Open Access (free)
Rainer Bauböck in dialogue
Series: Critical Powers
Editor: Rainer Bauböck

This book addresses the major theoretical and practical issues of the forms of citizenship and access to citizenship in different types of polity, and the specification and justification of rights of non-citizen immigrants as well as non-resident citizens. It also addresses the conditions under which norms governing citizenship can legitimately vary. The book discusses the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic inclusion. The book proposes that democratic inclusion principles specify a relation between an individual or group that has an inclusion claim and a political community that aims to achieve democratic legitimacy for its political decisions and institutions. It contextualizes the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which provides the best answer to the question of democratic boundaries of membership, by applying it to polities of different types. The book distinguishes state, local and regional polities and argues that they differ in their membership character. It examines how a principle of stakeholder inclusion applies to polities of different types. The book illustrates the difference between consensual and automatic modes of inclusion by considering the contrast between birthright acquisition of citizenship, which is generally automatic, and naturalization, which requires an application.

Open Access (free)
A pluralist theory of citizenship

, 2009 a and b, 2015b ) I have argued that the AAI and ASC principles are morally attractive but suffer from two flaws. They cannot resolve the democratic boundary problem because the boundaries they suggest are necessarily indeterminate and unstable, 15 and they are polity-indifferent, which means that they generate the same prescriptions for inclusion in local, regional or state polities, although these polities require different membership norms. I have

in Democratic inclusion
Structuring self-made offers and demands

in a Non-State Polity (Oxford, New York: Bergahn, 1998) See, with further references on the theory of leadership in international negotiations, David Metcalfe, ‘Leadership in European Union Negotiations: The Presidency of the Council’, in: International Negotiation, No. 3/1998, pp. 413–434. See Moravcsik, 1993, op. cit., p. 483. See Heinrich Schneider, ‘Europäische Integration – die Leitbilder und die Politik’, in: Michael Kreile (ed.), Die Integration Europas’, Politische Viertelsjahresschrift, Sonderheft No. 23 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1992), p. 11. See

in Fifteen into one?
The European Union and social democratic identity

; Chryssochoou 2005: 35). Decisions, within this ‘non-state polity’, are not made by a dominant organ but instead derive from negotiations between the three pillars of the institutional triangle (Commission, Council, Parliament), on the one hand, and from negotiations between the twenty-seven member states, on the other. Although the European Council has become, in the process, the key motor of integration – also attracting, which is politically important, ‘the spotlight of media and public attention’ (Tsoukalis 2005) – the Union remains a regime based on continual negotiation

in In search of social democracy
New polity dynamics

central authorities. Pace the constitutional arrangements currently in place in some of its federal subsystems, and particularly the insistence of the Länder for a strict division of competences, one could legitimately argue that both the constitutional architecture and decision-making culture of the Union qua ‘non-state polity’ are not (as yet) in a position to resolve questions of competence allocation through an explicit delineation of legislative powers among the Union’s constitutive levels of governance. Moreover, whether or not the existing acquis is inherently

in Theory and reform in the European Union

constitutional foundations of sovereignty as resting on the member state polities, but challenges the capacity and, hence, the functional autonomy of states to respond effectively to pressing socioeconomic realities. In this sense, subnational mobilisation becomes an additional vehicle for the reallocation of authoritative problem-solving capacity to constitutive entities within a polity that remains dependent in critical ways on its subsystems, but which also allows for new structures of political opportunity to emerge. This implies a dynamic understanding of governance, not

in Theory and reform in the European Union