Chapter 7

Global
Citizenship

Meaning and Usage of Global Citizenship

Global Citizenship refers to the rights, responsibilities and duties that come with being a
member of global entity as a citizen of a particular nation or place. The iedea is that one’s idea
transcends geography or political borders and that responsibilities or rights are derived from
membership in a broader class: “humanity”. This does not mean that such a person denounces or
waives their nationality or other, more local identities, but such identities are given “second place” to
their membership in a global community. Extended, the idea leads to questions about the state of
global society in the age of globalization. In general usage, the term may have much the same
meaning as “world citizen” or cosmopolitan, but it also has additional, specialized meanings in differing
contexts. Various organizations, such as the World Service Authority, have advocated global
citizenship.

Usage of Global Citizenship

It is used in education, philosophy, psychological studies, human rights, in suppot of global
government.
A. Global Citizenship as Used in Education

In education, the term is most often used to describe a worldview or a set of values toward
which education is oriented (see, for example, the priorities of the Global Education First Initiative led
by the Secretary-General of the United Nations). The term “global society” is sometimes used to
indicate a global studies set of learning objectives for students to prepare them for global citizenship.

1. Global Citizenship Education

Within the educational system, the concept of global citizenship education (GCED) is beginning
to suprsede or overarch movements such as multicultural education, peace education, human rights
education, Education for Sustainavle Develoment and international education. Additionally, GCED
rapidly incorporates references to the aforementioned movements. The concept of global citizenship
has been linked with awards offered for helping humanity. Teachers are being given the responsibility
of being social change agents. Audrey Osler, director of the Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights
Education, the University of Leeds, affirms that “Education for living together in an interdependent
world is not optional extra, but an essential foundation”.
 With GCED gaining attention, scholars are investigating the field and developing perspectives.
The following are a few of the more common perspectives:

​ Critical and transformative perspective. Citizenship is defined by being a member with

rights and responsibilities. Therefore, GCED must encourage active involvement. GCED can
be taught from a critical and transformative perspective, whereby students are thinking, feeling,
and doing. In this approach, GCED requires students to be politically critical and personally
transformative. Teachers provide social issues in a neutral and grade-appropriate way for
students to understand, grapple with, and do something about.

​ Worldmindedness. Graham Pike and David Selby view GCED ass having two strands.
Worldmindedness, the first strand, refers to understanding the world as one unified system and
a responsibility to view the interests of individual nations with the overall needs of the planet in
mind. The second strand, Child-centeredness, is a pedagogical appraoch that encourages
students to explore and discover on their own and addresses each learner as an individual with
inimitable beliefs, experiences, and talens.

​ Holistic Understanding. The Holistic Understanding perspective was founded by Merry

Merryfield, focusing on understanding the self in relation to a global community. This
perspective follows a curriculum that attends to human values and beliefs, global systems,
issues, history, cross-cultural understandings, and the development of analytical and evaluative
skills.

2. Global Citizenship as Used in Philosophy

Global citizenship, in some contexts, may refer to a brand of ethics or political philosophy in
which it is proposed that the core social, political, economic and environmental realities of the world
today should be addressed at all levels – by individuals, civil society organizations, communities and
nation states – through a global lens. It refers to a broad, culturally- and environmentally-inclusive
world view that accepts the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Political, geographic borders
become irrelevant and solutions to today’s challenges are seen to be beyond the narrow vision of
national interests. Proponents of this philosophy often point to Diogenes of Sinope (c. 412 B.C.) as an
example, given his reported declaration that “I am a citizen of the world (cosmopolites)” in response to
a question about his place of origin. A Sanskrit term, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, has the meaning of
“the world is one family”. The earliest reference to this phrase is found in the Hitopadesha, a collection
of parables. In the Mahopanishad VI.71-73, slokas describe how one finds the Brahman (the one
supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe). The statement is
not just about peace and harmony among the societies in the world, but also about a truth that
somehow the whole world has to live together like a family.

3. Global Citizenship as Used in Psychological Studies

Recently, global pollsters and psychologists have studied individual differences in the sense of
global citizenship. Beginning in 2005, the World Values Survey, administered across almsot 100
countries, included the statement, “I see myself as a world citizen.” For smaller studies, several
multi-item scales have been developed, including Sam McFarland and colleagues’ Identification with
All Humanity scale (e.g., “How much do you identify with (that is, feel a part of, feel love toward, have
concern for)... all humans everywhere?”), Anna Malsch and Alan Omoto’s Psychological Sense of
Global Community (e.g., “I feel a sense of connection to people all over the world, evein if I don’t know
them personally”), Gerhard Reese and colleagues’ Global Social Identity scale (e.g. “I feel strongly
connected to the world community as a whole.”), and Stephen Reysen and Katzarska-Miller’s global
citizenship identification scale (e.g., “I strongly identify with global citizens.”). These measures are
strongly related to one another, but they are not fully identical.

Studies of the psychological roots of global citizenship have found that persons high in global
citizenship are also high on the personality traits of openness to experience and agreeableness from
the Big Five personality traits and high in empathy and caring. Oppositely, the authoritarian
personality, the social dmoinance orientation and psychopathy are all associated with less global
human identification. Some of these traits are infulenced by heredity as well as by early experiences,
which, in turn, likely influence individuals’ receptiveness to global human identification.

Research has found that those who are high in global human identification are less prejudiced
toward many groups, care more about international human rights, worldwide inequality, global poverty
and human suffering. They attend more actively to global concerns, value the lives of all human beings
more equally, and give more in time and money to international humanitarian causes. They tend to be
more politically liberal on both domestic and international issues. They want their countries to do more
to alleviate global suffering.

Following a social identity approach, Reysen and Katzarska-Miller tested a model showing the
antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship identification (i.e., degree of psychological
connectionwith global citizens). Individuals’ normative environment (the cultural environment in which
one is embedded contains people, artifacts, cultural patterns that promote viewin the self as a global
citizen) and global awareness (perceiving oneself as aware, knowledgeable, and connected to otehrs
in the world) predict global citizenship identification. Global citizenship identification then predict six
broad categories of prosocial behaviors and values, including: intergroup empathy, valuing diversity,
social justice, environmental sustainability, intergroup helping, and a felt responsibility to act.
Subsequent research has examined variables that influecne the model such as: participation in a
college course with global components, perception of one’s global knowledge, college professors’
attitudes toward global citizenship, belief in an intentional worlds view of culture, participation in a fan
group that promotes the identity, use of global citizen related words when describing one’s values,
possible self as a global citizen, religiosity and religious orientation, threat to one’s nation
interdependent self-construal prime, perception of the university environment, and social media usage.

4. Global Citizen is Used in Other Aspects: Geography, Sovereignty, and Mere

Citizenship
At the same time that globalization is reducing the importance of nations-statess, the idea of
global citizenship may require a redefinition of ties between civic engagement and geography.
Face-to-face town hall meetings seem increasingly supplanted by electronic “town halls” not limited by
space and time. Absentee

ballots opened the way for expatriated to vote while living in another country; the Internet may carry
this several steps further. Another interpretation given by several schoalrs of the changing
configurations of citizenship due to globalization is the possibility that citizenship becomes a changed
institution; even if situated within territorial boundaries that are national, if the meaning of the national
itself has changed, then the meaning of being a citizen of that nation changes.

Tension among Local, National, and Global Forces

An interesting feature of globalization is that, while the world is being internationalized, it’s also
being localized at the same time. [32] The world shrinks as the local community (village, town, city)
takes on greater and greater importance. This is reflected in the term glocalization, a portmanteau of
the words “global” and “local”. Mosco (1999) noted this feature andssaw the growing importance of
technopoles. [33] If this trend is true, it seems global citizens may be the glue that holds these
separate entities together. Put another way, global citizens are people who can travel within these
carious boundaries and somehow still make sense of the world through a global lens.

Globalization Citizenship as Used in Human Rights

The lack of a universally recognized world body can put the initiative upon global citizens
themselves to create rights and obligations. Rights and oligations as they arose at the formation of
nation-states (e.g. the right to vote and obligation to serve in time of war) are being expanded. Thus,
new concepts that accord certain “human rights” which arose in the 20th century are increasingly being
universalized across nations and governments. This is the result of many factors, including the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations in 1948, the aftermath of World War 2
and the Holocaust and growing sentiments towards legitimizing marginalized peoples (e.g.,
pre-industrialized peoples found in the jungles of Brazil and Borneo). Couple this with growing
awareness of our impact on the environment, and there is the rising feeling that citizen rights may
extend to include the right to dignity and self-determination. If national citizenship does not foster
these new rights, then global citizenship may seem more accesible.

One cannot overestimate the importance of human rights discourse in shaping public opinion.
What are the rights and obligations of human beings trapped in conflicts? Or, incarcerated as part of
ethnic cleansing? Equally striking, are the pre-industrialized tribes newly discovered by scientists living
in the depths of dense jungle? These rights can be equated with the rise of global citizenship as
normative associations, indicating a national citizenship model that is more closed and a global
citizenship one that is more flexible and inclusive. If true, this places a strain in the relationship
between national and global citiznship.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

On December 10,1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution No. 217-A
(111), also known as “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Article 1 states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and sonscience and should act towards one another on a spirit of brotherhood.”

Articel 2 states that “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall
be made on the basis of the political, juridisctional or international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other
limitation of sovereignty.”

Article 13(2) states that “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to
return to his country.”

As evidence in today’s modern world, events such as the Trial of Saddam Hussein have
proven what British jurist A. V. Dicey said in 1885, when he popularized the phrase “rule of law” in
1885. Dicey emphasized three aspects of the rule of law:

1. No one can be punished or made to suffer except for a breach of law proved in an ordinary
court.

2. No one is above the law and everyone is equal before the law regardless of social, economic,
or political status.

Global Citizen (or World Citizen)

 A global citizen is a person who places global citizenship above every nationalistic or local
idealities and relationships.

An early expression of the term globalization is mentioned in Diogenes of Sinope (412 BC),
who is the founding father of the cynic movement in Ancient Greece. Diogenes was asked and said:
“Asked where he came from, he answered: ‘I am a citizen of the world (comsmopolities)’”. This was a
ground-breaking concept of a global citizen because the broadest basis of social identity in Greece at
the time was either the individual city-state of the Greeks city-state or the Greeks (Hellenes) as a
group. The Tamil poet Kaniyan Poongundran wrote in Purananunuru, “To us all towns are one, all men
our kin.” In later years, political philosopher Thomas Paine would declare, “my country is the world,
and my religion is to do good.” Today, the increasea in worldwide globalization has led to the formation
of a “world citizen” social movement udner a proposed world government. In a non-political definition,
it has been suggested that a world citizen may provide value to society by using knowledge acquired
across cultural contexts.

Albert Einstein described himself as a world citizen and supported the idea throughout his life,
famously saying “Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.” World citizenship
has been promoted by distinguished people including Garry Davis, who lived for 60 years as a citzen
of no nation, only the world. Davis founded the World Service Authoirity in Washington, DC, which
sells World Passports, a fantasy passport to world citizens. In 1956 Hugh J. Schonfield founded the
Commonwealth of World Citizens, later known by its Esperanto name “Modcivitana Respubliko”, which
also issued a world passport; it declined after the 1980s.

The Baha’i faith promotes the concept through its founder’s proclamation (in the late 19th
centruy) that “The Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.” As a term defined by the Baha’i
International Community in a concept paper shared at the 1st session of the United Nations
Commission on Sustainble Development, New York, U.S.A. on 14-25 June 1993. “world citizenship
begins with an acceptance of the onenesss of the human family and the interconnectedness of the
nations of ‘the earth, our home.’ While it encouarges a sane and legitimate patriotism, it also insists
upon a wider loyalty, a love of humanity as whole. It does not, however imply abandonment of
legitimate loyatlies, the suppression of cultural diversity, the abolition of national autonomy , nor th
imposition of uniformity. Its hallmark is ‘unity in diversity.’ World citizenship encompasses the principles
of social and economic justice, both within and between nations; non-adversarial deciion making at all
levels of society; equality of the sexes; racial, ethnic, national and religious harmony; and the
willingness to sacrifice for the common good. Other facets of world citizenship – including the
promotion of human honor and dignity, understanding, amity, co-operation, trustworthiness,
compassion and the desire to serve – can be deduced from those already mentioned.”
Mundialization (French, mondialisation)
As a philosophy, this term seems to be a response to globalization’s “dehumanization through
planetarization”, as quoted from Teilhard de Chardin. The early use of the term mundialization was
the safe to the act of a city or a lcoal authority declaring itself as a “world citizen” city by voting a
charter stating its awareness of global problems and its sense of shared responsibility. The concept
was promoted by the self-declared World Citizen Garry Davis in 1949, as a logical extension of the
idea od individuals declaring themselves world citizens, and promoted by Robert Sarrazac, a former
leader of the French Resistance who created the Human Front of World Citizens in 1945. The first city
to be officially mundialised was the small French city of Cahors (only 20,000 in 2006), the capital city
of the Departement of Lot in central France, on 20 July 1949. Hundreds of cities mundialised
hemselves over a few years, most of them in France, and then it spread internationally, including to
many German cities and to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In less than a year, 10 General Councils (the
elected councils of the French “Departements”), and hundreds of cities in France covering 3.4 million
inhabitants voted mundialisation charters. One of the goals was to elect one delegate per million
inhabitants to a People’s World Constitutional Convention given the already then historical failure of
the United Nations in creating a global institution able to negotiate a final world peace. To date, more
than 1000 cities and towns have declared themselves World cities, including Beverly Hills, Los
Angeles, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Toronto, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Nivelles, and Konigswinter.

As a social movement, mundialization expresses the solidarity of populations of the globe and
aims to establish institutions and supranational laws of a federative structure common to them, while
respecting the diversity of cultures and peoples. The movement advocates for a new political
organization governing all humanity, involving the transfer of certain parts of national sovereignty to a
Federal World Authority, Federal World Government and Federal World Court. Basing its authority on
the will of thepeople and developing new systems to draw the highest and best wisdom of all humanity
into the task of governing our world, the collaborative governing system would be capable of solving
the problems which call into question the future of man, such as hunger, water, war, peace-keeping,
pollution and energy. The mundialization movement includes the declaration of specified territory – a
city, town, or state, for example – as world territory, with responsibilities and rights on a world scale.
Currently the nation-state system and the United Nations offer no way for the people of the world to
vote for world officials or participate in governing our world. International treaties or agreements lack
the force of law. Mundilization seeks to address this lack by presenting a way to build, one city at a
time, such a system of true World Law based upon the sovereignty of the whole.

Earth Anthem
 Shashi Tharoor, an author, feels that an Earth Anthem sung by people across the world can
inspire planetary consciousness and global citizenship people. This author suggests that the students
of this course should write the lyrics of an Earth Anthem with musical composition.

In addition, they should also compse the World Pledge (Panatang Pandaigdig)

Criticism of Global Citizenship

Various writers and authors criticized the use and practice of global citizenship. Not all people
of the world like the idea of having a global citizenship. For example, Parekh advocates what he calls
globally oriented he calls globally oriented citizenship, and states, “If global citizenship means being a
citizen of the world, it is neither practicable nor desirable.” He argues that global citizenship, defined as
an actual membership of a type of worldwide government system, is impractical and dislocated from
one’s immediate community. He also notes that such a world state would ineveitable be “remote,
bureaucratic, oppresive, and culturally bland.” Parekh presents his alternative option with the
statement: “Since the conditions of life of our fellow human beings in distant parts ofthe world should
be a matter of deep moral and political concern to us, our citizenship has an inescapable global
dimension, and we should aim to become what i might call a globally oriented citizen.” Parekh’s
concept of globally oriented citizenship consists of identifying with and strengthening ties towards
one’s political regional community (whether in its current state or an improved, revised form), while
recognizing and acting upon obligations towards others in the rest of the world.

Michael Byers, a professor in Political Science at the University of British Columbia, questions
the assumption that there is sone definition of global citizenship, and unpacks aspects of potential
definitions. In the introduction to his public lecture, the UBC Internalization website states, “’Global
citizenship’ remains undefined. What, if anything, does it really mean? Is global citizenship just the
latest buzzword?” Byers notes the existence of stateless persons, whom he remarks ought tou be
the primary candidates for global citizenship, yet continue to live without access to basci freedoms and
citizenship rights. Byers does not oppose the concept of global citizenship, however he criticizes
potential implications of the term depending on one’s definition of it, such as ones that provide support
for the “ruthlessly capitalist economic system that now dominates the planet.” Byers states that global
citizenship is a “powerful term” because “people that invoke it do so to provoke and justify action,” and
encourages that attendees of his lectrue to re-appropriate it in order for its meaning to have a postive
purpose, based on idealistic values.

Neither is criticism of global citizenship anything new. Gouverneur Morris, a delegate to the
Consitutional Convention (United States), criticized “citizens of the world” while he was on the floor of
the convention; August 9, 1787. “As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as
they call themselves, He owned he did not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. He would
not trust them. The men who can shake off their attachments to their own Country can never love any
other. These attachments are the wholesome prejudices which uphold all Governments, admit a
Frenchman into you Senate, and he will study to increase the commerce of France: an Englishman,
and he will feel an equal bias in favor of that of England.”

The Rights and Responsibilities of Global Citizenship

By Ron Israel, Co-Founder and Director, The Global Citizen’s Initiative

July, 2015

A global citizen is someone who sees themselves as part of an emerging sustainable world
community, and whose actions support the values and practices of the community. Many people today
identify with being a global citizens as more and more aspects of their lives become globalized.

Being a global citizen does not mean that you have to give up the other citizenship identities
you already have, e.g. your country citizenship, your allegiance to your local community, religious, or
ethnic group. Being a global citizen just means that you have another year layer of identity (with the
planet as a whole) added on to who you are. And if you take that identity seriously, there are a new set
of rights and responsibilities that come with it.

Global Citizenship Rights

The rights of global citizens are imbedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, first
drafted in 1948 after World War 2. The core nature of the Universal Declaration – grounded in
individual liberty, equality, and equity – has remained constant. However, the ways in human rights are
applied change over time, with changes that occur in the political, economic and social fabric of
society. Also new rights, that were not on the 1948 human rights agenda have emerged, for example,
digital access rights, LGBT rights, and environmental rights. Some people cite the emergence of new
rights and changing political systems as calling forth the need for an updated Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.

The main problem related to human rights has been the difficulties that the world has ahd in
enforcing them. There is a long and shameful history of disrespect for and abuse of human rights on
the part of sovereign states, religious institutions, corporations and others. A growing number of
international mechanisms have been established for reporting human right abuses. There are also
global, regional, and national courts that exist to adjudicate incidences of human rights abuse. Yet,
unfortunately human rights enforcement mechanisms still have limited legal jurisdiction, and many
states have not agreed to participate in them. This is yet another reason for a review and upadte of
our current human rights policies and programs.
Global Citizen Responsibilities
A global citizen, living in an emerging world community, has moral, ethical, political, and
economic responsibilities. These responsibilities include:

1. Responsibility to understand one’s own perspective and the perspectives of others

on global issues. Almost every global issue has multiple ethnic, social, political, and
economic perspectives attached to it. It is the responsibility of global citizens to understand
these different perspectives and promote problem-solving consensus among the different
perspectives and the building of common ground solutions. A global citizen should avoid
taking sides with one particular point of view, and instead search for ways to bring all sides
together.

2. Responsibity to respect the principle of cultural diversity: The multiple perspectives

that exist with most global issues often are a reflection of different cultural belief stystems.
Each of our major cultural belief systems brings value-added to our search for solutions to
the global issues we face. In building a sustainable values-based world community it is
important to maintain respect for the world’s different cultural traditions; to make an effort
to bring together the leaders of these different cultural traditions who often have much in
common with one another; and to help leaders bring the best elements of their cultures to
the task of solving global issues and building world community.

3. Responsibility to make coneections and build relationships with people from other
countries and cultures. Global citizens need to reach out and build relationships with
people from other countries and cultures. Otherwise we will continue to live in isolated
communities with narrow conflict-prone points of view on global issues. Irt is quite easy to
build global relationships. Most countries, cities, and towns are now poulated with
immigrants an people from different ethnic traditions. The Internet offers a range of
opporunities to connect with people on different issues. So even without traveling abroad
(which is a useful thing to do), it is possible to build a network of personal group
cross-country and cultural relationships. Building such networks help those involved better
understand their similarities and differences and search for common solutions for the
global issues that everyone faces.

4. Responsibility to understand the ways in which the poples and countries of the
world are inter-connected and inter-dependent: Global citizens have the responsibility
to understand the many ways in which their lives are inter-connected with people and
countries in different parts of the world. They need for example to udnerstand they ways in
 whcih the global environment affects them where they live, and how the environmental
lifestyles they choose affect the environment in other parts of the world. They need to
understand the ways in which human rights violations in foreign countries affect their own
human rights, how growing income inequalities across the world affect the qualit of their
lives, how the global tide of immigration affects what goes on in their countries.\

5. Responsibility to understand global issues: Global citizens have the responsibility to

understand the major global issues that affect their lives. Foe example, they need to
understand the impact of the scarcity of resources on societies; the challenges presented
by the current distribution of wealth and power in the world; the roots of conflict and
dimensions of peace-building; the challenges posed by a growing global population.

6. Responsibility to advoate for greater international cooperation with other nations:

Global citizens need to pay activist roles in urging greater international cooperation
between their nation and others. When a global issues arises, it is important for global
citizens to provide advice on how their countries can work with other nations to address
this issue; how it can work with established international organizations like the United
Nations, rather than proceed on a unilateral course of action.

7. Responsibility for advocating for the implementation of international agreements,

conventions, treaties related to global issues: Global citizens have the responsiblitiy to
advocate for having their countries ratify and implement the global agreements,
conventions, and treaties that they have signed.

8. Responsibility for advocating for more effective global equity and justice in each of
the value domians of the world community. There are a growing number of
cross-sector issues that require the implementation of global standards of justice and
equity; for example, the global rise in military spending, the unequal access by different
countries to technology, the lac of consistent national policies on immigration. Global
citizens have the responsibility to work with one another and advocate for global equality
and justice solutions to these issues.

`Ethical Obligations of Global Citizens

 Various writers have the following ideas concerning the Global Citizen’s ethical
obligations:

1. From: Daisaku Ikeda

​ A global citizen has the wisdom to perceives the interconnectedness of all life and living.

​ The courage not to fear or deny difference; but to respect and strive to understand people
of different cultures, and to grow from encounters with them.

​ The compassion to maintain an imaginative empathy that reaches beyond one’s

immediate surroundings and extend to those suffering in distant places.

Thus, a global citizen has the ethical obligation of involvement and activity with the goal of
moving towards greater social justice in all dimensions of his life.

2. From Kwame Anthony Appiah, Professor of Philosophy at Princeton University

​ If you can prevent something bad from hapening at the cost of something less bad, you ought
to do it.

​ People have a right to the satisfaction of their basic needs such a health, food, shelter and
education. Our obligation is to help others satisfy their needs.

​ In any event, our highest duties are to those whom we are closest – family, friends.

According to Janet Keeping, President of Sheldong Cheuner Foundation for Ethics in Leadership
in Calgary, Alberta, global citizenship has no legal significance at the moment. Perhaps, as such it
never will. But the words often serve as a ralling cry for ethnically motivated to action on global
problems such as the AIDS pandemic. The concept is likely to contribute to call for more onerous
obligations in the powerful and fortunate in both international and domestic law – to share with those
who are less so.