16 December 2024
EU Citizens’ Right to Join Political Parties
The Maastricht Treaty formally created the concept of citizenship of the European Union, based upon holding the nationality of a Member State. Now provided for in Article 20 TFEU, EU citizenship includes the right for EU citizens to vote in municipal and European Parliament elections in a Member State other than that of their nationality on the same basis as nationals. Two recent judgments by the Court of Justice enhance the role of EU citizenship as regards political rights, but its recognition of the importance of national identity in this area means that Member States can still place some limits on non-nationals’ role in politics. Continue reading >>
0 
03 September 2024
Falltür im Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht
Bereits seit geraumer Zeit besteht der Wille, das Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht zu instrumentalisieren, um Menschen über ihre doppelte Staatsangehörigkeit loszuwerden. Aber auch die etablierten Volksparteien diskutieren offen darüber, wie sich kriminalpolitische Probleme staatsangehörigkeitsrechtlich lösen lassen könnten. Auch wenn mit der Novellierung des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts im März 2024 die meisten Verlustgründe aus dem StAG gestrichen wurden, bleibt mit dem Terrorismusverlustgrund § 28 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StAG eine Regelung übrig, die hohes Diskriminierungspotenzial aufweist. Continue reading >>
0
28 July 2024
Jewish Past, Mnemonic Constitutionalism and the Politics of Citizenship
For this symposium essay, I will focus on the Jewish past, with its tragedies extending beyond and preceding the Holocaust as a master narrative unfolded by mnemonic constitutionalism. Specifically, I will reflect on how citizenship laws – as the foundational cluster of constitutional law in liberal democracies, including the countries without a formal constitution – have built constitutional ontologies upon the Jewish past and the “never again” theme through three central examples involving “Jewish citizens”. Continue reading >>
0
07 May 2024
3½ Myths about EU law on Citizenship for Sale
The sale of national and European Union citizenship understandably remains highly controversial. It seems arbitrary, perhaps even abject, to grant nationality in exchange for a monetary investment, when most people must wait years and overcome considerable hurdles before they can naturalize. As evidenced by three recent posts on the Verfassungsblog by Joseph H.H. Weiler, Merijn Chamon, and Lorin-Johannes Wagner, this question continues to divide EU law scholars. It is also a question that is still plagued by several myths about how EU law and, relatedly, international law, apply to CBI practices. This post discusses 3½ such myths. Continue reading >>
0
15 April 2024
A Rejoinder to Citizenship for Sale (Commission v Malta)
In his piece on Citizenship for Sale of 14 April 2024, Joseph Weiler criticizes the European Commission's infringement procedure against Malta's golden passport scheme. He names three reasons why the Commission should (or could) not have brought the case and the Court should not uphold it. While the present reply does not argue that the Court will necessarily find in the Commission's favour, the Commission's legal claim and strategy do not seem to be as (constitutionally) problematic as Weiler make them out to be. Continue reading >>14 April 2024
Citizenship for Sale (Commission v Malta)
The Maltese “passports for sale” (Golden Passports) was big news a year or two ago but has now disappeared below the radar of public attention. Yet, the mills of justice might grind slowly, but grind they do. The case brought by the Commission against Malta is scheduled to be heard by the CJEU sometime later this year. So, Malta offers passports for sale. Quelle Horreur! I hear you sniffing with disgust and indignation. They sell their citizenship, and hoopla – automatically these new citizens, ipso facto and ipso jure are European Citizens enjoying all the rights and duties which attach to such. Continue reading >>10 April 2024
Subordination and Arbitrariness in Citizenship Law
In 2019, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party returned to power in India. The Bharatiya Janata Party oversaw the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 (‘CAA’) which gave Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian (but not Muslim) migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan a fast-tracked pathway to Indian citizenship. This post argues that the CAA is unconstitutional, and uses it as an example to clarify two important under-theorised Indian constitutional principles: anti-subordination and arbitrariness. Continue reading >>
0
02 June 2023
Democratizing Switzerland
About 25% of Switzerland’s permanent population do not possess the red passport necessary to vote due to one of the most restrictive citizenship law’s in the Western world. The Democracy Initiative is trying to change this. While unlikely to succeed, they are nonetheless starting an important conversation about how to fix Switzerland’s semi-democracy. Continue reading >>
0
23 May 2023
Progressive Reform mit regressiven Untertönen
Die Passagen im Koalitionsvertrag der Ampel zum Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht ließen aufhorchen. Schickt sich die Ampel hier an, die unter Rot-Grün begonnene, aber dann doch nur halb durchgeführte Staatsangehörigkeitsreform zu vollenden? Nach Lektüre des kürzlich veröffentlichten Referentenentwurfs des Gesetzes zur Modernisierung des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts lautet die Antwort: Vieles wird besser, manches wird schlechter, und von einem Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht, das den Realitäten der Postmigrantionsgesellschaft gerecht wird, kann immer noch keine Rede sein. Continue reading >>
0
21 March 2023
The Janus Face of Fetal Citizenship: A Tool of Inclusion or a Threat to Abortion Rights?
Should citizenship status be conferred upon an unborn child? In a 2022 landmark decision, Pranav Srinivasan v. Union of India, the Madras High Court answered this question in the affirmative. Srinivasan had not been born yet when his parents, with his mother being in the third trimester of her pregnancy, gave up their Indian for Singaporean citizenship. Now an adult and ostensibly to avoid the mandatory conscription for Singaporean citizens, Srinivasan sought to avail himself of a statutory right to reclaim his Indian citizenship, pursuant to section 8(2) of the Citizenship Act 1955. While the Court's ruling in Srinivasan's favour should be applauded for its inclusionary ethos, it threatens to undermine India's progressive abortion jurisprudence. A provision of the 1956 Hindu Succession Act might provide a solution to this conflict. Continue reading >>
0