Popular in Professional

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Education

The Role of Education in Reducing Racial Inequality

University of Southern California Pedro A. Noguera

Law

Diversity and Social Mobility in the UK legal profession

Law Society I. Stephanie Boyce

Internet Law

The Law of AI for Good

University of San Diego Orly Lobel

Pharmacy

Cytotoxic Activity and Anti-Migratory Effect of Berberine-Phytantriol Liquid Crystalline on Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of Technology Sydney Kamal Dua

Human Rights Law

Transforming Restorative Justice for Transitional Settings

University of Nottingham Kerry Clamp

Education

Allegiance, Citizenship and the Law

View more insights in Professional - Law

View more figures from University of Sydney

View the page of Helene Irving

Read the Study

Helen Irving explores the historical and modern concept of allegiance, critiquing its role in citizenship, and arguing that it is outdated in liberal democracies while offering new perspectives on the relationship between citizens and the state

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 24, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses the historical and contemporary concepts of citizenship and allegiance, focusing on women's loss of citizenship upon foreign marriage and the implications of allegiance in modern legal contexts. It highlights a worldwide practice from the early 19th to the mid-20th century where women marrying foreign men automatically lost their pre-marital citizenship and, in many cases, acquired their husband’s citizenship. This video practice was justified as a transfer of allegiance, indicating that marriage to a foreigner denoted disloyalty to one’s birth country.

The speaker also reflects on a 2015 Australian amendment to the Citizenship Act that states allegiance can be lost through acts deemed disloyal, primarily relating to terrorism. This video introduces severe consequences for individuals considered in breach of their allegiance, drawing a parallel between historical loss of citizenship for foreign marriages and modern legal ramifications for perceived disloyalty.

This video emphasizes the researcher's interest in understanding historical perspectives on allegiance and citizenship, examining archival records and past policies to uncover the motivations behind legal changes. It argues that modern citizenship must evolve beyond the concept of absolute allegiance, proposing instead that territorial security forms a crucial bond among citizens, distinct from ethnic or religious ties.

Ultimately, the discussion encourages reflection on what it means to be a citizen in a democracy, the shared responsibilities this entails, and the role of government in protecting its citizens. It calls for a critical examination of assumptions surrounding citizenship and urges individuals to understand their rights and responsibilities within their political communities.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points derived from the video:

1. **Historical Convideo of Women's Citizenship**: The speaker discusses the historical practice in many countries where women lost their citizenship upon marrying a foreign husband, a practice that lasted from the early 19th century to the mid-20th century. It highlights societal assumptions about allegiance and citizenship during this period.

2. **Allegiance and Citizenship**: The video explores the concept of allegiance as a component of citizenship, particularly in the convideo of modern amendments to citizenship laws (such as in Australia), which position citizenship as inherently linked to loyalty to one's country. The speaker reflects on how acts of disloyalty could lead to the revocation of citizenship.

3. **Evolution of the Concept of Citizenship**: The speaker discusses the transition from subjects owing allegiance to a monarch in a feudal system to citizens in modern democracies, emphasizing how relationships between individuals and the state have changed and the implications this has for concepts of loyalty and protection.

4. **Contemporary Issues of Citizenship Stripping**: The video provides contemporary examples, such as the case of David Hicks, where individuals have lost their citizenship due to alleged disloyalty or actions considered unworthy of allegiance. This reflects ongoing debates about the balance between national security and individual rights.

5. **Redefining Citizenship Beyond Allegiance**: The speaker argues for a broader understanding of citizenship based on shared territorial rights and communal responsibilities rather than mere allegiance. This perspective emphasizes the importance of citizens taking responsibility for their territory and institutions, fostering a sense of cooperative identity among citizens rather than relying on exclusive characteristics like ethnicity or religion.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes from the video:

1. **On Women's Loss of Citizenship**:
- "Women who married foreign men automatically lost their premarital citizenship."
- "This created all sorts of dilemmas and problems around the world over that time."

2. **On Allegiance and Citizenship**:
- "It was considered to be, in a sense, an act of dis allegiance... a transfer of allegiance from the woman to her husband."
- "Citizenship and allegiance are effectively two sides of the same coin."

3. **On Historical Convideos**:
- "I always approached my research historically... I find legal and political history... to be endlessly fascinating."
- "The relationship between a person and those in power was considered to be a personal relationship, a relationship between the subject and the sovereign."

4. **On Modern Citizenship**:
- "In modern times... individuals are considered citizens rather than subjects."
- "Citizens... must obey the law, but that's not the same thing as obeying the sovereign."

5. **On the Role of Government**:
- "The core purpose of government... is to offer protection to its citizens."
- "Governments have failed in the protection that they offer to their citizens."

6. **On Citizenship's Value**:
- "Citizenship is still valuable. It's indeed extremely valuable... because it provides territorial security."
- "If you think about citizens having an attachment to the territory on which citizenship entitles them to live, it is in their self-interest... to look after that territory."

7. **On Alternative Bonds Between Citizens**:
- "It's a bond that arises from shared territorial rights and territorial security."
- "The citizenship bond as being one which... relies upon unalterable or exclusionary characteristics like ethnicity or religion."

8. **On Encouraging Reflection**:
- "I hope that readers are curious about these questions... an interest in what it means to be a member of a democratic polity."
- "I want people to question what they can ask of governments and what we can do to protect the institutions that protect us."

These quotes encapsulate the central themes of citizenship, loyalty, historical perspectives, and the evolving convideo of legal and political relationships.

Export as PDF
Based on the themes and concepts discussed in your video about citizenship, allegiance, and women's historical loss of citizenship upon foreign marriage, here are some similar articles that may provide further reading:

1. **"The Citizenship Debate: A Historical Perspective on Women's Rights"** - This article explores the evolution of women's citizenship rights, examining how historical policies have shaped contemporary discussions on gender and nationality.

2. **"Marrying Across Borders: The Legal Implications of Citizenship Loss"** - This piece analyzes the legal frameworks surrounding marriage to foreign nationals and how they impact citizenship rights for women, drawing on case studies from various countries.

3. **"Allegiance and Citizenship in the Age of Terror: A Modern Dilemma"** - This article discusses the modern legal implications of perceived disloyalty and how these concepts have evolved since the early 20th century, particularly in relation to recent anti-terrorism laws.

4. **"Beyond Allegiance: Reflections on Citizenship in Contemporary Democracies"** - This work argues for a rethinking of the concept of citizenship, focusing on civic responsibilities and the role of government in ensuring the rights and protections of all citizens, in light of historical biases.

5. **"From Disloyalty to Belonging: The Changing Face of Citizenship in a Globalized World"** - This article looks at how globalization and intermarriage challenge traditional notions of citizenship and loyalty, encouraging a more inclusive understanding of citizenship in the modern convideo.

6. **"The Impact of Marriage on Women's Citizenship Rights: Historical Convideo and Modern Challenges"** - This article assesses the historical convideo of how marriage affects citizenship rights for women and the ongoing challenges faced in securing equality in citizenship laws today.

7. **"Reexamining Citizenship: Ethnicity, Territory, and Modern Legal Frameworks"** - This study dives into how contemporary citizenship frameworks can shift away from ethnic allegiances towards a focus on territorial belonging and civic duties.

Each of these articles can provide further insights into the complex interplay between historical concepts of citizenship, modern legal frameworks, gender issues, and the evolving role of allegiance in society.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.285 --> 00:03.245
Previously working on a, a book, on,

00:03.265 --> 00:04.485
the women's women's loss

00:04.485 --> 00:07.965
of citizenship upon foreign marriage, which was a,

00:07.965 --> 00:10.045
it's not very well known, but a worldwide practice

00:10.045 --> 00:11.525
between the early 19th century

00:12.065 --> 00:13.765
and the mid in, depending on the country,

00:14.105 --> 00:15.285
the mid 20th century.

00:15.985 --> 00:18.365
Um, it was a practice which in which women

00:18.365 --> 00:22.285
who married foreign men automatically, were stripped of,

00:22.315 --> 00:24.845
lost their, their pre premarital citizenship.

00:25.985 --> 00:28.205
And it was assumed, and in many cases it happened.

00:28.205 --> 00:31.485
They were, they also acquired automatically whether they

00:31.485 --> 00:32.885
wanted it or not, the,

00:32.885 --> 00:34.125
citizenship of their foreign husband.

00:34.865 --> 00:37.245
And this created all sorts of dilemmas

00:37.245 --> 00:39.125
and problems around the world over that time.

00:39.425 --> 00:43.245
Um, a very interesting sort of insight into what citizenship

00:43.785 --> 00:44.805
was thought to mean,

00:45.985 --> 00:48.805
and asking myself the question as I did this research,

00:49.625 --> 00:51.565
why would, why would it be necessary

00:51.625 --> 00:53.605
to strip citizenship from a

00:53.605 --> 00:54.725
woman who, with a foreign husband?

00:55.505 --> 00:59.405
And the answer was, it was considered to be, in a sense,

00:59.425 --> 01:02.005
an act of dis allegiance or a change of allegiance,

01:02.005 --> 01:04.965
or a transfer of allegiance from the woman to her husband,

01:05.625 --> 01:08.205
and therefore was considered that she would then

01:08.865 --> 01:10.925
her allegiance would be, to his country.

01:11.925 --> 01:15.015
This was the case even, when, women and,

01:15.155 --> 01:17.935
and their husbands lived in the, the country of the,

01:17.935 --> 01:21.055
the woman's, premarital citizenship when they,

01:21.085 --> 01:22.535
even if they didn't,

01:22.565 --> 01:25.175
even know about the foreign citizenship,

01:25.365 --> 01:28.215
that their husband was, entitled to.

01:28.455 --> 01:30.975
I became very curious about this idea that, that some sort

01:30.975 --> 01:35.095
of dis allegiance or transfer of allegiance, occurred,

01:35.355 --> 01:37.215
was thought to occur such

01:37.215 --> 01:38.855
that a woman would lose her

01:38.855 --> 01:40.255
citizenship upon foreign marriage.

01:40.555 --> 01:43.095
And I should add that that was the practice, as I say,

01:43.095 --> 01:46.975
worldwide in virtually every single country around the,

01:46.995 --> 01:49.535
the world at, at some point in that, in that period

01:49.535 --> 01:51.775
of time in the 19th and the 20th century.

01:53.205 --> 01:56.865
So I also became, at the same time I was working on

01:56.865 --> 02:00.905
that book, which came out in 2016, I became,

02:01.095 --> 02:03.945
very interested in the, as a, as a,

02:03.945 --> 02:05.705
as a legal scholar in the,

02:05.795 --> 02:09.345
Australian government's amendment to the Citizenship Act,

02:09.755 --> 02:14.265
where they inserted in the act in 2015, a statement that,

02:14.405 --> 02:17.825
that, citizenship meant allegiance,

02:18.485 --> 02:23.345
and that allegiance could be lost, by, certain acts,

02:23.355 --> 02:25.865
which were considered to be,

02:25.965 --> 02:27.865
dis disloyal acts to Australia.

02:28.325 --> 02:31.425
And primarily the government had terrorism in mind,

02:31.925 --> 02:34.305
and that this could, under these amendments

02:34.305 --> 02:37.625
to the citizenship Act, this could lead to the stripping

02:37.625 --> 02:40.665
of citizenship from the individuals who were considered

02:40.665 --> 02:43.545
to be not living up to their, obligations

02:43.545 --> 02:44.625
of allegiance to Australia.

02:44.885 --> 02:47.985
We had this, I had this, very,

02:49.105 --> 02:52.425
a very interesting sort of moment of thinking about,

02:52.615 --> 02:55.265
what allegiance meant in the context of citizenship

02:55.365 --> 02:58.825
and how often it was just casually talked about as

02:58.825 --> 03:01.285
Being part of, of what was, what,

03:01.285 --> 03:03.005
what was involved in citizenship.

03:03.785 --> 03:06.285
And indeed having these, these quite severe,

03:06.785 --> 03:10.885
in many cases, quite severe, consequences in the loss

03:11.025 --> 03:13.805
of citizenship through what were considered to be acts

03:13.825 --> 03:15.285
of a form of dis allegiance.

03:15.865 --> 03:17.005
Not much in comparison.

03:17.145 --> 03:20.085
One would think between a woman's foreign marriage and, and,

03:20.145 --> 03:22.925
and an individual's, act, acts, acts

03:22.985 --> 03:25.605
or actions as a terrorist or supporting terrorism.

03:26.145 --> 03:28.765
But there was this common denominator allegiance.

03:28.795 --> 03:31.245
I've always approached my research historically.

03:31.425 --> 03:34.285
Um, I'm just very deeply curious about

03:34.705 --> 03:37.005
how people thought in the past,

03:37.155 --> 03:38.445
what they thought they were doing,

03:38.985 --> 03:42.285
in particular when they acted officially, with respect

03:42.305 --> 03:43.565
to policy and law.

03:43.685 --> 03:44.845
I find legal

03:45.065 --> 03:47.165
and political history, which is my background

03:47.265 --> 03:49.085
to be endlessly fascinating.

03:49.345 --> 03:53.485
Um, so my, my research, I did a PhD in history, by the way.

03:53.825 --> 03:56.125
Um, my research always involves,

03:56.395 --> 03:58.725
looking at archival records, looking at

03:58.725 --> 04:00.725
what was published at the time,

04:00.725 --> 04:03.485
the particular time under study, looking at journals

04:03.485 --> 04:06.205
and newspapers from that period that I'm working on.

04:06.705 --> 04:09.285
And of course, I look at other scholars writings at other

04:09.285 --> 04:11.205
historians writings,

04:11.205 --> 04:13.645
and at the explanations they have given

04:14.385 --> 04:16.005
for the historical events,

04:16.105 --> 04:18.085
and historical changes that they're studying.

04:19.105 --> 04:21.885
So I want to know why, why, why governments in particular,

04:21.945 --> 04:23.765
why they adopted certain policies,

04:24.225 --> 04:26.885
why they made certain laws, what their motivation was,

04:26.885 --> 04:29.645
what it was, what the problem was, that they thought

04:29.645 --> 04:32.125
that the new policies or laws could solve,

04:32.305 --> 04:33.765
or at least assist to solve.

04:34.385 --> 04:35.885
Um, and I wanted to know why people

04:35.885 --> 04:37.285
understood these things in the past.

04:38.025 --> 04:41.605
In particular, why on this particular project, why,

04:41.635 --> 04:43.685
what did allegiance mean in the past?

04:44.265 --> 04:46.845
And was that meaning still relevant to today?

04:47.785 --> 04:48.925
And if not, why not?

04:49.145 --> 04:52.485
Um, so for example, in my book, there's a, a,

04:52.645 --> 04:56.205
a chapter on treason, which, which, as I say, is the

04:57.005 --> 04:59.005
ultimate form of, of dis dis allegiance.

04:59.225 --> 05:02.525
Um, historically, some of the acts that were considered

05:02.525 --> 05:05.125
to be treacherous acts of treason in the past

05:05.825 --> 05:08.645
are not considered to be treason now in the present.

05:09.065 --> 05:11.605
So I'll give you an example, a slightly amusing example,

05:11.745 --> 05:14.685
but was serious in, in its context, historical context,

05:15.305 --> 05:18.165
having sexual intercourse with the wife of the heir

05:18.165 --> 05:19.725
to the throne, the British throne.

05:20.545 --> 05:22.925
Um, that's to say if you were not her husband, was,

05:23.065 --> 05:27.965
was counted as, treachery, treason, coining,

05:27.965 --> 05:30.165
counterfeit money could be counted as treason.

05:30.865 --> 05:35.085
Um, a naturalizing in a foreign, nationality.

05:35.265 --> 05:38.565
Um, the nationality of a country at war,

05:38.715 --> 05:41.645
with your previous country that was considered treason,

05:41.665 --> 05:43.045
the core acts of treason.

05:43.065 --> 05:45.765
So none of those really would continue to be, I think,

05:45.765 --> 05:47.085
regarded as treason today.

05:47.545 --> 05:50.685
But the core act of treason, of course, is, the form

05:50.685 --> 05:53.725
of dis allegiance, is fighting

05:53.945 --> 05:56.685
for the enemy country against your own country,

05:57.165 --> 05:59.205
fighting against your own country's interests.

05:59.825 --> 06:04.245
So basically, I ask these historical questions, and,

06:04.385 --> 06:07.805
and, and I'm, I observe what was historically different,

06:08.315 --> 06:11.525
what remains, now, from that historical past.

06:11.805 --> 06:14.845
I regard the best way of understanding the present is

06:14.905 --> 06:17.445
to look at how things were different in the past.

06:17.695 --> 06:20.685
We've got, we distinguish between the, the feudal era

06:20.785 --> 06:22.365
and the, and the early modern era.

06:22.465 --> 06:25.805
So in the, in the feudal relation, in the feudal era,

06:26.345 --> 06:29.005
the relationship between a person and,

06:29.265 --> 06:32.525
and the power, those in power was considered

06:32.525 --> 06:34.845
to be a personal relationship, a rela relationship

06:34.845 --> 06:36.845
between the subject and the sovereign.

06:37.385 --> 06:40.405
Um, it was initially the Lord who owned the,

06:40.545 --> 06:43.845
the land upon, upon which you as the subject worked.

06:44.545 --> 06:48.325
Um, and then, as it evolved, the object, the sovereign

06:48.385 --> 06:51.125
to whom, allegiance was owed was primarily the,

06:51.145 --> 06:54.085
the monarch, the king, or the queen, and the monarch,

06:54.085 --> 06:56.885
or the, the monarch, was considered to be the, the le law,

06:56.905 --> 06:58.965
the owner of all the property on which

06:58.965 --> 07:00.485
subjects lived and worked.

07:00.705 --> 07:05.205
Um, so as the owner of all the land, they monopolized,

07:05.225 --> 07:09.725
of course, the, the, the, the, the, the labor

07:09.985 --> 07:13.845
of the subjects, the la the subjects also paid tithes

07:13.845 --> 07:16.805
and taxes, and they were obliged to fight against the,

07:16.805 --> 07:17.885
monarch's enemies.

07:18.745 --> 07:20.245
Um, so in time of war.

07:20.425 --> 07:24.285
Um, so this was a relationship essentially, of obedience

07:24.285 --> 07:25.925
between the subject and the sovereign.

07:26.625 --> 07:27.845
Uh, and the idea was

07:27.845 --> 07:31.565
that the sovereign offered protection in return,

07:31.565 --> 07:33.325
protecting his or her subjects.

07:33.745 --> 07:37.645
Now, the protection didn't mean much in practical terms,

07:37.785 --> 07:40.725
in most people's lives historically, in that, that era.

07:41.305 --> 07:44.605
Um, there was the, the, there was a sentimental idea of, of

07:45.185 --> 07:48.685
of, of being protected by the monarch, who was the object,

07:48.685 --> 07:50.765
object of people's love,

07:50.785 --> 07:53.005
and the sort of the love of his or her subjects.

07:53.005 --> 07:55.405
But that actually is much more recent than one might think.

07:55.825 --> 07:59.085
It was primarily a relationship, of duty on the part

07:59.105 --> 08:02.525
of the subject with respect to, as I said, tis

08:02.525 --> 08:03.845
and taxes and military service.

08:05.325 --> 08:09.065
People who traveled abroad, could be protected

08:09.065 --> 08:11.385
by the diplomatic representation, representatives

08:11.385 --> 08:13.105
of their country in foreign countries.

08:13.885 --> 08:16.985
Um, but this wasn't terribly relevant for,

08:17.445 --> 08:18.665
really in the feudal era.

08:18.665 --> 08:20.385
Once you get into the early morning,

08:20.385 --> 08:24.385
early modern period, it becomes more the, the,

08:25.805 --> 08:28.625
the, the obligations of protection on the part of the,

08:28.885 --> 08:33.585
of the crown towards the subjects, become clearer.

08:33.585 --> 08:37.465
But even so, it was always a bit of a, an asymmetrical

08:37.465 --> 08:40.945
or an unbalanced relationship, more, more duty on the part

08:40.945 --> 08:43.545
of the subjects, more obedience to the sovereign,

08:43.805 --> 08:45.505
and not such, so much,

08:45.515 --> 08:48.105
protection offered, in return.

08:49.165 --> 08:52.905
And now in modern times, as as these evolved,

08:53.725 --> 08:55.065
as modern democracies

08:55.110 --> 09:00.045
Evolved, individuals, individuals, became con,

09:00.325 --> 09:02.205
considered, I mean, the language, the evolution

09:02.205 --> 09:04.765
of the language is quite, complex and intricate.

09:05.145 --> 09:08.085
But, just to put it simply, we begin to think of,

09:08.145 --> 09:10.325
of individuals in the political,

09:10.505 --> 09:12.885
in their political status,

09:12.985 --> 09:15.085
as citizens rather than subjects.

09:15.225 --> 09:17.445
Um, and the people themselves in a

09:17.445 --> 09:18.805
democracy are the sovereign.

09:19.355 --> 09:21.925
They are the, in principle, at least equal,

09:21.925 --> 09:24.165
under the law, not subordinate

09:24.265 --> 09:25.925
to the overlord or the monarch.

09:26.345 --> 09:28.525
The, the monarch is only in a sense in a,

09:28.525 --> 09:31.925
as a titular sovereign in democracies, it's the people.

09:32.825 --> 09:35.605
Now, the citizens, of course, they must obey the law,

09:36.065 --> 09:39.805
but that's not the same thing, as obeying the sovereign,

09:40.265 --> 09:42.805
as was, which was the, the old concept

09:42.945 --> 09:44.085
of subject status.

09:44.865 --> 09:49.085
Um, as citizens, the people obey themselves, if you like,

09:49.545 --> 09:51.885
the people, the people are in government,

09:51.905 --> 09:54.485
who are in government, have been elected by

09:54.505 --> 09:56.925
as representatives of the people, the electors,

09:57.705 --> 10:00.245
and the people are free to criticize, to object,

10:00.545 --> 10:02.845
to change government if the government does not

10:02.905 --> 10:04.005
act in their interests.

10:04.385 --> 10:06.965
Indeed, if the government doesn't provide the sort

10:06.965 --> 10:09.165
of protection, that, that, that,

10:09.405 --> 10:10.565
that, that the voters want.

10:11.505 --> 10:13.685
Now allegiance, when we look at its history

10:13.705 --> 10:16.125
and we look at its use, what does it mean?

10:16.165 --> 10:18.365
I, I mean, I challenge people to think deeply about

10:18.395 --> 10:20.245
what does it mean to say that citizenship

10:20.545 --> 10:23.165
and allegiance are effectively two sides of the same coin.

10:23.515 --> 10:26.525
What can allegiance mean in the modern, context?

10:27.265 --> 10:29.165
In the past, it meant obedience,

10:29.625 --> 10:32.205
and I argue that it still has that, that connotation

10:32.225 --> 10:36.185
of obedience and a meeb obedience, as I said,

10:36.185 --> 10:38.745
to the sovereign, is no longer appropriate,

10:39.085 --> 10:41.785
an appropriate way of thinking about the obligations

10:41.785 --> 10:45.705
between the, the, the members of a democratic polity

10:46.365 --> 10:49.625
and, their representatives in government.

10:49.805 --> 10:52.145
The core purpose, their core purpose of government,

10:52.145 --> 10:53.665
of course, is to offer protection

10:53.665 --> 10:57.465
to its citizens protection against hostile acts from other

10:57.785 --> 11:00.585
countries, and protection for individuals who,

11:00.605 --> 11:02.905
who are in trouble in other countries.

11:03.445 --> 11:05.985
Um, and we see this in action, for example,

11:06.015 --> 11:07.465
when governments rescue

11:07.605 --> 11:09.945
or evacuate their citizens from war zones

11:09.965 --> 11:12.705
or from natural disasters quite properly,

11:12.705 --> 11:16.145
because this is, as I argue, the appropriate, role

11:16.205 --> 11:17.745
for governments, with respect

11:17.745 --> 11:19.065
to citizens in other countries.

11:19.885 --> 11:23.455
Um, but we also see cases, and,

11:23.635 --> 11:26.655
and this is, something I've been noting in particular

11:26.665 --> 11:28.415
since taking on this, this,

11:28.565 --> 11:30.375
inquiry into what allegiance means.

11:31.075 --> 11:34.455
We also see cases where governments, have failed,

11:34.875 --> 11:36.895
failed in the, the protection that they offer

11:36.955 --> 11:38.015
to their, to the citizens.

11:38.055 --> 11:39.455
I won't say their, their citizens

11:39.455 --> 11:41.135
of the citizens whom they represent.

11:42.315 --> 11:44.295
Um, and, and in some cases

11:44.295 --> 11:47.855
where governments have actively withdrawn protection,

11:47.945 --> 11:50.455
their protection of ci the citizen in question,

11:51.035 --> 11:54.645
by stripping citizenship from citizens in order

11:54.645 --> 11:58.485
that the government is no not obliged to offer protection

11:58.665 --> 12:02.205
for, persons who are regarded as in this context,

12:02.425 --> 12:04.885
dis allegiance, dis allegiance or disloyal.

12:04.885 --> 12:06.565
David Hicks, for example,

12:06.615 --> 12:08.685
whose case was well known a few years ago.

12:10.025 --> 12:13.685
He was, he was, he, he, he acquired British citizenship.

12:14.025 --> 12:16.605
Uh, he was a dual Australian British citizen.

12:17.105 --> 12:19.205
He acquired the British citizenship through his mother

12:20.175 --> 12:22.125
under amendments to the citizenship law

12:22.125 --> 12:25.645
that made it possible for people to acquire the citizenship

12:25.645 --> 12:27.245
of their mother, and not just of their father.

12:28.425 --> 12:32.245
And, but, within hours of his, acquiring

12:32.245 --> 12:34.005
that British citizenship under law,

12:34.425 --> 12:36.285
the British government stripped him

12:36.305 --> 12:37.725
of his British citizenship.

12:38.425 --> 12:41.005
Um, on the basis on the argument that,

12:41.345 --> 12:44.965
before he became a British citizen, he had committed acts,

12:45.145 --> 12:47.365
which, included training

12:47.395 --> 12:51.005
with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, acts

12:51.075 --> 12:53.605
that made him in the eyes of the British,

12:54.045 --> 12:57.525
a disloyal person, even though he didn't, owe them,

12:57.865 --> 13:00.445
obligations of allegiance or loyalty

13:00.505 --> 13:02.405
before he became a British citizen.

13:02.505 --> 13:04.885
So it was actually very complicated,

13:04.945 --> 13:06.885
but in the end, what happened was

13:06.885 --> 13:09.005
that he lost his British citizenship, as I said,

13:09.265 --> 13:11.805
almost within hours of acquiring it,

13:12.435 --> 13:14.325
even though acquiring British citizenship

13:14.325 --> 13:17.645
through his mother meant that he swore a oath of allegiance

13:17.645 --> 13:19.645
to Britain, but they stripped him

13:19.645 --> 13:21.805
of his citizenship, Australia.

13:21.835 --> 13:26.685
Then, of course, he, he became just a soul, a mono,

13:26.685 --> 13:27.845
citizen of Australia

13:28.425 --> 13:30.965
and Australia then, had to look after him.

13:31.225 --> 13:33.445
But this was a, it was a deliberate act on the part

13:33.445 --> 13:34.765
of the British to, to make sure

13:34.765 --> 13:36.445
that they were not in a position where they needed

13:36.445 --> 13:38.205
to offer protection to David Hicks.

13:38.465 --> 13:40.605
And there are quite a few, examples of that nature.

13:40.905 --> 13:44.005
Um, today. What would it mean to remove the idea

13:44.085 --> 13:47.125
of allegiance from, the, the, the law of,

13:47.125 --> 13:48.565
of the status of citizenship?

13:49.205 --> 13:52.165
I didn't want to conclude that there was no other bond

13:52.165 --> 13:53.245
between citizens.

13:53.495 --> 13:56.485
There was no other way of, of, thinking of a bond

13:56.485 --> 13:58.405
between citizens and their country, either

13:58.405 --> 13:59.685
because if, if you just think

14:00.075 --> 14:01.405
that there's really nothing there,

14:01.545 --> 14:05.105
but, allegiance, take allegiance outta the picture,

14:05.455 --> 14:09.505
there's nothing to tie, to tie citizens to each other.

14:09.745 --> 14:13.785
I think that citizenship is a, it is a, a, a status,

14:13.855 --> 14:17.345
that one has, which is distinct from the status that, that,

14:17.345 --> 14:19.025
from other forms of legal status.

14:19.615 --> 14:23.025
It's a status that of membership of a particular country

14:23.085 --> 14:26.025
or a state that distinguishes you from the citizens

14:26.025 --> 14:27.945
who are members of other countries, states.

14:28.005 --> 14:29.545
And you do have something in common

14:29.895 --> 14:31.105
with your fellow citizens.

14:31.485 --> 14:33.785
So what is it? Citizenship is still valuable.

14:33.815 --> 14:35.505
It's indeed extremely valuable.

14:36.125 --> 14:37.265
In particular, I argue,

14:37.265 --> 14:40.945
because, it provides territorial security.

14:41.825 --> 14:43.785
Citizens are, it doesn't always in practice,

14:43.805 --> 14:47.745
but citizens are, under law entitled to return to

14:47.745 --> 14:50.585
and remain in the territory, the country of their

14:50.585 --> 14:51.585
Citizenship.

14:52.025 --> 14:53.565
And this is an alternative.

14:53.705 --> 14:58.525
Um, i, I argue a bond that arises from shared,

14:58.965 --> 15:02.165
territorial, rights and territorial security.

15:02.955 --> 15:06.525
It's a bond that's distinctive from, let's say, ethnic ties

15:06.525 --> 15:07.565
between citizens

15:07.625 --> 15:09.605
or religious ties between citizens,

15:09.895 --> 15:11.405
which can be very destructive

15:11.405 --> 15:13.965
and extremely exclusive of persons

15:13.965 --> 15:16.045
who don't fit into those particular forms of,

15:16.385 --> 15:17.845
of identity or membership.

15:18.855 --> 15:21.515
But if you think about citizens of having an attachment

15:21.735 --> 15:24.635
to the territory on which citizenship entitles them to live,

15:25.535 --> 15:28.595
it is in their self-interest as well as in the interest

15:28.615 --> 15:31.555
of the, both, the both people individually

15:31.935 --> 15:35.435
and people as, as members of the common citizenry, to look

15:35.435 --> 15:36.875
after that territory

15:37.215 --> 15:40.395
and not to damage the institutions of democracy

15:40.865 --> 15:45.515
that allow people to live freely, as equals,

15:46.295 --> 15:50.595
in, in, in the sort of ideal circumstances, where,

15:50.595 --> 15:52.955
where one bene, one, one shares the benefits

15:52.955 --> 15:56.875
of democratic institutions in, in particular territories.

15:57.215 --> 16:00.195
So if you think of it, of citizenship as like membership of,

16:00.255 --> 16:01.355
of a shared house,

16:02.055 --> 16:03.795
the citizens have the key to the house.

16:04.415 --> 16:05.835
Uh, they live, you know,

16:05.835 --> 16:07.395
they may have their own rooms in the house,

16:07.455 --> 16:09.475
but they have a sort of a cooperative identity,

16:09.975 --> 16:11.955
and it's not in their interest to do things

16:11.955 --> 16:15.435
that are damaging either to their, to their particular part

16:15.435 --> 16:16.995
of the house or to anyone's part of the house,

16:16.995 --> 16:20.155
because it is a shared territory that they have in common.

16:20.775 --> 16:23.235
And it is in their interest, their self-interest, as well

16:23.235 --> 16:26.715
as in their common interest that they look after that space.

16:27.545 --> 16:29.515
That I think, is the alternative

16:29.655 --> 16:33.075
to thinking about citizenship, the citizenship bond

16:33.095 --> 16:37.955
as being one which, relies upon unalterable,

16:38.855 --> 16:40.675
or exclusionary,

16:40.675 --> 16:43.795
characteristics like ethnicity or religion.

16:44.035 --> 16:47.755
I hope that readers are curious about these questions

16:47.755 --> 16:49.395
that they take from looking at the book.

16:49.855 --> 16:52.555
Um, an interest in an attitude

16:52.615 --> 16:55.395
of self-questioning about assumptions

16:55.535 --> 16:58.595
and an interest in what it means to be, in particular,

16:58.615 --> 17:00.635
to be a member of a democratic policy.

17:00.985 --> 17:02.835
What is it we share with others?

17:03.015 --> 17:06.235
How, how best can we protect the institutions of self,

17:06.295 --> 17:07.875
of democratic self-government?

17:08.375 --> 17:10.995
And above all, I want people to be, to question

17:10.995 --> 17:12.675
what they can ask of governments

17:13.055 --> 17:16.155
and what we can do also to protect the institutions

17:16.585 --> 17:19.955
that protect us and the territory that we share as citizens.

00:00 - Previously working on a, a book, on, the women's women's loss of citizenship upon foreign marriage, which was a, it's not very well known, but a worldwide practice between the early 19th century and the mid in, depending on the country,

00:14 - the mid 20th century. it was a practice which in which women who married foreign men automatically, were stripped of, lost their, their pre premarital citizenship. And it was assumed, and in many cases it happened. They were, they also acquired automatically whether they wanted it or not, the, citizenship of their foreign husband. And this created all sorts of dilemmas and problems around the world over that time.

00:39 - a very interesting sort of insight into what citizenship was thought to mean, and asking myself the question as I did this research, why would, why would it be necessary to strip citizenship from a woman who, with a foreign husband? And the answer was, it was considered to be, in a sense, an act of dis allegiance or a change of allegiance, or a transfer of allegiance from the woman to her husband, and therefore was considered that she would then

01:08 - her allegiance would be, to his country. This was the case even, when, women and, and their husbands lived in the, the country of the, the woman's, premarital citizenship when they, even if they didn't, even know about the foreign citizenship, that their husband was, entitled to. I became very curious about this idea that, that some sort of dis allegiance or transfer of allegiance, occurred, was thought to occur such

01:37 - that a woman would lose her citizenship upon foreign marriage. And I should add that that was the practice, as I say, worldwide in virtually every single country around the, the world at, at some point in that, in that period of time in the 19th and the 20th century. So I also became, at the same time I was working on that book, which came out in 2016, I became, very interested in the, as a, as a, as a legal scholar in the,

02:05 - Australian government's amendment to the Citizenship Act, where they inserted in the act in 2015, a statement that, that, citizenship meant allegiance, and that allegiance could be lost, by, certain acts, which were considered to be, dis disloyal acts to Australia. And primarily the government had terrorism in mind, and that this could, under these amendments to the citizenship Act, this could lead to the stripping of citizenship from the individuals who were considered

02:40 - to be not living up to their, obligations of allegiance to Australia. We had this, I had this, very, a very interesting sort of moment of thinking about, what allegiance meant in the context of citizenship and how often it was just casually talked about as Being part of, of what was, what, what was involved in citizenship. And indeed having these, these quite severe, in many cases, quite severe, consequences in the loss

03:11 - of citizenship through what were considered to be acts of a form of dis allegiance. Not much in comparison. One would think between a woman's foreign marriage and, and, and an individual's, act, acts, acts or actions as a terrorist or supporting terrorism. But there was this common denominator allegiance. I've always approached my research historically. I'm just very deeply curious about how people thought in the past,

03:37 - what they thought they were doing, in particular when they acted officially, with respect to policy and law. I find legal and political history, which is my background to be endlessly fascinating. so my, my research, I did a PhD in history, by the way. my research always involves, looking at archival records, looking at what was published at the time,

04:00 - the particular time under study, looking at journals and newspapers from that period that I'm working on. And of course, I look at other scholars writings at other historians writings, and at the explanations they have given for the historical events, and historical changes that they're studying. So I want to know why, why, why governments in particular, why they adopted certain policies, why they made certain laws, what their motivation was,

04:26 - what it was, what the problem was, that they thought that the new policies or laws could solve, or at least assist to solve. and I wanted to know why people understood these things in the past. In particular, why on this particular project, why, what did allegiance mean in the past? And was that meaning still relevant to today? And if not, why not? so for example, in my book, there's a, a,

04:52 - a chapter on treason, which, which, as I say, is the ultimate form of, of dis dis allegiance. historically, some of the acts that were considered to be treacherous acts of treason in the past are not considered to be treason now in the present. So I'll give you an example, a slightly amusing example, but was serious in, in its context, historical context, having sexual intercourse with the wife of the heir to the throne, the British throne. that's to say if you were not her husband, was,

05:23 - was counted as, treachery, treason, coining, counterfeit money could be counted as treason. a naturalizing in a foreign, nationality. the nationality of a country at war, with your previous country that was considered treason, the core acts of treason. So none of those really would continue to be, I think, regarded as treason today. But the core act of treason, of course, is, the form of dis allegiance, is fighting

05:53 - for the enemy country against your own country, fighting against your own country's interests. So basically, I ask these historical questions, and, and, and I'm, I observe what was historically different, what remains, now, from that historical past. I regard the best way of understanding the present is to look at how things were different in the past. We've got, we distinguish between the, the feudal era and the, and the early modern era. So in the, in the feudal relation, in the feudal era,

06:26 - the relationship between a person and, and the power, those in power was considered to be a personal relationship, a rela relationship between the subject and the sovereign. it was initially the Lord who owned the, the land upon, upon which you as the subject worked. and then, as it evolved, the object, the sovereign to whom, allegiance was owed was primarily the, the monarch, the king, or the queen, and the monarch, or the, the monarch, was considered to be the, the le law,

06:56 - the owner of all the property on which subjects lived and worked. so as the owner of all the land, they monopolized, of course, the, the, the, the, the, the labor of the subjects, the la the subjects also paid tithes and taxes, and they were obliged to fight against the, monarch's enemies. so in time of war. so this was a relationship essentially, of obedience between the subject and the sovereign.

07:26 - and the idea was that the sovereign offered protection in return, protecting his or her subjects. Now, the protection didn't mean much in practical terms, in most people's lives historically, in that, that era. there was the, the, there was a sentimental idea of, of of, of being protected by the monarch, who was the object, object of people's love, and the sort of the love of his or her subjects. But that actually is much more recent than one might think.

07:55 - It was primarily a relationship, of duty on the part of the subject with respect to, as I said, tis and taxes and military service. People who traveled abroad, could be protected by the diplomatic representation, representatives of their country in foreign countries. but this wasn't terribly relevant for, really in the feudal era. Once you get into the early morning, early modern period, it becomes more the, the,

08:25 - the, the obligations of protection on the part of the, of the crown towards the subjects, become clearer. But even so, it was always a bit of a, an asymmetrical or an unbalanced relationship, more, more duty on the part of the subjects, more obedience to the sovereign, and not such, so much, protection offered, in return. And now in modern times, as as these evolved, as modern democracies Evolved, individuals, individuals, became con,

09:00 - considered, I mean, the language, the evolution of the language is quite, complex and intricate. But, just to put it simply, we begin to think of, of individuals in the political, in their political status, as citizens rather than subjects. and the people themselves in a democracy are the sovereign. They are the, in principle, at least equal, under the law, not subordinate

09:24 - to the overlord or the monarch. The, the monarch is only in a sense in a, as a titular sovereign in democracies, it's the people. Now, the citizens, of course, they must obey the law, but that's not the same thing, as obeying the sovereign, as was, which was the, the old concept of subject status. as citizens, the people obey themselves, if you like, the people, the people are in government, who are in government, have been elected by

09:54 - as representatives of the people, the electors, and the people are free to criticize, to object, to change government if the government does not act in their interests. Indeed, if the government doesn't provide the sort of protection, that, that, that, that, that the voters want. Now allegiance, when we look at its history and we look at its use, what does it mean? I, I mean, I challenge people to think deeply about

10:18 - what does it mean to say that citizenship and allegiance are effectively two sides of the same coin. What can allegiance mean in the modern, context? In the past, it meant obedience, and I argue that it still has that, that connotation of obedience and a meeb obedience, as I said, to the sovereign, is no longer appropriate, an appropriate way of thinking about the obligations between the, the, the members of a democratic polity and, their representatives in government.

10:49 - The core purpose, their core purpose of government, of course, is to offer protection to its citizens protection against hostile acts from other countries, and protection for individuals who, who are in trouble in other countries. and we see this in action, for example, when governments rescue or evacuate their citizens from war zones or from natural disasters quite properly, because this is, as I argue, the appropriate, role

11:16 - for governments, with respect to citizens in other countries. but we also see cases, and, and this is, something I've been noting in particular since taking on this, this, inquiry into what allegiance means. We also see cases where governments, have failed, failed in the, the protection that they offer to their, to the citizens. I won't say their, their citizens

11:39 - of the citizens whom they represent. and, and in some cases where governments have actively withdrawn protection, their protection of ci the citizen in question, by stripping citizenship from citizens in order that the government is no not obliged to offer protection for, persons who are regarded as in this context, dis allegiance, dis allegiance or disloyal. David Hicks, for example, whose case was well known a few years ago.

12:10 - He was, he was, he, he, he acquired British citizenship. he was a dual Australian British citizen. He acquired the British citizenship through his mother under amendments to the citizenship law that made it possible for people to acquire the citizenship of their mother, and not just of their father. And, but, within hours of his, acquiring that British citizenship under law, the British government stripped him of his British citizenship.

12:38 - on the basis on the argument that, before he became a British citizen, he had committed acts, which, included training with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, acts that made him in the eyes of the British, a disloyal person, even though he didn't, owe them, obligations of allegiance or loyalty before he became a British citizen. So it was actually very complicated, but in the end, what happened was

13:06 - that he lost his British citizenship, as I said, almost within hours of acquiring it, even though acquiring British citizenship through his mother meant that he swore a oath of allegiance to Britain, but they stripped him of his citizenship, Australia. Then, of course, he, he became just a soul, a mono, citizen of Australia and Australia then, had to look after him. But this was a, it was a deliberate act on the part

13:33 - of the British to, to make sure that they were not in a position where they needed to offer protection to David Hicks. And there are quite a few, examples of that nature. today. What would it mean to remove the idea of allegiance from, the, the, the law of, of the status of citizenship? I didn't want to conclude that there was no other bond between citizens. There was no other way of, of, thinking of a bond

13:56 - between citizens and their country, either because if, if you just think that there's really nothing there, but, allegiance, take allegiance outta the picture, there's nothing to tie, to tie citizens to each other. I think that citizenship is a, it is a, a, a status, that one has, which is distinct from the status that, that, from other forms of legal status. It's a status that of membership of a particular country or a state that distinguishes you from the citizens

14:26 - who are members of other countries, states. And you do have something in common with your fellow citizens. So what is it? Citizenship is still valuable. It's indeed extremely valuable. In particular, I argue, because, it provides territorial security. Citizens are, it doesn't always in practice, but citizens are, under law entitled to return to and remain in the territory, the country of their

14:50 - Citizenship. And this is an alternative. i, I argue a bond that arises from shared, territorial, rights and territorial security. It's a bond that's distinctive from, let's say, ethnic ties between citizens or religious ties between citizens, which can be very destructive and extremely exclusive of persons who don't fit into those particular forms of,

15:16 - of identity or membership. But if you think about citizens of having an attachment to the territory on which citizenship entitles them to live, it is in their self-interest as well as in the interest of the, both, the both people individually and people as, as members of the common citizenry, to look after that territory and not to damage the institutions of democracy that allow people to live freely, as equals, in, in, in the sort of ideal circumstances, where,

15:50 - where one bene, one, one shares the benefits of democratic institutions in, in particular territories. So if you think of it, of citizenship as like membership of, of a shared house, the citizens have the key to the house. they live, you know, they may have their own rooms in the house, but they have a sort of a cooperative identity, and it's not in their interest to do things that are damaging either to their, to their particular part

16:15 - of the house or to anyone's part of the house, because it is a shared territory that they have in common. And it is in their interest, their self-interest, as well as in their common interest that they look after that space. That I think, is the alternative to thinking about citizenship, the citizenship bond as being one which, relies upon unalterable, or exclusionary, characteristics like ethnicity or religion. I hope that readers are curious about these questions

16:47 - that they take from looking at the book. an interest in an attitude of self-questioning about assumptions and an interest in what it means to be, in particular, to be a member of a democratic policy. What is it we share with others? How, how best can we protect the institutions of self, of democratic self-government? And above all, I want people to be, to question what they can ask of governments

17:13 - and what we can do also to protect the institutions that protect us and the territory that we share as citizens.

Faculti AI can make mistakes