection relationship and later through the nation-state that promoted
citizenship-membership based on nationality.
Until the French Revolution (1789-1799), citizenship was almost entirely synonymous with
subjection. As R. M. Smith writes, even in early modern republics, citizens were placed on an
equal footing with monarchical subjects internationally. The absolute state transformed
citizenship from participation to subjection, characterized by a vertical bond between
citizens-subjects and the sovereign.2
During the 19th century, there was a convergence of citizenship as membership and participation,
particularly with the French Revolution. This pivotal event re-established
citizenship-participation, placing common values, participation in the historical narrative, and
belief in equality, freedom, and fraternity at the heart.
R. Brubaker mentions that the French Revolution was made up of several sub-revolutions, each
contributing to the formation of modern national citizenship. The sub-revolutions of civil

1
[Link]
2
Harald Waldrauch, “Methodology for comparing acquisition and loss of nationality,” in Acquisition and
Loss of Nationality: Policies and Trends in 15 European Countries, Vol.1: Comparative Analyses, ed.
Rainer Bauböck, Eva Ersbøll, Kees Groenendijk and Harald Waldrauch (Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press, 2006), 108
equality, political rights institutionalization, national identity, and the strengthening of the state
were developed.

Citizenship in the age of Modernity:

Citizenship was used as a way to differentiate between nations after the French Revolution and to
legitimate state sovereignty, or the "nationality principle." In modern liberal states,
citizenship-membership and citizenship-participation are two faces of the same coin:
citizenship-membership entails vertical bonds between individuals and the state, while
citizenship-participation entails horizontal bonds between individuals sharing a national identity.
It means that since the 19th century, citizenship became an intrinsically exclusionary institution,
with states making their own citizenship laws in defining membership, rights, and obligations
while excluding non-citizens.

Comparative Analysis of the Models of Citizenship:

States have the prerogative to decide who can be considered as a citizen and how access to
citizenship must be regulated. As a legal construct, citizenship is subject to the rules of the
prevailing model as well as to several patterns of acquisition. Each country develops legal
parameters which can set apart citizens from non-citizens. Citizenship laws regulate all
requirements for conferring or obtaining citizenship. These might be ex lege-confers citizenship
on individuals holding a true link to that country, or by origin or by residence or other provisions.
Citizenship is often a matter of circumstance rather than choice: it is determined by parents'
citizenship or birthplace or naturalization3. States generally use one of two models of citizenship:
ius sanguinis (right of blood) or ius soli (right of soil), or also by naturalization based on descent
or territoriality principles, respectively. While the pure forms of these models are seldom found,
civil law countries often use ius sanguinis and common law countries ius soli.

Jus Soli (birthright citizenship)

In the 18th century, ius soli became the primary means through which citizenship was bestowed
on inhabitants in prominent kingdoms like France and the United Kingdom. This model,
originally borrowed from the feudal system in which people were considered subjects rather than
citizens, first gained recognition during medieval times when the notion of allegiance was
established as found in the landmark 1608 Calvin's Case in England.
In this case, Edward Coke emphasized the automatic and indissoluble bond between the monarch
and subjects born within the territory. Consequently, individuals born within a monarch's
dominion were considered subjects, entitled to protection in exchange for allegiance and
obedience. Though the territoriality principle was not mentioned, the place of birth became a
significant determinant in citizenship attribution by modern states.

[Link]
ng-distinction-between-local-and-federal-citizenship/8F567F05AC6F1DA51D475F331F9B2437
The ius soli acquisition of citizenship speaks to the feudal principle; people belonged to a
landowner, depending on which land they were born into. The ius soli model was later adopted
into the British colonies, such as America, Canada, South Africa, Ireland, and Australia. For
example, Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution gives those born or naturalized within
the United States with allegiance to it, entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several states. Contrastingly, the ius sanguinis model, traces its historical roots back to ancient
civilizations such as Greece and Rome, where children could acquire citizenship at birth only if
one of their parents was a citizen.

Jus Sanguinis (bloodright citizenship)

The use of ius sanguinis as a criterion of citizenship laws became widespread around the world,
especially after the French Revolution, which also did away with the system of feudal ius soli.4
The Napoleonic Civil Code of 1804, for example, established the transmission of citizenship
from French fathers to their children at birth. This model was later codified and implemented in
many countries around the world, such as Austria, Belgium, Spain, Prussia, Russia, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, to name a few, within their civil codes in the 19th century.
Today, citizenship laws across different countries often include some concepts from both the ius
sanguinis and ius soli models.

Comparative Analysis of the Jus Soli (birthright citizenship) and Jus Sanguinis (bloodright
citizenship) models of Citizenship:
Both ius sanguinis and ius soli models are endowed with both advantages and disadvantages. In
the context of the ius sanguinis model, preservation of cultural and ethnic relations is a main
advantage in terms of preserving the group and community characteristics. But exclusionary
aspects and inequality between groups tend to be reproduced through it. End.
In theory, the ius sanguinis model can continue a community based on descent into an inclusive
one. The problem is that in reality, it does not lead to the full integration of immigrant
communities, even ones born and raised in a country.
Inter-generationally, the ius soli model includes individuals, automatically conferring citizenship
to children born within the territorial bounds of the state. It is, therefore often viewed as a more
inclusive and democratic approach. I. Honohan observes that in appropriate form, ius soli can be
an integral part of an inclusive regime of citizenship but its form matters.
Pure is the most inclusive form of ius soli; children born in the state automatically become
citizens at birth. Other forms of ius soli, prospective or retrospective conditions, double ius soli,
and facilitated naturalization vary in their level of inclusiveness.
Within the global community, birthright citizenship serves as the primary mechanism for
allocating citizenship. As citizenship is an inherently exclusionary institution, states establish

4
[Link]
birthright provisions to determine who is entitled to this legal status at birth. Consequently,
citizenship laws universally incorporate birthright provisions.

Acquisition of Citizenship
The majority of individuals are linked to the state in which they were born, with most people
maintaining this connection throughout their lives, despite increasing mobility and globalization.
This highlights the relatively arbitrary nature of citizenship, as both birthplace and parental
citizenship significantly influence an individual's legal status.

Acquisition of citizenship at birth

The modes of acquiring citizenship at birth vary across states, relying on either the ius sanguinis
or ius soli models. To classify these modes, it's essential to define "acquisition of citizenship at
birth." According to the EUDO Citizenship Glossary, this refers to any mode of acquisition that
occurs automatically at birth or immediately after birth through declaration or registration.5
Birthright-based modes of acquisition can be categorized into two sub-groups: "ius sanguinis at
birth" and "ius soli at birth." The former grants citizenship to individuals born to a citizen of the
country (A01), while the latter applies to persons born in the country, foundlings, and
individuals born in the country who would otherwise be stateless.
Acquiring Citizenship After Birth
The term "acquisition of citizenship after birth" describes any mode of acquiring citizenship that
does not occur: Automatically at birth, or Immediately after birth by declaration, registration, or
similar steps. This kind of acquisition is based on conditions met after birth, distinguishing it
from birthright citizenship.
Residence-based modes of acquiring citizenship
Residence-based modes of acquiring citizenship can be distinguished between general
residence-based acquisition and socialization-based acquisition. The former depends on
residence requirements, such as a minimum period of stay, while the latter depends on
socialization, such as attending school or spending formative years in the country. Naturalization
is a type of acquisition that involves an application by the individual and a granting decision by
the public authority. This is distinguished from automatic acquisition and acquisition by option
or declaration. Etymologically, naturalization implies a "re-birth" into the new political
community. Conditions for residence-based modes of acquisition vary across the globe.
Procedural requirements include discretionary or entitlement-based decision-making, obligation
to justify negative decisions, right of appeal, decision-making authority, maximum procedure
duration, fees, and oath of loyalty and/or public ceremony.

Comparative Analysis of State Models:

5
Christophe Bertossi and Abdellali Hajjat, EUDO Citizenship Observatory – Country Report: France,
(2013), 4.
Citizenship models are remarkably different from one country to another, reflecting their
histories, cultural values, and political ideologies in terms of their citizenship laws and policies,
requirements for naturalization, rights and responsibilities of citizens, and the impact on national
identity.
●​ United States (Jus Soli)
The United States follows the Jus Soli (right of the soil) model, in which citizenship is granted to
those born within the territory of the country. This approach strongly emphasizes birthplace in
determining citizenship. The basis for the law of US citizenship comes under the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution, under which citizenship is bestowed to any person born or
naturalized in the United States. The Jus Soli model in the US has contributed to a diverse and
inclusive national identity. The country's history of immigration has shaped its cultural values,
and the concept of citizenship has become closely tied to the idea of American exceptionalism.
●​ Germany (Jus Sanguinis)
Germany has a Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) model, meaning citizenship is conferred upon
those who have German ancestry or parentage. The German Nationality Act of 1913 adopted the
principle of Jus Sanguinis and has been revised several times since then. The Jus Sanguinis
model, used in Germany, contributed to a strong emphasis on ethnic identity and cultural
heritage. However, this policy approach has been criticized for creating integration barriers for
immigrants and their offspring.
●​ Canada (Mixed Model)
Canada is a mixed model, using aspects of both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis. The Canadian
Citizenship Act of 1947 established the country's citizenship law, which has undergone several
revisions since then. The country's emphasis on multiculturalism and bilingualism has created a
unique cultural landscape of naturalized citizenships.
●​ Australia (Naturalization-Based)
Australia has a naturalization-based model, under which citizenship is conferred on those
applicants who satisfy certain eligibility requirements. The naturalization-based model in
Australia has allowed multiple cross border integration and applicants to petition for citizenship.
Comparative Analysis
The four countries examined in this analysis have distinct citizenship models, each with its
strengths and weaknesses. The US Jus Soli model emphasizes birthplace, while the German Jus
Sanguinis model prioritizes ancestry. Canada's mixed model combines elements of both, while
Australia's naturalization-based model focuses on eligibility criteria and application.6
The requirements for naturalization also differ considerably among the four countries. The US
requires a minimum of 5 years of permanent residence, while Germany requires 8 years. Canada
requires 1,095 days of permanent residence in the 4 years preceding the application, while
Australia requires 4 years of permanent residence. Each country's unique approach to citizenship
reflects its fabrication of national identity and social cohesion.
6
United Nations, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, August 30, 1961, United Nations Treaty
Series (UNTS), UNTS no. 14458, vol. 989, p. 175, available at [Link]
Modern Day Case Studies
Case Study 1: Brexit and EU Citizenship

The United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union in 2016—popularly known as
Brexit—holds serious implications for EU citizenship. The EU citizenship model is premised on
the principle of free movement—that is, the freedom for EU citizens to live, work, and study in
any EU member state.
The result of the Brexit referendum raised questions about the future of EU citizenship for UK
citizens living in other EU member states, and vice versa. The decision by the UK government to
terminate free movement and introduce a new immigration system has brought about uncertainty
for many people.
The case study of Brexit brings to light many complexities in citizenship models such as loss of
citizenship rights for UK nationals residing in other EU member states who would be deprived of
their EU citizenship rights, including the right of free movement. Moreover, EU citizens living in
the UK face uncertainty about their future immigration status and access to citizenship.

Globalization and its Implications for National Identity and the Concept of Citizenship
Globalization challenged traditional notions of national identity because people are increasingly
identifying with global culture and communities. This has resulted in the emergence of
cosmopolitanism and global citizenship which has diluted the concept of nationalism and cultural
distinction to a large extent. The challenge of multiculturalism and diversity, due to
globalization, has allowed the interaction and dilution of ideas, diminishing differences but also
identity. This has posed a threat to national sovereignty since countries are increasingly relying
on international institutions and agreements to govern global matters.

Global Analysis:​
Nationalism and sovereignty: Most member states within the EU have been hesitant to
compromise their sovereignty to the EU and hence have defended their national identities.
Cultural and linguistic diversity: The rich cultural and linguistic heritage of the EU diversity has
led to a very challenging task of devising a shared European identity. On the other hand, in the
East, China's growing economic and military power has led to increased nationalism and a
greater emphasis on Chinese identity as an anatgonism to the rising wave of globalization as a
tool of Western hegemony and democratization. This opposition to global citizenship models is
also reflected in exacerbated sectarian divisions in the Middle East, leading to increased conflict
and challenges to national identity.