European Citizenship

Introduction

The concept of European citizenship originated long before it was formally introduced. The policy of EU citizenship is closely linked with the project of European integration, embedded in the Roma Agreements of 1958. However, the first integration processes didn’t proceed until the latter half of the 1960s. They were connected with the concept of the free movement of people within the EU, a policy intended to foster European labour migration. The free movement of people has long been considered one of the most important factors of economic development following World War II.

EU migration policy has been central to the formation of the policy of European citizenship from the outset of integration.

However, the exclusion of third country nationals from the EU principle of free movement has led to the formation of the so-called “dual citizenship”, which remains part of the European citizenship policy. But the final provisions were only approved during the Luxembourg European Council. This policy was introduced by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and has been in force since 1993 and was later extended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. There are three major constructs of importance, namely encouraging free movement, reducing the European Union’s democratic deficit, and establishing a base for the construct of a European identity.

The Maastricht Treaty introduced “Union citizenship”, a concept that makes EU citizenship unique. All citizens of an EU country automatically become citizens of the EU. Among the reasons for introducing community citizenship is to encourage mobility of citizens, and the transportation of goods, services, and capital through EU borders, with the aim to achieve a national market. In order to become a citizen of the EU, one is required to hold nationality of one of the member states, since the EU does not have legal authority to grant the status of citizenship.

European citizenship is regulated by Articles 17-18 of the European Communities Treaty. According to these provisions, Union citizenship is conditional upon national citizenship, which makes the concept of citizenship unique. EU citizens enjoy legal protection under EU law and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union safeguards the fundamental human rights of EU citizens.

EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. Every citizen of the Union residing in a Member State, of which he or she is not a national, has the right to vote in elections and to run as a candidate in local elections where they live. Citizens are also free to trade and to transport goods, services and capital through EU borders, much like trading within a national market, without restrictions on capital movements or duty-fees. Additionally, Union citizens enjoy legal protections under EU law, specifically under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as acts and directives regarding, for example, protection of personal data, rights of victims of crime, prevention and combat of human trafficking, equal pay, and protection from discrimination in employment on grounds of religion, belief, sexual orientation, and age. The EU also has a designated European Ombudsman whom EU citizens can directly approach.

Meaning of citizenship

Though there are numerous ideological definitions of the term citizenship, the operational definition is deemed appropriate for this study. After reading and understanding the different scholarly definitions put forth to explain the concept of citizenship, it is important to operationally define citizenship as the status enjoyed by nationals of a given political territory. This status entitles them to full legal, political, social, and economic rights, along with a conscious sense of psychological belonging among humans. The above operational definition of the concept “citizenship” will serve as the tenet of the paper wherever it is mentioned.

Theoretical Context of EU Citizenship

A non-functional approach

To a certain extent, legal links can help foster a sense of ‘common identity and shared destiny’, especially in the EU, where law has played a significant role in the integration process. This mechanism represents the socio-psychological (non-functionalist) dimension of citizenship. People enjoying the same rights are more likely to establish relationships. The same rights “imply an affiliation with a social and historical group, a condition of solidarity,” which is never ‘naturally’ acquired. Conversely, the lack of certain rights ascribed to other members of the community leads to feelings of exclusion, or even discrimination. Non-citizens living within a certain community may be less willing to identify themselves with the citizens. As Balibar has said, humanity is divided into “unequal species” by citizenship. Citizenship’s role in the political community, which can be described as an association of individuals who share a common life and are, therefore, especially committed to each other, implies that it binds citizens together.

Breton analyzed a number of ways in which a system of collective organization, and political community is undoubtedly one of those, shapes individual and social identities. He found that people’s conception of themselves depends on the group they belong to. Verhoeven drew attention to the fact that citizenship implies membership in the community, which is closely related to ‘belonging’ and ‘sense of identity’.

Interestingly, political rights may imply ‘moral membership’, which requires that all members of the community participate in collective decision-making. As La Torre pointed out, “political rights are the most important adjunct of membership of a community”. According to Verhoeven, the legitimacy of political action enables better identification with a community. Hence, those who are not entitled to vote will not be accepted as full members of the community. This brings us to another significant issue related to ‘belonging’ – the perception of non-citizens by citizens. There is an evident tendency to treat those who do not enjoy political rights as ‘outsiders’. Such an exclusive perception makes the integration of non-citizens into society more complicated.

Historical

Development of European Citizenship

After the devastating impact of two major world wars during the twentieth century, a serious attempt towards European integration was launched following the Second World War through the founding treaties of the European Community. In fact, this was not the first initiative to unify Europe. At times, only an economic union was proposed while on other occasions, projects aimed at cultural, religious, and political union were put forth. Supposedly, during the last two centuries alone, more than 160 plans to unify Europe in one way or another have been proposed (Papcke, 1992, p. 72).

However, the ongoing European unification process after the Second World War has been different from all the previous ones. Most of the previous experiments throughout history, from the Romans, Charlemagne’s Holy Roman Empire, to Napoleon and Hitler’s Third Reich, hinged on war, invasion and oppression (Black and Shore, 1996, p. 277). Although the rest of the previous plans dreamed of a peaceful integration in a theoretical context, they could not find any basis in reality.

This last endeavour pursued a peaceful path and, for the first time, made it possible to practice a European integration process (Smith, 1992). The ultimate aim of this final attempt has been clear from the beginning: the development of cooperation and interaction among European states to establish a powerful and fully-fledged political community – the ideal of an ever-closer union. Until the 1970s, the leading actors of the European integration process followed the neo-functionalist pathway, which proposed to reach unity through gradual, incremental steps in certain areas. This approach was anticipated to cause a ‘spill over’ effect, leading to harmonization and further integration in other areas (Peterson and Bomberg, 1999, p. 14; Shore, 2000, p. 42). Therefore, the Community’s initial activities were channelled mainly towards economic integration. Political and social integration were expected to follow as a by-product or side-effect, as a result of deepening economic integration (Shore, 2000, p. 18; Rosamond, 2000, p. 52).

By the 1970s, the situation began to change as a result of the need ‘for a Europe closer to its well-informed citizens,’ and the debates about the legitimacy of the Union (Black and Shore, 1996, p. 275). Thereafter, the interests and activities of the EU have extended to other areas as well. The issue of a common EU identity seems to be one of the most critical in this regard as it influences and promotes all other policy areas and provides a normative basis for the continuation of cooperation. This is why, since the 1970s, the search for a common identity to underpin political integration has always been a live topic among EU officials, member states, and academic circles. Alongside its gradually rising importance, an extensive discussion around the definition of an existing or a potential European identity has emerged. Among various views to establish a common identity for the Union, the idea of constructing a common political (legal) identity based on political and civic understanding, democracy, rule of law, human rights, multiculturalism, and so forth, has been widely suggested.

Dimensions of EU Citizenship

Political Dimension

Political Dimension is being shaped by two basic concepts which namely civic virtues and democracy These two concepts are closely tied to each other in the case of EU citizenship. As Beetham and Lord (1998) pointed out, any formation of EU identity around civic values, at the same time necessitates the democratization of the Union or vice versa. This civic-democratic goal necessitates both the construction of institutional-legal channels for the participation of citizens, and normative preparation of these citizens for such participation at EU level. The establishment of such a dimension, in addition, some other useful concepts, namely rule of law, human rights, pluralism can also be mentioned to elaborate the characteristics of the political dimension, but the former two, to a great extent, include and imply these latter concepts.
Therefore, democracy here should be perceived in a Kantian way that is characterized by the rule of law, the respect for human rights, the non-violent and compromise-oriented resolution of domestic conflicts, and participatory opportunities for the citizens; subsequently, liberal democratic states form pluralistic security communities of these shared values (Risse-Kappen, 1996).
In addition, some other useful concepts, namely rule of law, human rights, pluralism can also be mentioned to elaborate the characteristics of the political dimension, but the former two, to a great extent, include and imply these latter concepts. Therefore, democracy here should be perceived in a Kantian way that is characterized by the rule of law, the respect for human rights, the non-violent and compromise-oriented resolution of domestic conflicts, and participatory opportunities for the citizens; subsequently, liberal democratic states form pluralistic security communities of these shared values (Risse-Kappen, 1996,). Dahrendorf (1997) confirms this Kantian view and adds that in the progressive history of civilisation, the nation state could only be a step. The horizon of the rule of law and civic sense, according to him, was wider than this exclusive frame of the nation state and Europe could be a further step to attain the ultimate end of world civil society.

Popular-Symbolic Dimension

The popular-symbolic dimension comprises so many different policies and innovations. This dimension represents the subjective and experiential (practical) aspect of citizenship (Shore, 2000). It is depicted as subjective because it attempts to increase both people’s awareness of the EU (citizenship) and the sense of belonging to the EU. It can also be identified as the experiential dimension because of the inclusion of everyday practices and symbolic innovations.

The logic behind this dimension is clear. Unlike in nation-states, the lack of a common language, traditions, history or religion implies that a Community of European citizens has to depend on derived loyalties from civic values and democratic principles instead of some emotional and affective bonds among its peoples. But even this limited and shallow form of common political identity (thin identity), which is bestowed upon peoples from different nations and cultures, necessitates the development of interactive and communicative skills to participate in social and political exchange, to overcome any prejudice and finally, to establish a suitable environment for the construction and maintenance of other dimensions at a European level (Melchior, 1999, p. 58). Therefore, this is a make-up dimension for all other dimensions to remind Europe’s constituent citizens of the democratic-liberal European ideals and their Europeanness.

Economic Dimension (Market Citizenship) The emergence of burghers and craftsmen (the embryo of the European middle class) who were settled in the medieval European towns and cities is frequently acknowledged as the source of the economic and then political and social changes of the following centuries. The bourgeois class of industrialization followed these groups, and the driving role of economic incentives and actors has always retained its place in shaping societies.

Before the Treaty on European Union, as Everson (1995) noted, a direct relationship was established between Europeans and the Union by creating market citizenship and its rights through the Rome Treaties. Consequently, the identity-building process was tightly embedded in a market paradigm (Wiener, 1998, p. 152). This very centrality of market orientation in Union policies has not changed since then and the creation of the Single Market accelerated the convergence of economic activities amongst member states and the importance of market citizenship.

Adoption of the Single European Act and the Commission’s White Paper on ‘Completing the Internal Market’ in 1985 coincided with the release of the Adonnino reports that also deal with freedom of movement for Community citizens and goods. Apart from the broader economic aims of such efforts, they also contributed implicitly or explicitly to the establishment of an economic dimension for a people’s Europe. The creation of the Single Market and free movement rights as a core element of EU citizenship also aimed to promote interaction and interdependence throughout the EU.

Did you like this example?

903

48