Open Access
Is there (still) an East-West divide in the conception of citizenship in Europe?
Loading...
Files
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1028-3625
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI RSCAS; 2010/19; [GLOBALCIT]; EUDO Citizenship Observatory
Cite
LIEBICH, André, BAUBÖCK, Rainer (editor/s), Is there (still) an East-West divide in the conception of citizenship in Europe?, EUI RSCAS, 2010/19, [GLOBALCIT], EUDO Citizenship Observatory - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/13587
Abstract
It is common in the literature on nationalism and citizenship to distinguish between civic conceptions
of the political community that are seen to prevail in Western Europe and North America and ethnic
ones that are said to be characteristics of Central and Eastern Europe. EUDO CITIZENSHIP has
invited scholars to answer the question whether this contrast is merely a Western stereotype or can be
traced in national citizenship laws and policies.
In his opening article, Andrè Liebich highlights several important historical conditions shared by
the former communist accession states to the European Union. Among these are not only long periods
of authoritarian rule, but also the comparatively recent formation as independent states and a lack of
recent experience with and recognition for ethno-linguistic diversity. Liebich observes a dramatic
difference between Western and Eastern European states specifically with regard to birthright
acquisition by ius soli or ius sanguinis and predicts that the new member states will find it hard to
adapt their citizenship regimes to the fact that they, too, are now becoming countries of immigration.
Five authors respond to André Liebich’s analysis, partly pointing to empirical evidence of strongly
ethnic conceptions of citizenship in some of the “old” EU member states, and partly challenging the
attempt to fit countries with quite different histories into geographical blocks that are then contrasted
with each other. The debate concludes with a rejoinder by André Liebich in which he replies to his
critics.