Between the Right to the Place and the Right in the Place : The Uncertain Status of the «Res...

Global Society, Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights

Edited by

Vittorio Cotesta, Vincenzo Cicchelli and Mariella Nocenzi

Global Society, Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights, Edited by Vittorio Cotesta, Vincenzo Cicchelli and Mariella Nocenzi

This book first published 2013

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2013 by Vittorio Cotesta, Vincenzo Cicchelli, Mariella Nocenzi and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5161-2, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5161-9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .................................................................................... vii List of Tables .............................................................................................. ix Acknowledgements .................................................................................... xi Introduction .............................................................................................. xiii Part One: Theoretical Perspectives on Global Society, Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights Chapter One ................................................................................................. 3 On Multiple Modernities and Global Society Vittorio Cotesta Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 29 Cosmopolitanism in the Social Sciences and the Return to Kant Áron Telegdi-Csetri Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 39 Beyond Methodological Nationalism: Suggestions from the Field of Complexity Fabio Introini Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 55 Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism, Democracy and Human Rights: What Kind of Relationship? Francesco Villa Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 79 Has Africa invented Human Rights? Jean-Loup Amselle Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 91 Bodies that Democracy Expels: The Other and the Stranger to “Bridge and Door”; Theory of Sovereignty, Bio-politics and Weak Areas of Global Bίos, Human or Subjective Rights? Massimo Conte

Table of Contents

vi

Part Two: Empirical Studies on Global Society, Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights Chapter One ............................................................................................. 109 Between the Right to the Place and the Right in the Place: The Uncertain Status of the «Residence» Between Global Urges and Local Resistances Enrico Gargiulo Chapter Two ............................................................................................ 127 Italian Arms Exports in Latin America Over The Past Forty Years: What Role in the Repression of Human Rights? Silvia Sorana Chapter Three .......................................................................................... 145 Communication, Globalisation and Violation of Human Rights Angela Maria Zocchi Chapter Four ............................................................................................ 155 Human Rights Discourses in Europe: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Applications Eugenia De Rosa Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 185 The HIV/AIDS Pandemic: Social Risks and Moral Panic in a Global Context Bruno Meini Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 197 How Do People Engage with Globalisation? A Cosmopolitan Socialisation Approach Vincenzo Cicchelli Chapter Seven .......................................................................................... 211 “When Do the People Talk in Europe?”: Social Movements and Democratic Theory in European Multilevel Governance Paolo De Nardi and Luca Alteri Contributors ............................................................................................. 225

CHAPTER ONE

BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO THE PLACE AND THE RIGHT IN THE PLACE:

THE UNCERTAIN STATUS OF RESIDENCE BETWEEN GLOBAL URGES AND LOCAL RESISTANCES

ENRICO GARGIULO

Introduction During the last decades, the rapid changes of the global political and

economic scenario that caused the crisis of the state have also thrown into crisis one of the most emblematic institutions of modernity: citizenship. As a consequence, citizenship is no longer the exclusive form of relationship between individuals and political power.

When citizenship started to lose its monolithic compactness, its “fragments” started to move―so to speak―upwards and downwards. Moving upwards, they went to compose a new legal status―European citizenship; moving downwards, they connected to local contexts the entitlement of some fundamental rights and began to give shape to a system of local citizenships.

Therefore, national citizenship has been joined by new forms of citizenship,1 making membership more complex and articulated and fragmenting the status of citizenship.

While citizenship seems to lose its relevance, a new status, among the others, is gaining an increasing importance: residence.2

1 On this topic, cf. Bauboeck 1994, Soysal 1994 and Zanfrini 2007. 2 It could be useful, for English mother-tongue readers, to highlight the fact that the Italian word “residenza” defines the place in which a person has his permanent home, and the word “domicilio” defines his temporary address, contrarily to what

Part Two Chapter One

110

The status of national citizen is joined therefore by a new entity: the formal status of whoever is legally residing in the territory of a state. Although the condition of non-citizen resident is by previous to the far so-called “crises of the state”―the figure of denizen,3 indeed, was already present during the Middle Ages―the process of European integration and, at the same time, the process of regionalisation within single states confers to this condition a new centrality.

The system of local citizenship which is gradually arising has some potentialities but, at the same time, involves some evident risks. If, on one hand, the systems of local rights could be considered as more inclusive towards migrants than the national ones, on the other hand they can turn into heavily exclusionary mechanisms.

The so called “residence”, that is to say the inscription into the registry office of a town is, in specific terms, the bone of contention between who promotes forms of local citizenship which are at least potentially universalistic and who, on the contrary, defends increasingly particularistic forms of citizenship.

1. Crisis of national citizenship or crisis of a state-centred perspective?

According to many scholars, it is possible, through citizenship,4 to rethink the idea of the social beyond the opposing ideologies of the twentieth century. Danilo Zolo (1994, ix-x), for instance, considers citizenship a strategic and expansive idea, that has the capacity to cover, at least in part, the theoretical vacuum opened by the crisis of the “received paradigms” of socialism and liberal-democracy.

According to this meaning, a particular concept of citizenship is invoked in order to recast a conception of this institution that is, at the same time, close to the liberal-democratic principles which are aspired to, but not only formalistic or procedural. Citizenship, in other words, is considered a plausible answer to the problem of the inclusion of individuals inside a political order; a problem that has been raised by the failure of socialist collectivism and by the many critical words pronounced happens in English. Furthermore, the term “residenza” has both a more general meaning and a more specific legal value, referring to the practice of inscription into the registry office of a town (the register of births, marriages and deaths), required by law of Italian citizens and of foreigners who regularly reside in Italy. 3 On the meaning of this term, see Hammar 1989. 4 Many publications testimony the “rediscovery” of citizenship. Among these, see Andrews ed. 1991; Barbalet 1988; Roche 1992; Turner 1986.

Between the Right to the Place and the Right in the Place

111

against the model of the atomised individual typical of liberal thought. More generally, the strong emphasis put on the substantial dimension of citizenship has made the republican model of this institution the more attractive model for the majority of scholars.5

Nevertheless, while citizenship was still occupying a central position in the academic debate, some events seemed to declare the end of modern citizenship as national citizenship:6 the process of European integration, particularly with the birth of European citizenship (Lippolis 1998), and the process of devolution, which has taken place in many western countries (OCSE 2001; Vandelli 2002). Both these processes are linked, in social-scientific literature, to the more general “crisis of the state” (Derlugian 1996).

The changes which the state is actively interested in represent, beyond any doubt, a factor of crisis for citizenship: the systemic forces that are weakening state sovereignty also operate on this institution, downsizing its function. National citizenship, as a consequence, is strongly limited by dynamics that are both internal and external to the state. This institution, that represented the exclusive link between the citizens and the state, has turned into one of the possible forms of relationship between individuals and a political power no longer only detained by the state.

What we want to underline on this occasion, notwithstanding, is that the entire path of citizenship―and not only its latest developments―may be adequately understood only if considered within a systemic perspective. Economic, political and social global-sized factors, indeed, have shaped such a path from the beginning. In this sense, the role of citizenship has always been supra-national, even before European citizenship was born. Therefore, if we intend citizenship as a theoretical category completely framed within the semantic field of the state, then this category currently shows the signs of a crisis. If, instead, we intend citizenship as a category which finds its meaning within systemic and not only intra-national processes, then this category still maintains its relevance today. Its role in the global processes of exclusion is more clearly visible than ever.

In our opinion, the misunderstanding of the role played by citizenship is due to the kind of unit of analysis that is commonly used in current literature: the nation-state. In a state perspective, in fact, this institution appears to be the natural link between a nation-state and its members: 5 About the republican―or “active”―conception of citizenship, and on the differences between this conception and the liberal―or “passive”―conception, see Dagger 2002; Gosewinkel 2001; Habermas 1990; Sau 2004. 6 On the new forms of citizenship see Bauböck 1994; Soysal 1994; Jacobson 1996; Hoffman 2004; Ong 2005; Rigo 2007.


112

every state-entity has its own citizens, and this is the natural state of things. As underlined by Linda Bosniak, citizenship

has been conventionally assumed to be a national enterprise; it has been assumed to be an institution or a set of social practices situated squarely and necessarily within the political community of the nation-state. Given this assumption, there has not seemed to be much of anything to talk about. (Bosniak 2001, 237) Accepting the “natural” fact that such a link exists, the majority of

scholars have rather concentrated on how this link is shaped. The discussions around citizenship, therefore, concentrate on its features, on the rights that it grants and on the ways with which these rights may be claimed, while the most frequent questions about citizenship concern its effectiveness in contemporary societies, or, in other words, the nature―active or passive―of the citizen. The route of citizenship, from such a perspective, shows itself as a glorious path of progressive inclusion. This path, as such, by means of an increasingly profuse system of rights should lead to equality among citizens.

In other words, if we view citizenship from a state-centred perspective, it shows without any doubt its inclusionary side, efficaciously summarising the kind of protection that every state allows to its citizens: each state appears like a distinct but interconnected atom, exerting its jurisdiction on its own citizens by means of an expansive use of rights; on the other hand, what happens outside of a state, in particular to the persons that aren’t official members of it, doesn’t fall within its sphere of influence.

But, if in place of a state-centred perspective we adopt a systemic one, the scene appears quite different. From one external to the state territory perspective, citizenship looks like a somehow arbitrary link between a state and some of the persons which live within it. This link, now, no longer appears no longer as something natural, but as an artificial fact, while the questions concerning how to concretely defend citizen’s rights are replaced by questions concerning who are the owners of such rights, who has access to them and why these persons are considered such.

2. Citizenship in a global perspective

State-centred and atomistic perspectives are quite common in social sciences. In these disciplines, explanation normally “highlights either ‛internal’ properties of the entities investigated or the ‛external’ properties


113

concerned with its relation with other entities within a wider system”. (Wade 2005, 17)

As underlined by Robert Wade talking about the “crisis of the state”, the majority of the literature on the topic privileges a path of the first kind (ibid.). A similar statement may be made, as we have already pointed out, about the works on citizenship. More generally, we can underline how many social researches are characterised by a sort of “methodological nationalism”, since they share the assumption that “the nation/state/society is the natural social and political form of the modern world” (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002, 302; Hopkins 1982). The sharing of this assumption proves that “the epistemic structures and programmes of mainstream social sciences have been closely attached to, and shaped by, the experience of modern nation-state formation”. (Ibid., 303).

In order to understand the political dynamics of capitalism, however, it is possible to go beyond a perspective that assigns to the states and to the international system a political role which is independent from the economic sphere and that, as a consequence, conceives “state” and “market” as dichotomic terms. Nevertheless, we don’t want to deny the importance of the first term within the logic of capitalism. According to Braudel, indeed, capitalism that hasn’t built the state, but has inherited it, may triumph only when it identifies with this political institution (Braudel 1981).

Rather, it’s important to achieve a better understanding of the role performed by the state―but also and especially by the market―within the broader capitalistic system. In this sense, the equation “capitalism = free market” must be reconsidered: if market is the realm of pure economy, then capitalism is its antithesis, not its synonym of it. Braudel, in fact, dividing human economic activity into three different levels, distinguishes the second, the one of market economy, from the third, the one of capitalism. This last level, which moves above the level of the market, is the zone of the counter-market, the realm of the exercise of power; here capitalism places itself (Braudel 1979). The close relation between political power and market, therefore, makes it necessary to link the study of the state with the study of the context in which states have risen and evolved. This context can be characterised as a world-system, that is

a social system, one that has boundaries, structures, member groups, rules of legitimation, and coherence. Its life is made up of the conflicting forces which hold it together by tension and tear it apart as each group seeks eternally to remould it to its advantage. (Wallerstein 1974, 229).


114

According to Wallerstein, up until today only two kinds of world-system have existed: world-empires and world-economies;7 both are defined by a sole division of labour; nevertheless, while the first one is characterised by a single political entity which extends across the great majority of the globe’s surface, albeit with a limited control on it, the second is characterised by a plurality of political entities (Ibid., 230).

Capitalism is constituted by a world-economy which has survived for 500 years without transforming itself into a world-empire: it “has been able to flourish precisely because the world-economy has had within its bounds not one but a multiplicity of political systems” (Ibid.). Considered as an historical system, capitalism can be identified with “that concrete, time-bounded, space-bounded integrated locus of productive activities within which the endless accumulation of capital has been the economic objective or “law” that has governed or prevailed in fundamental economic activity” (Wallerstein 1995, 18).

The state, therefore, cannot be the only protagonist―and so the only unit of analysis―of the social sciences because

capitalism as an economic mode is based on the fact that the economic factors operate within an arena larger than that which any political entity can totally control. This gives capitalists a freedom of manoeuvre that is structurally based. It has made possible the constant economic expansion of the world-system, albeit a very skewed distribution of its rewards. (Ibid.) Out of a state-centred perspective and adopting a systemic one, the

path of citizenship―now considered, as a consequence of this change of perspective, a world-wide phenomenon―shows itself in a different light: within the world-system, the lengthening of the catalogue of citizenship’s rights, as well as the extension of the citizen’s set, that may be noticed inside the economically and politically core-countries appears closely bound with the worsening of the life conditions―and so to the constriction of citizenship―that have been noticed on the outside of these countries. In this sense, the transition of the “subject” into the “citizen” which has concerned some areas of the world-system, went along a parallel process whose outcome has consisted in the establishment of new subjects in different areas of the same world-system.

The function of citizenship, therefore, cannot be adequately understood if considered exclusively as a chapter of each single state’s domestic

7 The concept of world-economy was introduced by Fernand Braudel. On his definition of this concept, see Braudel 1981.


115

policy. It must be rather interpreted in the light of the role performed by this institution within the world-economy: that of a legal instrument ―better if equipped with socio-cultural-like rhetorical statements―used as a control element within political and economic processes that are, at the same time, inclusionary and exclusionary.

In the light of these suggestions, exclusion appears as the central figure in the history of citizenship. The path of this institution, in fact, especially during the centuries following the French Revolution, has been characterised by an uninterrupted conflict among groups of people aiming to narrow the number of citizens, and other groups, instead, aiming to widen this number to include new classes of persons:

Too many persons were citizens. The results could be dangerous, indeed. The story of the nineteenth century (and indeed of the twentieth) has been that some (those with privilege and advantage) have been attempting to define citizenship narrowly and that all the others have been seeking to validate a broader definition. It is around this struggle that the intellectual theorizing of the next 200 years centred. It was around this struggle that the social movements were formed. (Wallerstein 2002) Citizenship, thus, by means of its inclusionary and at the same time

exclusionary action, has made legal a world-wide system of privileges. The maintenance of such a system of privileges shows some constants

and, at the same time, strong discontinuities. Without any doubt, a recurring theme is represented by the presence on the world scene of social groups conflicting with each other in order to achieve a position of hegemony.8 An element of discontinuity, instead, may be found in the internal composition of these groups, which can change as a consequence of new deals among social parties that modify the balance of power within them.

The history of social deals among dominant and dominated groups is tightly entwined with that of the global hegemonies9 exerted by the states:

8 The concept of hegemony used here is drawn by Giovanni Arrighi’s The Long Twentieth Century. Recovering Gramsci and his distinction between a kind of power based on “pure and simple dominion” and a kind of power related to dominion but increased by the exercise of a “moral and intellectual direction”, Arrighi defines hegemony as “the additional power that accrues to a dominant group by virtue of its capacity to place all the issues around which conflict rages on a “universal plane” (Arrighi 1994, 28). 9 This notion is an extension of the concept of hegemony from the relations among groups within a state―namely from the intra-national level―to the relations among states – namely to the international level. “Worldwide hegemony”, thus,


116

“the consolidation of each world hegemony presupposed the establishment of new “historical compromises” capable of bringing social conflict under control”, while, during the hegemonic transitions

the widening of the social foundations of the hegemonic bloc was accompanied by, indeed, premised on a de jure or de facto exclusion of the majority of the world’s population from access to the same rights and privileges.(Silver and Slater 1999, 152; see also Arrighi 1994, 29-30). In order to understand the role performed by citizenship within the

processes of global exclusion it could be useful, now, to pay attention to the changes of this institution and to the rise of local citizenships in the Italian context. More specifically, we will focus on the status around which local citizenships are taking form residence.

3. Residence and its internal tensions

In the Italian legal system, the concept of residence is defined by Article 43 of the Civil Code, and corresponds to the place in which a person has his permanent home. The notion of residence is made up of an objective element―due to the presence of a person in a specific place―and of a subjective one―due to the decision of this person to use this place as his legal residence (Morozzo della Rocca 2003, 1013). If the Civil Code defines the legal notion of residence, other laws―Law 1228/1954 and the Presidential decree of the president 223/1989― translate this notion in a specific administrative act: the enrolment into the registry office. Through this act, the formal acknowledgement of the condition of resident takes place. Although the definition of residence is based on the continuity of a person’s dwelling place, the constant presence of an individual in local territory is not sufficient―in itself―to grant him the acknowledgement of the formal status of resident. Not everyone who actually lives in the area of a specific town is enrolled into its registry office. In other words, the resident population de facto, do not always coincide with the resident population de jure.

For this reason, the notion of residence, as the notion of citizenship, can be considered both in a substantial and in a formal sense.10 A resident in a substantial sense is someone who is steadily present on the local

becomes “the power of a state to exercise functions of leadership and governance over a system of sovereign states (Arrighi 1994, 27). 10 On the different dimensions of citizenships and their reciprocal tensions let me refer to Gargiulo 2008a.


117

territory, while a resident in a formal sense is only who is actually enrolled. Between the two different meanings of residence exists a relationship of potential―and often real―tension. The substantial condition of residence doesn’t automatically develop into a legal connection between a person and the town in which he materially leads his life, that is to say in the formal condition of residence: enrolment in the registry office―despite the intentions of the person who applies―can even not take place.

From a legal point of view, the tension between the two kinds of residence is quite problematic. Firstly, the tie between the enrolment and the acknowledgement of some personal rights (due to the individuals as such and not only as citizens) is very strict. In specific terms, the link between the enrolment into the registry office and some rights contained in the articles of the Italian Constitution seems to be evident: Article 2, that ratifies the respect of human rights as inalienable and sets out the right of individuals as members of social formations; Article 14, which ratifies the inviolability of the residence and, more generally, of private life, so protecting individuals from arbitrary measures of the civil service; Article 16, that ratifies the freedom of movement and circulation of individuals, and includes freedom of domicile, residence and abode; Article 32, which sets out the right to health of citizens and the community (Morozzo della Rocca 2003, 1018). Moreover, the assumption on which is based the distinction between the two kinds of residence―the discretion of the civil registrar―is unfounded: in the execution of his registry duty, the mayor acts in the character of a “Government officer”, as an organ of the civil service, and not as an autonomous political actor. For these reasons, consequently, residence arises as a “perfect subjective right” (Ibid., 1020). The Supreme Court has further confirmed this assessment, restating the merely formal nature of the power of control assigned to the civil service in matters of enrolment in the registry office: the mayor’s measures of acceptance of applications for enrolment have only a declaratory value and are not constituent of the right to residence (Cass. 1081/68).

Aside from legal contents, the distinction between the two kinds of residence is controversial from a political point of view, as it structurally shapes the constitutive process of new local citizenships. While legitimising the denial of registration of individuals who permanently and regularly reside in a local territory, this distinction provides a justification to the detachment between the substantial and the formal dimension of the local citizenship, producing significant effects on individuals belonging to specific categories: the impossibility to concretely exercise rights of which they are holders.


118

To residence, indeed, is connected the access to some fundamental benefits and services, such as entitlement to the National Health Service;11 the registration of professional licenses; the acquisition of a VAT number (and the connected possibility of undertaking commercial or professional activities); the access to family income supplements; the access to tax breaks for the purchase of one’s principal residence; the access to social assistance; the access to the educational system; as regards EU citizens, the eligibility of participation in local elections; as regards foreign citizens in general, the achievement of citizenship. Denying residence means therefore to obstruct―or even to stop―the access to these rights and services.

4. The development of residence in the Italian system: a brief excursus

Attention towards residence is not new. Already in 1939, by means of measures against urbanism,12 the possibility of moving to towns with more than 23000 residents is forbidden to individuals who cannot demonstrate they work there permanently. After a little more than fifty years later, although the abrogation of the law promulgated in 1939 and the existence of new norms concerning residence, many local governments still practice control on people’s movement through registration: often, in order to be registered, individuals are illegitimately required to provide specific documentation, as possession of a job inside the local territory, availability of a home and absence of previous criminal records. The high frequency of this kind of request by many local registry officers lead the Italian Home Office to issue two ministerial circulars―n. 8 of 29th May 1995 and n. 2 of 15 January 1997―to assure on the whole national territory the right of registration even to those individuals who live in crumbling houses, with no fixed abode or with criminal records.

But it is only after a decade that interest in the topic of residence became central. At the beginning of 2007, with the Legislative Decree n. 30 of 6th February―which puts into effect the European directive 2004/38/CE, that regulates the movement of European citizens among

11 The issue is controversial. Even if formally “entitlement” to the NHS and the status of resident are not connected (foreigners, indeed, should be able to register simply by declaring their place of domicile), they are often linked in order to deny specific groups of individuals rights. 12 These measures were provided by Law 1092 of 6th July 1939, subsequently repealed by Law 3 of 10th February 1961 (Morozzo della Rocca 2003, 1019).


119

member states―the right to stay on Italian territory of these citizens is partially restricted. An EU citizen who applies for registration has to show, as well as a valid identity card or a passport, proof of the fact that he works, or, if he is not a worker, proof of his economic means and health insurance.

After little more than two years, during the month of July 2009, the act of Parliament n. 94―an act that is part of the so called pacchetto sicurezza13―introduced some restrictive changes to the criteria that regulate residence. These changes place at risk specific kinds of people―particularly nomad and gypsy populations―with obstacles for local administrations when they have to create a list of the young people required to attend school. The compilation of this list, in fact, is possible just on the basis of the registers of the resident population (Dinelli 2010, 691).

The laws we have been talking about up to now directly concern the issue of residence. Aside from them, there is another Parliament Act, promulgated during the summer of 2008, that regards this issue, even if indirectly: Act No. 125, introducing some considerable changes to article 54 of the TUEL (Unique Text of the Local Administrations), gives mayors more power than in the past, also in matters of residence. According to the new version of this article, a mayor has the power to pass a decree even outside a state of emergency.

5. The Mayor’s orders about residence: a local form of exclusion

From the summer of 2008, as a consequence of the changes to article 54 of the TUEL, many mayoral decrees are enacted (see Chiodini 2009 and Chiodini and Tortorella 2010). Among them, measures concerning residence are not the most frequent, although interest in this topic is increasing over time: from 2008 to 2009 the percentage of mayoral orders concerning the awarding of resident statusrose from 0,4% to 2,4% (Chiodini 2009).

Nevertheless, less than two years later, the Constitutional Court repealed14 these measures (Vandelli 2009). More specifically, the Court abrogated the part of the so called pacchetto sicurezza that awards mayors the power to enact a decree even outside of a state of emergency.

13 In English its translation is “security law series”. 14 Sentence n. 115, April 2011.


120

Mayors’ interests in residence, however, predate the reform of article 54 of the TUEL. At the end of 2007, Massimo Bitonci, the Mayor of Cittadella―a little town near Padova, in the north-east of Italy―enacted a decree―immediately given the name “Against drifters”15 by journalists, designed to introduce specific standards required for residence applications.16 These standards―quickly becoming/establishing a pattern for the Decree of other town’s Mayors―operate in a different way depending on the different categories of people that are involved. EU citizens intending to stay on the Italian territory for more than three months―who, according to Italian law, are required to registers the resident population―are encumbered with obligations exceeding those stated by national law: if lacking a regular job, their income must be above a certain threshold, their accommodation must be in keeping with specific standards of hygiene and they must demonstrate they are not “socially dangerous”.

Non-EU citizens, alternatively, must comply with other obligations: they must be in possession of a currently valid residence card, or, if this card is expired or in phase of renewal, they must assure, their EU counterparts, the availability of “suitable” accommodation, an annual income of legal provenance superior to a fixed minimum and present, also, a valid passport with a legal entry visa.

The case of Cittadella is rather illustrative of a specific trend: some mayors require further documentation in order to grant inclusion into the local population registers so as to achieve a selection of the people “worthy” of staying in the territory of their town. The meaning of this selection can be summarise as follows: these mayors claim their authority to decide who can legally stay and who cannot on a specific portion of the national territory.

This power, nevertheless, according to the national law is not entitled to mayors: residence is a topic of national competence, despite the fact that registration practices are attributed to the competence of local administrations. For this reason mayors who decide to introduce further criteria to the inclusion into the registers of the resident population decide to assume a political role despite the technical nature of their task.

15 “Anti-sbandati”, in Italian. 16 On the legal implications of Bitonci’s decree see Campo 2007 and Paggi 2007.


121

Conclusions

The path of residence in the Italian context, therefore, highlights some ambivalent tendencies, partly similar to those which have marked the course of citizenship. This course, indeed, has been characterised by a constant tension: although rights aspire to a universal dimension―which could be entitled to persons as such and not only to citizens―their acknowledgements and effective guarantees can be exclusively obtained in a national dimension. Their protection, in theory, is at least in part a duty of supranational organisations, but de facto is left to the will of single states. The two poles of this tension between universalism and particularism, therefore, are constituted at one extreme by a project of “global” citizenship, that is a status to which correspond or rather, could or should correspond―as this status exists only partially but not de facto―the rights of every individual regardless of his national membership, and at the other by citizenship stricto sensu, that is to say by the status of citizen and its corresponding rights. Only the first of these two kinds of citizenship includes without excluding at the same time, while the second is inherently exclusionary. The last one, nevertheless, is real and tangible; the first one, on the contrary, is undefined and elusive.

If national citizenship has become the point of intersection between universalistic and particularistic urges, residence seems to occupy a similar position: on one hand, the status of resident seems to act as an equalising power with regards to the differences related to citizenship ―one could be resident whether as citizen or as foreigner―on the other, however, it seems to act as a factor which empowers those differences, the effects of being denied residency are much more devastating for a non-citizen than for a citizen. In other words, the residence status is capable of interpreting the transformations which are taking place in the central zones of the global system: the high migratory fluxes towards these zones could be equally and effectively handled with an instrument that can officially recognise the permanent presence of an individual on a specific territory, aside from his national membership. At the same time, residence becomes a potential―and easily practicable―exclusionary mechanism: the actual access to residency is run in a very arbitrary way by some local political actors who clearly wish/desire to make a “selection” between wanted and unwanted people in the bounds of the territory for which they are politically responsible.

Therefore, within the Italian context is taking shape a multilayer inclusionary/exclusionary system: at the higher level we found European citizenship, strictly reserved for citizens of Member States but not


122

available to extra-community citizens, even when they are regularly present in the territory of the European Union; at the intermediate level we found national citizenship, whose access criteria change from state to state; at the lower level we found local citizenship, whose access is regulated in part by local authorities and in part by the national authority. This system, getting closer to the lower level, could become either more inclusive or more exclusionary: at the lower level exclusionary mechanisms against people who are formally included on the base of the higher levels’ criteria may be activated. For this reason, it is not possible to understand for sure whether the process of rights’ localisation is moving towards extreme forms of localism or not. Residence, in fact, can easily turn from the condition of means of access to fundamental rights into the condition of obstacle to the real inclusion of migrants into the community.

References

Ambrosini, M. 2010. Richiesti e respinti. L’immigrazione in Italia Come e perché. Milan: il Saggiatore.

Andrews, G. ed. 1991. Citizenship. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Arrighi, G. 1994. The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power and the

origins of Our Time. London: Verso. Arrighi, G. and B. J. Silver. 1999. Chaos and Governance in the Modern

World System. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Baglioni, L.G. 2009. Sociologia della cittadinanza. Prospettive teoriche e

percorsi inclusivi nello spazio sociale europeo. Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.

Barbalet, J. M. 1988. Citizenship, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bauboeck, R. 1994. Transnational Citizenship. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Bosniak, L. 2001. “Denationalizing Citizenship”. In Citizenship Today.

Global Perspectives and practices, by T. A. Aleinikoff, D. Klusmeyer, 37-52. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Braudel, F. 1979. Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme (XV-XVIII siècle). Les jeux de l'échange. Paris: Libraire Armand Colin.

—. 1981. Afterthoughts on Material Civilisation and Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Campo, G. 2007. “Cittadella e dintorni”. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza VII (4): 63-69.

Caponio, T. 2006. “Associazionismo straniero e politiche per gli immigrati. Dinamiche di esclusione e partecipazione a livello locale”. Impresa Sociale. 75 (2): 23-55.


123

Castaldi, M. 2004. “La residenza e la residenza anagrafica: la necessità di un reale chiarimento sulla portata dei concetti e sulla loro corretta applicazione in ambito anagrafico”. Lo stato civile italiano C (8): 530-535.

Chiodini, L. 2009. “Le ordinanze comunali a contrasto dell’insicurezza urbana: un’indagine nazionale”. Autonomie locali e servizi sociali, 3: 499-510.

Chiodini, L. and W. Tortorella. 2010. “Le ordinanze dei sindaci e oltre”. Amministrare 40 (2): 317-324.

Cinalli, M., Giugni, M. and A. Nai. 2010. “La partecipazione politica e la protesta degli immigrati. Una comparazione del ruolo delle opportunità politiche in nove città europee”. Rivista italiana di scienza politica XL (3): 397-421.

Coscia, A. 2006. “L’abitualità della dimora (residenza) tra atto amministrativo e negozio unilatero privatistico”. Lo stato civile italiano CII (11): 836-837.

Cotesta, V. 1992. La cittadella assediata. Immigrazione e conflitti etnici in Italia. Rome: Editori Riuniti.

Dagger, R. 2002. “Republican Citizenship”. In Handbook of Citizenship Studies, edited by Isin, E.F. and B. S. Turner, 145-157. London: Sage.

Derlugian, G. M. 1996. “The Social Cohesion of the States”. In Hopkins, T. K. and I. Wallerstein, 148-177. Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System 1945-2025. London: Zed Books..

Dinelli, F. 2010. “La stagione della residenza: analisi di un istituto giuridico in espansione”. Diritto Amministrativo, XVIII (3): 639-708.

Gargiulo, E. 2008. L’inclusione esclusiva. Sociologia della cittadinanza sociale. Milan: Franco Angeli.

—. 2008b. “Verso una “cittadinanza locale”? La frammentazione della cittadinanza sociale tra sfera sovranazionale e welfare regionale”, paper presented at the Conference of ESPAnet Italia Le politiche sociali in Italia nello scenario europeo, available at

http://www.espanet-italia.net/conferenza2008/p_session7.php. Gosewinkel, D. 2001. “Citizenship, Historical Development of”. In

International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, edited by N.J. Smelser, and P. B. Baltes, 212-34. Oxford: Elsevier.

Habermas, J. 1990. Staatsbürgerschaft und nationale Identität. St. Gallen: Erker Verlag.

Hammar, T. 1989 “State, Nation and Dual Citizenship”. In Immigration and The Politics of Citizenship in Europe and North America, edited by W. R. Brubaker, 81-96. Lanham: University Press of America.

Hoffman, J. 2004. Citizenship beyond the state. London: Sage.


124

Hopkins, T. K. 1982. “The study of the Capitalist World-Economy: Some Introductory Considerations”. In World-Systems Analysis. Theory and Methodology, edited by T.K. Hopkins and Wallerstein, 9-38. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hopkins, T.K. and Wallerstein, I. 1996. Age of Transition: Trajectory of the World-System 1945-2025. London: Zed Books.

Jacobson, D. 1996. Rights Across Borders. Immigration and the Decline of Citizenship. London: The John Hopkins University Press.

Lippolis, V. 1994. La cittadinanza europea. Bologna: il Mulino. Lippolis, V. 1998. “European Citizenship: What It Is and What It Could

Be”. In European Citizenship: An Institutional Challenge, edited by M. La Torre, 217-235. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.

Mariani, F. 2010. “Iscrizione anagrafica e domiciliation: un breve confronto tra le istanze di sicurezza italiane e le esigenze di coesione sociale francesi”. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, XII (1): 78-97.

Morozzo della Rocca, P. 2003. “Il diritto alla residenza: un confronto tra principi generali, categorie civilistiche e procedure anagrafiche”. Il diritto di famiglia e delle persone, XXXII (4): 1013-1048

—. 2006. “I diritti anagrafici degli stranieri”. Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, VI (1): 54-71.

OCSE. 2001. Devolution and Globalisation. Paris: OECD. Ong, A. 2003. Buddha is Hiding: Refugees, Citizenship, the New America.

Berkley: University of California Press. Paggi, M. 2007. “Il ricorso gerarchico contro l’Ordinanza del Sindaco di

Cittadella (PD)”, available at: http://www.meltingpot.org/articolo11747.html. Picchio, M. 2008. “Cittadinanza, conflitto sociale e normatività. Una

lettura di Marshall”. In Paradigmi e fatti normativi. Tra etica, diritto e politica, edited by A. De Simone, 321-366. Perugia: Morlacchi.

Pilati, K. 2010. “Disuguaglianze strutturali e partecipazione politica degli immigrati filippini, egiziani ed ecuadoriani a Milano”. Polis. XXIV (2): 257-285.

Rigo, E. 2007. Europa di confine. Trasformazioni della cittadinanza nell’Unione allargata. Roma: Meltemi.

Roche, M. 1992. Rethinking Citizenship. Welfare, Ideology and Change in Modern Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Sau, R. 2004. Il paradigma repubblicano. Saggio sul recupero di una tradizione. Milan: FrancoAngeli.

Silver, B.J. and E. Slater. 1999. “The Social Origins of World Hegemonies”. In Chaos and Governance in the Modern World System,


125

edited by G. Arrighi, 175-250. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Soysal, Y.N. 1994. Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Post-national Membership in Europe. Chicago: University Press.

Turner, B.S. 1986. Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism. London: Allen and Unwin.

Vandelli, L. 2002. Devolution e altre storie. Paradossi, ambiguità e rischi di un progetto politico. Bologna: il Mulino.

Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World-System. Vol. 1. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

—. 1995. Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilisation. London-New York: Verso.

—. 2002. “Citizens All? Citizens Some! The Making of Citizen”, E.P. Thompson Memorial Lecture. University of Pittsburgh, April 18, http://fbc.binghamton.edu/papers.htm.

Wimmer, A. and N. Glick Schiller. 2002. “Methodological Nationalism and Beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences”. Global Networks 2, (4): 301-334.

Zanfrini, L. 2007. Cittadinanze. Appartenenza e diritti nella società dell’immigrazione. Rome-Bari: Laterza.

Zolo, D. 1994. “Prefazione”, in La cittadinanza. Appartenenza, identità, diritti, edited by D. Zolo, vii-xx. Rome-Bari: Laterza.

Between the Right to the Place and the Right in the Place : The Uncertain Status of the «Res...

Documents

Transcript of Between the Right to the Place and the Right in the Place : The Uncertain Status of the «Res...