The substance of citizenship

Is it rights all the way down

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members. The reason for extending the protection provided by EU citizenship to these non-formal members is that they are already deeply embedded in practices of creation and exchange of social goods that concur to realise the distributive plan to which the EU is committed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)67-92
Number of pages26
JournalNetherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (NJLP)
Volume47
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

citizenship
EU
court of justice
community
Group

Cite this

@article{ea511d1068ef4b56aca79792ab1bf5f5,
title = "The substance of citizenship: Is it rights all the way down",
abstract = "This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members. The reason for extending the protection provided by EU citizenship to these non-formal members is that they are already deeply embedded in practices of creation and exchange of social goods that concur to realise the distributive plan to which the EU is committed.",
author = "Chiara Raucea",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.5553/NJLP/.000067",
language = "English",
volume = "47",
pages = "67--92",
journal = "Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (NJLP)",
issn = "2213-0713",
number = "1",

}

The substance of citizenship : Is it rights all the way down. / Raucea, Chiara.

In: Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (NJLP), Vol. 47, No. 1, 2018, p. 67-92.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The substance of citizenship

T2 - Is it rights all the way down

AU - Raucea, Chiara

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members. The reason for extending the protection provided by EU citizenship to these non-formal members is that they are already deeply embedded in practices of creation and exchange of social goods that concur to realise the distributive plan to which the EU is committed.

AB - This paper examines how the distribution of social goods within a political community relates to decisions on membership boundaries. The author challenges two renowned accounts of such a relation: firstly, Walzer’s account according to which decisions on membership boundaries necessarily precede decisions on distribution; secondly, Benhabib’s account, according to which membership boundaries can be called into question on the basis of universalist claims. Departing from both accounts, the author concludes that actual changes in the pool of participants in practices of creation and exchange of social goods pressure a political community to redefine its distributive patterns and, accordingly, the boundaries of its formal political membership. This claim will be supported by the analysis of threshold cases decided by the EU Court of Justice, in which EU citizenship is invoked with the atypical purpose of granting rights to a specific group of non-formal members. The reason for extending the protection provided by EU citizenship to these non-formal members is that they are already deeply embedded in practices of creation and exchange of social goods that concur to realise the distributive plan to which the EU is committed.

U2 - 10.5553/NJLP/.000067

DO - 10.5553/NJLP/.000067

M3 - Article

VL - 47

SP - 67

EP - 92

JO - Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (NJLP)

JF - Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy (NJLP)

SN - 2213-0713

IS - 1

ER -