Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

This article explores the tensions between different conceptions of “citizenship.” On the one hand, we point out the virtues and limitations of cosmopolitan citizenship in the terms in which Seyla Benhabib understands it in The Right of Others…; on the other hand, we delve into another notion of citizenship, namely, the localist, in a version that could be at odds with some cosmopolitan values, that is, localism as understood by some Mexican autonomous communities, particularly the Zapatistas. Although Benhabib’s cosmopolitan federalism is inclusive in spirit, it is conceived within a preponderantly global perspective and ends up being asymmetrical. While her proposal has some positive aspects, it faces some difficulties in the case of Mexican autonomous communities. In this article, we shall introduce the notion of democratic confederalism as a form of sociopolitical organization that seeks to strengthen the self-organization of social actors and to recognize the practice of citizenship in the terms in which autonomous communities exercise it. We propose that democratic confederalism could be an alternative for decreasing tensions between global citizenship and the idea of citizenship within autonomous communities.

Citizenship regimes are institutionalized systems of formal and informal norms that define access to membership, as well as associated rights and duties. This paper studies illegalized migration as one of the major tests to assess whether citizenship regimes are fair institutions, based on a historical analysis of legislation meant to reduce illegalized migration in the United States between 1995 and 2022. We build our empirical research starting from a simple observation: despite the great number of bills introduced to reduce illegalized migration to the US, most of such initiatives fail to become law. In fact, 93.5% of all immigration initiatives did not even pass the chamber of Congress in which they were originally presented. Such a high rate of failure shows that these proposals are motivated by electoral aspirations, rather than coming from a genuine wish to help migrants or grant them citizenship. Furthermore, there is also an economic interest that justifies the maintenance of low-cost disposable immigrant labor, with no right to citizenship. Our analysis is an example of how state regulation processes seem to work to formalize, rather than alleviate or eradicate, the precarious legal statuses of illegalized migrants. We conclude that a globalized phenomenon such as citizenship requires going beyond merely institutional and formal conceptions. We need to rethink the institutional notion of citizenship, as a merely status held under the authority of a state and consider it from a cosmopolitan perspective and a multilateral basis. But as long as citizenship remains under the responsibility of states, illegalized migrants will continue to experience precarious citizenship.

Migrants invariably and unavoidably experience domination under the nation-state centered concepts, categories, and institutions that structure our political thinking. In response, we need to build new forms of citizenship, including local, regional, transnational, and supranational forms of belonging, accompanied by meaningful, democratic, political power. In this paper, I examine historical and present-day alternative models of political organization as possible viable alternatives to state-centric liberal democracy. It begins the task of assessing these models using radical republican theory that grounds non-domination in the active and equal participation of people subject to power.I have three broad aims. First, we need to break down the native-migrant dichotomy to highlight commonalities and search for solidarities among migrants and other marginalized and oppressed groups, including indigenous groups. Second, I seek to awaken the political imagination. Many people do not believe there are viable alternatives to liberal democracy centered around the nation-state. In response, we should draw attention to the ways in which the nation-state’s hegemony is fragile and fragmented and the ways in which sovereignty is complex and contested. Most importantly, we need to consider alternative models for inspiration. Third, we need tools for assessing the desirability of alternatives and for building new forms of citizenship.In what follows, first I explain why the dominant, nation-state centered model of   political organization is unable to deliver justice in today’s world, or, indeed, address the collective dangers that humanity faces. I next provide a sketch of a radical republican vision that provides normative guidance our thinking about alternative institutions. I end by using this radical republic vision to reflect on possibilities to guide efforts to remake the world.

Law, as a language, fulfills different communicational functions that it achieves, largely, through the use of narrative tools and devices. Among them, legal fictions stand out, which, far from portraying reality, seek to create a legal truth. In the case of constitutional fictions, these are often misinterpreted, leading to their degeneration. In this text, beyond offering a conceptual approach to the figure of constitutional fictions, an introductory analysis is offered as to how this has occurred in the context of the new Latin American constitutionalism.

This paper argues that international citizens can retain their obligations to past states and societies, and that this obligation has implications for their state of residence. While some people remain in the same state for their entire lives, international individuals generate relationships with more than one state. The paper presents the argument that individuals are obligated to their state for at least one reason. One particularly relevant implication of this obligation is the duty to pay taxes. In regard to international individuals, these considerations apply to states with which they had historic relationships as well as the state in which they currently reside. The paper offers a rough proposal as to how to calculate the relative relationship that an international individual has with their past and present states and societies. This can be used to determine what proportion of a person’s total lifetime tax revenue should be shared. Although the analysis here is presented in terms of the duty of the individual towards past states, the individual need not change their behaviour to discharge the duty. The duty impacts on current states, which should acknowledge the duty of their international resident, and make sure that this is discharged appropriately to the other relevant states.

The aim of this paper is to show that Mexico is leading the current trend of recognizing non-human animals as subjects of rights by acknowledging them citizenship rights. In the paper it is argued that a recent resolution by Mexico’s Supreme Court regarding a local legislation must be interpreted as conceding citizenship rights to the non-human animals living in the state where that legislation applies. The paper starts by discussing the context in which the relevant law was discussed and approved, and the judiciary actions taken against it. Then, it discusses the analysis and resolution carried out by the Supreme Court of the rights involved and the dynamics among them, the paper also includes a defense of this resolution. Furthermore, the paper argues that the protections established by this resolution must be interpreted, according to the contemporary academic theories regarding citizenship and animal rights, as rights and that these rights must also be interpreted as citizenship rights. The paper ends by replying to some objections and drawing some general conclusions.

The number of refugees in the world amounts to more than one percent of the entire world population. This essay is an attempt to think about this question and assess the literature that addresses it, especially from the standpoint of ethics and political theory, and a grounding in real-world problems. The paper is intended as an introductory discussion for those interested in the debates about who should qualify for refugee status, especially in light of the predicament of Central Americans fleeing from the disorder. It pays special attention to the claim that the US has reparative obligations to Central American countries owing to US interventionist policies.