Course:LIBR559A/ Aleinikoff, T. A., & Klusmeyer, D. (2001).

Aleinikoff, T. A., & Klusmeyer, D. (2001). Plural Nationality: Facing the Future in a Migratory World. In T. A. Aleinikoff, & D. Klusmeyer, Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (pp. 63-88). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Purpose:

“How should the rising incidence of plural nationals be understood? In this chapter we address this question by first examining the concept of nationality under domestic and international law. Then we focus on the issue of plural nationality itself and on state responses to it. We group state responses to dual nationality as open, tolerant, or restrictive according to a range of factors. With this background, we conclude by assessing traditional objections to the phenomenon of plural nationality, arguing that the threats that plural nationals seemingly pose have historically proved to be more hypothetical than real” (p 63).

Main Argument:

Discussions and a survey approach include the tension of single and plural nationalities and traditional provisions for obtaining (one or more) nationality. Space is given to the discussion of the loss of nationality, but this is done mostly within the context of moving from one nationality to another. The perspective of people without a nation is given only brief discussion.

Method:

Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer provide a historical understanding of nationality from the perspective of the nation-state. The authors then develop and discuss categories of obtaining (dual) citizenship.

Topics:

System design, international law, migration, nationality, state to state tension, state to individual tension

Theoretical framework:

Inserting various technologies into Aleinikoff and Klusmeyer’s discussion a model very much like Lessig’s regulation imposing upon an individual. By understanding the tensions described within the article an understanding of sociotechnical structures evolves. Concepts of how borders are conceived and passed through begin to emerge. Critical understanding of borders and nationalities provide a framework for examining the management of tensions between privilege of person and/or technology.

Novel ideas/weaknesses:

This article is not written from the perspective of socialtechnology per se. Rather from this writer’s perspective it is useful especially as a leg in Lessig’s model of regulation. The lack of critical engagement with stateless people is a blow to the integrity of the article, yet the way other topics were effectively handled points to a conceptual model for the continuation of scholarship not considered. The continued scholarship too invites adaptation of Lessig and perhaps adoption from other theoretical models.

Page author: Erin Brown