The Question of Duty and Law in Society - Essay Example

? For any civilized society the question of duty and rights is of paramount importance. For smooth functioning of society rights and duties are givento the people. Rights are the privileges that an individual enjoys in any society. They are according to the norms of the society and are legal. As rights and duties are linked therefore individual rights generally provide legal status and protection for the individual, they also carry with them responsibilities of citizenship (Delanty, 2000). An individual can only fight for rights if the individual understands rights. It is for this reason that arbiters of rights are always under scrutiny and lot of discussion goes on regarding the role and task of rights arbitrator for informing people regarding their rights. The question of rights has always challenged political philosopher and thinkers. The question has also tested the wits of moral thinkers as it is one of the fundamental issues of morality. Since, philosophy started in ancient Greece therefore early thought had Greek city state or polis in mind and for this reason the application of rights focused on the relationship of individual and polis. As such, the idea of rights is mainly based on the responsibilities of the individual citizen to the wider polis (Delanty, 2000). Individual submitted before the authority of polis for the protection of his life and limb. The concept of rights in the ancient world was related with area and territory. The concept of citizenship was firmly based on birth. Therefore, the development and application of rights has traditionally been firmly linked with a concept of territorial integrity (Lister & Pia, 2008). Modern concept of Western nationalism has firmly established the link between rights and territorial integrity, which was originally formed in ancient Greece and practiced in Roman Empire. The nation state as we currently understand it has developed over a period of some 500 years on continental Europe and slowly progressed to become the key form of political organisation and the final foundation of international relations (Held, 1995). This nation state system has restricted rights to territorial integrity like never before and has greatly influenced the thinking of political philosophers. The concept of nationality, which was the natural outcome of nation state, has profoundly affected all thinkers and writers. Nationality and the nation state have always been linked; as a result, a similar link has been formed between the concept of rights and the foundation of nationality (Held, 1995). This strong link of rights and nationality continued on for a long period of time but development in science and technology along with better communication has brought significant changes in the outlook and approach of thinkers. Many factors are responsible for the changed attitude but three primary processes account for this attempt to revise the idea of rights. Firstly, migration has brought phenomenal changes in the concept of nationality. Secondly, the formation of regional political structures has meant that concepts of regional citizenship have taken firm ground. Numerous examples of regional bodies can be found; however, possibly the most significant at the present time is the European Union (Faist, 2007). Finally with advent of Information Technology the concept of globalisation has become a byword. The commencement of globalisation and the necessary political responses that have been taken have led many to question whether basing rights on nationality is applicable in an unified and mutually dependent world (Held, 1995). This concept of globalisation has questioned the link of rights and territory. Above all, as globalisation has increasingly served to de-link individuals and societies from the national setting, the idea that rights can be founded on the basis of national territory has been greatly criticised (Held, 1995). Considering the above assessment, the purpose of this work is to assess and examine whether, or should the application of rights be based on nationality. The concept of right is still linked with national state and it cannot be overlooked. However, regionalism and globalisation have played significant role in changing the concepts regarding rights and nationality. The concepts of global rights and cosmopolitan rights have become prevalent. Given this, this work offers accord with the assessment presented by thinkers such as David Held. Namely, that the traditional understanding of rights as being something inextricably linked to territorial nationality is no longer viable in a world embodied by regionalism and globalisation (Held, 1995). Thus, suggestion that rights should be formed at the global level through the imposition of cosmopolitan democracy is an attractive proposal and a practical method of developing effective rights in an ever changing world. Before discussing the issue it is better to give a cursory look at some theories of rights and citizenship. As mentioned earlier, the idea of rights as understood in the modern setting have their basis in the ancient Greece. In Hellenic world the application of rights was based primarily on the democratic principles, however, it is equally important to point out the extent to which ancient Greek rights had firm foundations within a specific territorial area (Held, 1995). The ancient Greek rights application was centred on the city state or polis. Therefore some rights were formed on the basis of membership or residence of a city. Another interesting aspect is that despite good relations of city states the rights of citizen did not transcend the territory of the city state. Thus, the earliest establishment of rights was ultimately based on territorial foundations and therefore inextricably linked to early concepts of nationality (Delanty, 2000). Nationality was at the core of all the concepts of rights along with the notions of democracy and citizenship. During the Middle Ages, the concept was broaden with the increase in the kingdom size of any monarch, but real development came with the concept of modern Western Nationalism. The whole idea is based on territorial integrity. Therefore it is necessary to look at the concept of nation state for the present work aims and objectives. Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century saw the development of modern nation states in Europe, along with Renaissance. The nominal date ascribed to the full establishment of the nation state system as we presently understand it is 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia (Held, 1995). This treaty is a milestone as it defined the functions of states and limited the scope of church. This was a major shift as it represented new rules and new conditions for the people. The ideas about people rights also changed as the dependence on people for good governance increased in the changed circumstances. Philosophers and thinkers started to give new ideas about rights. They deemed rights necessary for development of peaceful and prosperous society. There was some disagreement regarding relationship of individual and state. For example, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes suggested that a social contract exists between the individual and the higher political body, which in Hobbes view was the monarch (Lessonoff, 1990). According to Hobbes the agreement between an individual and monarch ensured the protection of life an individual but it also granted unlimited authority to monarch. However this view was challenged. John Locke differed from Hobbes on many points of social contract particularly about the nature of man in natural state. Despite all the differences between these two thinkers they were on agreement that the application of rights lie firmly within the boundaries of the nation state. The present conditions of rights have the same political construction as was during the era of Hobbes or Locke. Nation state has been the centre of sovereignty for many centuries and is still doing this job. Therefore it is natural to consider the nation state mentioned above before making any supposition or idea regarding rights. Our understanding is largely influenced by the concept of nation state and nationality, when it comes to rights of people and this should not come as a surprise as the relation of rights and nationality existed for a long period of time. Any change in the concepts regarding rights has to be understood with the contemporary changes in the concept of modern nation state. The weak link which started in ancient Greece has become a strong factor with passage of time and this cannot be ignored. As mentioned earlier, during latter part of this work the thesis will be emphasizing that regionalism and globalisation have worked radically to undermine the concept of rights as being something essentially linked to the nation state. However, for balancing the views, it is important to discuss modern theories of international relations which propagate that the foundations of rights remains as centred on nationality and the nation state as it was in the past centuries. In this regard special mention of realism is necessary which has much to propose the idea that rights remain founded on nationality. Above all, Donnelly (2000) suggests that realism presents a point of view which depends heavily on the nation state as a unitary political actor and the eventually guardian of political sovereignty. States act in self interest in their relations with other. National interest is an important aspect of realism and this is related with our current work objectives. For realists the nation state is the only political entity which capable of ensuring that individual rights are maintained and this because of the sovereign foundations of the nation state itself (Donnelly, 2000). For realist it is imperative to conceptualise rights within the framework of the nation state because no other political entity is capable of exhibiting the necessary sovereign power required to protect rights (Donnelly, 2000). Realism continues to dominate international relations and states relationships in modern era, therefore it is not possible to overlook or underestimate the influence of realism on theory of rights in modern era. It is still common to consider rights in relation with state and boundaries of the state. Any attempt to challenge the position of state as sovereign will have adverse effects on rights also because state is the custodian of rights. Weak states are not supposed to give rights to individual. Furthermore, rights on the basis of nationality is totally dependent on the continued propagation of a specific demographic within nation states, thus, any change in demographics within nation states would without doubt bring the link between nationality and the propagation of rights under sever pressure. Thus, it is now essential to look at the challenges that have been posed to the link between rights and nationality. Above all, Hudson & Slaughter (2007) propose that three contemporary processes have served to place the link between rights and nationality under severe strain. These three processes are; changing demographics within nation states, the development of regionalism, and the ongoing process of globalisation (Hudson & Slaughter, 2007). Thus, in order to present the main thesis of this work, it is important to focus these apparent changes to detailed assessment and in doing so, emphasize the degree to which the foundation of rights is swiftly moving away from concepts of nationality. Firstly, demographic changes within nation states are suggested by Castles & Davidson (2000) to have brought about a major change in the perception of rights as something inherently linked to nationality. In particular, immense movements and migrations of peoples after the collapse of colonialism have resulted in creating cultural, ethnic and national diversity in majority of modern nation states, specially those in the west (Kymlicka, 1995)). Therefore, with this fact in mind that diversity in nationality is becoming a constant feature of modern state it is difficult to retain the same relationship of rights and nationality. Furthermore in modern era nationality is often now detached from nation state and the concept of one unified nation is no longer the only option. From this the logical end is that if the homogenous nature of nationality itself can be questioned then the link between nationality and rights is also questioned. Despite the fact that demographic changes are going on rapidly in modern nation states the question of rights is still on the same old political ground because the sovereign status of nation is still present. However, regionalism has brought about some changes in the concepts regarding rights. The best example of regionalism is without doubt the European Union (EU). However, there are other examples also such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). However it is the development of the EU which, has brought into to question the significance of basing rights on nationality. Regarding sovereignty the position of the EU is unique as the organisation represents a supranational political organisation which exercises direct political sovereignty over member states. The EU has shown that how regionalism has created division in the application of rights. Rights are demanded at both the national and regional level, leading Faist (2007) to conclude that the EU represents the model of post-national citizenship. Despite the fact that the concepts regarding rights in Europe remain primarily based on concepts of nationality, the regionalisation of rights has greatly shaken the assumptions that claim nationality is the only gauge of rights and liberties (Faist, 2007). When it comes to authority of sovereignty, issues and policy areas that are part of the regional level in Europe overtakes the sovereignty of member states. There rights established at European level are granted at national level of all member states irrespective of local political condition. Finally, the issue of globalisation has a huge impact on any thesis arguing that the link between rights and nationality has been broken or weaken. Above all, Vandenberg (2000) suggests that globalisation and its impacts are increased by rapid and strong interconnection in economics, politics and culture. As such, inter-territorial connections are present now at a level far beyond the traditional nation state. Many commentators are of the opinion that the current trend of globalisation has given a big blow to the nation state redundant as a unitary political actor proficient in exerting sovereign control over a territorial area (Hutchings & Dannreuther, 1999). This opinion may be somewhat rash, however, the fact remains that globalisation has played a major role in the radical shifting of the understanding of rights as something founded on the concept of nationality. Responding to the global events, political organisations have developed themselves at the international level. As nation states are constantly displaying their inability to protect inherent rights in this global village there is need for the formation of global rights based on cosmopolitan citizenship and this has been a consistent feature of recent developments (Hutchings & Dannreuther, 1999). From the above points it is evident that the traditional concepts of regarding rights and nationality as one have been challenged and shaken by changing demography, increasing role of regionalism and rapid development of globalisation. However, in appropriating successful ways in which the claim of rights should build up in the future, it is still the issue of nationality which serves as the most relevant and rampant factor. In fact, as mentioned, demographic changes have little impact to modify political sovereignty, while post-national citizenship can only be manifested in relation to the EU. Consequently, it is the issue of globalisation that one must look for in order to find any change in the future. Globalisation has forced many commentators to ask for clear provision of rights at international level. Of course, many such rights by now exist; still, leading thinkers such as Held (1995) propose that these initial rights need to be driven on the foundation of cosmopolitan citizenship. Therefore, in Held’s (1995) view, it is very important that internationally based rights are powerfully recognized at the international level. However, a constant difficulty comes to the surface in relation to this suggestion. The problem is regarding the issue of democracy. The application of rights on the basis of nationality is best served through the governance processes that occur from democracy. Hence, democracy and the successful propagation of rights often go hand in hand. Therefore, Held (1995) argues that democracy is to be established at global level so that it paves the way for the formation of rights on an accountable and legitimate basis internationally. This suggestion has strong validity. Above all, Held’s (1995) postulation that the formation of global democratic governance and the imposition of rights could be developed through an extension of the existing United Nations structure is fairly convincing. Therefore, it is possible to agree with the idea of cosmopolitan citizenship and the development of clear and extensive rights at the global level. This is especially appealing if we keep in mind the context of a globalised and interconnected world. It can be effectively argued that the establishment of rights on the basis of global, as opposed to national citizenship is crucial. It is obviously clear to see how globalisation has changed the relationship of rights and nationality; moreover it has fundamentally delinked the application of rights with the concept of nationality and the nation state. In conclusion, this work agrees with the idea that globalisation has resulted in a tremendous shift in the sovereign power base of conventional political actors. Above all, although the nation state is still an indispensable part of political construction in the modern situation, the realist argument that nation states are the only central custodians of sovereign power and the protectors of rights is on shaky ground. As such, the thesis of this work remains convinced that it is now required to set up clear and unambiguous rights at the global level. Moreover, for making these rights firmly based on the foundation of legitimacy and accountability, it is clearly required that democracy at the international level be established. Indeed, Held’s suggestion that the United Nations structure is to be developed as a major contributor in cosmopolitan citizenship and global democracy is both acceptable and attractive. In many respects the application of rights remains based on concept of nationality but this foundation of rights has changed clearly in recent times. There is no doubt that such changes will continue in the future, thus, the imposition of rights and democracy at the global level is clearly essential in order to accommodate and prepare for the changes that are drastically disturbing political structure in the new millennium. Bibliography Castles, Stephen and Alastair Davidson (2000) Citizenship and Migration: Globalization and the Politics of Belonging. London: Palgrave, pp. 3-26. Delanty, Gerard (2000) Citizenship in a Global Age. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 14-39. Donnelly, Jack (2000) Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4-9. Faist, Thomas (2007) Dual Citizenship in Europe: from nationhood to societal integration. London: Ashgate, pp. 6-19. Held, David (1995) Democracy and the Global Order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 8-48. Held, David (1999) Global Transformations: politics, economics and culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 25-40. Hudson, Wayne and Steven Slaughter (eds) (2007) Globalisation and Citizenship: The Transnational Challenge. London: Routledge, pp. 3-12. Hutchings, Kimberly and Roland Dannreuther (eds) (1999) Cosmopolitan Citizenship: London: Macmillan, pp. 52-59. Kymlicka, Will (1995) Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 74-78. Lessonoff, Michael (1990) Social Contract Theory. New York: New York University Press, pp. 10-18. Lister, Michael & Pia, Emily (2008) Citizenship and Contemporary Europe. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 8-24. Vandenberg, Andrew (ed.) (2000) Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Era. London: Macmillan, pp. 93-96. Read More