Patti Tamara Lenard assesses the justifications given for the right to revoke citizenship in democratic states and concludes that this practice is inconsistent with a commitment to democratic equality. She provides three normative reasons for the mismatch between democratic principles and revocation laws: that the practice of revocation discriminates between different citizens within each state; that it provides differential penalties for the same crime; and that it does not provide transparent justification or due process for this harsh punishment. Although I too am repulsed by this practice, I do not think it is necessarily undemocratic. Moreover, such analysis overlooks one legitimate motivation behind expatriation: the aim to regulate national allegiance. The new revocation initiatives act as a powerful symbolic tool in reinforcing a world order based on sovereign nation-states.
Full article available to subscribers only. Access the article here.
More in this issue
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Essay
Lost in Transformation? The Politics of the Sustainable Development Goals
On September 25, 2015, the world’s leaders adopted a new suite of development goals—the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—that are to guide policymakers for the ...
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Essay
Accountability for the Sustainable Development Goals: A Lost Opportunity?
The question of accountability—or, more precisely, the question of how governments will be held to account for implementing the commitments made in this new ...
Summer 2016 (30.2) • Essay
Patti Tamara Lenard Replies
Is the revocation of citizenship—a policy increasingly adopted by democratic states—a violation of democratic principles? In an article published in the Spring 2016 issue ...