Lior Erez
@liorerez.bsky.social
160 followers 220 following 27 posts
Alfred Landecker Postdoctoral Fellow, @blavatnikschool.bsky.social | Reviews and Commentaries Editor, European Journal of Political Theory | liorerez.wordpress.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
liorerez.bsky.social
That said, while the dilemma is meant to motivate the main argument through negation (if no mandatory citizenship for residents, therefore.. etc), I think that the positive argument on pp. 5-10 can be persuasive even if you don't see an incoherence in the status quo
liorerez.bsky.social
The second is that the status quo reflects some tension between competing underlying conceptions of the value and function of citizenship itself, between ascriptivism and voluntarism.
liorerez.bsky.social
Thanks - on p.3 ('The Dilemma') I argue that the status quo is incoherent for two reasons. The first is equality of treatment - if noncitizens and citizens are similarly situated, why should the former be afforded the freedom to choose to become citizens.
Reposted by Lior Erez
cambup-polsci.cambridge.org
#OpenAccess from @apsrjournal.bsky.social -

Citizenship Renunciation without Emigration - https://cup.org/4nTVQZh

"argues for the value of citizenship renunciation as an expressive political act, distinct from territorial exit..."

- @liorerez.bsky.social

#FirstView
Banner featuring the hashtag #OpenAccess over a green background and the text "American Political Science Review" on a blue background.
liorerez.bsky.social
Haven't really thought about it through the NB framework, but this makes sense I think; lowering the cost of renunciation reinforces the legitimacy signal of staying
liorerez.bsky.social
A surprising statistic: over 30% of articles published in early view in
APSR in the last three weeks had an author called 'Lior'
liorerez.bsky.social
5. a right to renounce without emigrating strengthens autonomy and democratic legitimacy. It places less burden on dissenters and offers a more consistent account of citizenship. /end
liorerez.bsky.social
4. Instead, I defend renunciation as expressive political exit. It is a way for citizens to formally sever political ties while staying socially embedded. It’s distinct from emigration: it retains membership in society while withdrawing consent.
liorerez.bsky.social
3. I reject the idea of mandatory citizenship for residents (as prominently defended recently by de Schutter and
@leaypi.bsky.social
).The coercive cost of forcing naturalisation is hard to justify.
liorerez.bsky.social
2. The article opens with a dilemma: long-term resident noncitizens can refuse to naturalise, but citizens often can’t renounce unless they leave. Either citizenship for residents should be mandatory, or renunciation without emigration should be permitted.
liorerez.bsky.social
1. I argue that citizens should be able to renounce their citizenship while remaining residents. The current norm (both in law and normative theory) ties renunciation to emigration. But I argue that this link deserves rethinking.
Reposted by Lior Erez
globalcit.bsky.social
📢 New Open-Access Working Paper! @artsofdenial.bsky.social & Rainer Bauböck ask:

Citizenship as Reparations: Should the Victims of Historical Injustice Be Offered Membership❓

13 authors reply 💬, exploring questions of justice, colonialism, nation-building, and more 🌍

📖 🔗 tinyurl.com/dz8ht87z
tinyurl.com
Reposted by Lior Erez
deeesharp.bsky.social
My introduction to the special issue on relational equality & migration is now out! It provides a comprehensive introduction to the state of the debate about relational egalitarianism & migration + an overview of the special issue contributions doi.org/10.1515/mopp... #philsky #poltheory #migcitsky
Relational Egalitarianism and Migration: An Introduction
In this introductory essay to the special issue on relational equality and migration, I first introduce a familiar way of conceiving of the connection between equality and migration, one that focuses ...
doi.org
liorerez.bsky.social
Here is the abstract:
Foreign aid donors often use, or are expected to use, the threat of aid suspensions in response to human rights violations. The use of such conditionality seeks to pressure the ‘recipient’ government into ending or preventing rights abuses. This article argues that this approach tacitly relies on the assumption that most citizens in the recipient country oppose their government’s rights violations. However, in recent years, and particularly linked to the rise of populism, there has been growing recognition of instances around the world in which significant parts of the public support government actions giving rise to human rights violations. Drawing in particular on the example of donor responses to recent efforts to introduce repressive anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda, the article argues that such cases present donors with a dilemma that arises because the threat of aid suspensions serves two distinct but related purposes: an instrumental function (‘the stick’), whereby the threat of withdrawing aid is used to pressure the ‘recipient’ government into ending the rights violation; and an expressive function (‘the flag’) that is often overlooked, whereby conditionality signals the donor government’s commitment to international human rights norms. While typically these two functions of aid conditionality reinforce one another, we show that when faced with a ‘complicit public’, the stick and flag come apart, generating the dilemma for donors. The threat of aid sanctions is likely to trigger a public backlash but refraining from effective criticism will undermine support for international human rights norms. Based on this analysis, the article provides a framework for recognizing and evaluating potential responses to this dilemma that considers the salient political and ethical features of such contexts. In doing so, it demonstrates the importance of understanding the political ethics of aid suspensions and other donor responses to human rights violations.
liorerez.bsky.social
Good news! "The flag and the stick: Aid suspensions, human rights, and the problem of the complicit public", written by the Bluesky-less Niheer Dasandi and yours truly, and published in World Development, is the 2025 @ElsevierAtlas Award Winner (Peace and Justice Theme)

t.co/igWqbH807Y
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/atlas/about
t.co
Reposted by Lior Erez
profkochenov.bsky.social
Comm v.Malta seminar at @ucl.ac.uk Laws on June 4, convened by @colmocinneide.bsky.social A variety of takes 🇪🇺EU illiberal turn; merit to philosophical & comparative.

Horrible video/cool conversation❗️https://youtu.be/2CtESu1Y4Qs
@liorerez.bsky.social
@maartenpvink.bsky.social @globalcit.bsky.social
Reposted by Lior Erez
uclei.bsky.social
Fascinating and important conversation on the groundbreaking CJEU judgment of European Commission v Malta with @profkochenov.bsky.social, @sarahganty.bsky.social, Dr Oliver Gerstenberg, @liorerez.bsky.social and @msumption.bsky.social, chaired by Dr Claudia Sternberg

@laws.ucl.ac.uk
Reposted by Lior Erez
polstudies.bsky.social
IN NEW ISSUE: Many argue for limits on a state's right to exclude potential members, but what about limiting inclusion? @liorerez.bsky.social‬ & Ayelet Banai argue the principle of self-determination offers an answer: buff.ly/jmaaqyA (OPEN ACCESS)

@polstudiesassoc.bsky.social @sagepub.com #polsci
buff.ly