Renouncing criminal citizens: Patterns of denationalization and citizenship theory

Abstract

This article examines the underlying aims of denationalization of criminal offenders by framing the discussion within citizenship theory. It argues that such citizenship revocation policies exclude individuals who are perceived as non-ideal citizens under a complex vision of citizenship that combines communitarian and liberal undertones, which has significant consequences for detecting those with weak claims to membership. To develop this argument, the article advances in the following way. I first argue that the ‘protective’ function of citizenship, which has so far shielded domestic offenders from expulsion, has been eroding due to increasing reliance on denationalization. I then show, by employing an original study of European policies, that the ‘protective’ function of citizenship is eroding not only in general terms, but that it furthermore targets citizens of a particular profile that is continuously changing. Finally, I argue that recent revocation policies that are premised on security concerns, promote a complex vision of citizenship that combines elements of communitarian and liberal conceptions of belonging and works to exclude citizens of foreign descent who, at the same time, repudiate liberal values. Consequently, the status of the criminal rather than non-citizen, gains prominence in determining those at risk of exclusion from the polity.

No Country For ‘Bad’ Men: Volatile Citizenship and the Emerging Features Of Global Neo-colonial Penality

“…The following part of the article explores particularities and global implications of such forms of punishment by examining three fundamental questions: (1) who punishes, (2) who is punished and ( 3) what the purpose of punishment is. In so doing, the article, however, does not propose that de jure and de facto denationalization are punishment stricto sensu, but subscribes to the idea that such sanctions, apart from constituting repressive state behaviours prompted by alleged security concerns, also seek to express dissatisfaction with the citizens' moral performance (Tripkovic 2022). However, even if they may be conceptually distinct from punishment (Tripkovic 2021), their effects are more akin to punishment than to any other state-imposed sanction and are-for the present lack of a more appropriate framework and a better understanding of their nature-assessed within the penal context.…”

“…On the other hand, erratic denationalization stigmatizes specific groups of citizens: while only some individuals are denied citizenship, all members of their group feel threatened and stigmatized for sharing elements of identity with those affected, which denies them humanness (Macklin 2015: 4). Finally, outcast groups are always similarly designated: notwithstanding differences between policies of different European states, all of them target Muslims as stereotypical enemies of the liberal state (Tripkovic 2022).…”

Restorative Diversion of Children in Conflict with the Law in Yogyakarta: An Analysis of Democracy, Trust, Citizenship

“…Through citizenship, every individual participates in political membership and unimpeded access to the national territory of that citizenship. Legally, citizenship protects more inclusive treatment rights before the law (Tripkovic, 2023).…”

Principal Segments of Citizenship and Homocentrism: Philosophical and Legal Justification

“…Позбавлення громадянства може стосуватися тих осіб, які набули громадянство у зв"язку з натуралізацією (у контексті денатуралізації) (Tripkovic, 2021). Очевидний приклад денатуралізації спостерігаємо в рішенні Суду справедливості ЄС у справі Rottmann (Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern, 2010), коли суд встановив, що держава самостійно може визначати підстави позбавлення громадянства (денатуралізації), але результатом такої дії не може стати безгромадянство особи (Tripkovic, 2022).…”