Proceedings of the 40th International Academic Conference, Stockholm




Those who teach “global citizenship” appear to operate on the assumption that a world republic already exists with its own guiding principles and norms. While beneficiaries of national citizenship inherit both rights and duties, no enforceable “social contract” delineates “global citizens’” rights and duties. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the document repeatedly referenced by “global citizenship’’ aspirants, has only limited enforceability, given its status as a declaration rather than a treaty. The United Kingdom’s referendum against continued European Union membership as well as the United States’ willingness to abandon extant trade norms and protocols challenge the assumption that the world is ripe for global consensus, consolidation and citizenship. Indeed, we seem to remain distant not only from “global citizenship”’s assumed “world republic” but from what Jurgen Habermas envisioned and described as shared “world domestic policy.” “Global citizenship” education per se does not conform with today’s sociopolitical realities. The authority and expertise attributed to its purveyors warrant critical assessment.

Keywords: Global Citizenship, Rights and Duties, National Citizenship, Perpetual Peace, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Social Contract, Failed State

DOI: 10.20472/IAC.2018.040.070

PDF: Download

Copyright © 2024 The International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences,