@phdthesis{Ssembatya2021,
  author    = {Ssembatya, Anthony},
  title     = {Dual Citizenship: A comparative study of Kenya and Uganda},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-53118},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-531186},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {x, 177},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Kenya and Uganda are amongst the countries that, for different historical, political, and economic reasons, have embarked on law reform processes as regards to citizenship. In 2009, Uganda made provisions in its laws to allow citizens to have dual citizenship while Kenya's 2010 constitution similarly introduced it, and at the same time, a general prohibition on dual citizenship was lifted, that is, a ban on state officers, including the President and Deputy President, being dual nationals (Manby, 2018). Against this background, I analysed the reasons for which these countries that previously held stringent laws and policies against dual citizenship, made a shift in a close time proximity. Given their geo-political roles, location, regional, continental, and international obligations, I conducted a comparative study on the processes, actors, impact, and effect. A specific period of 2000 to 2010 was researched, that is, from when the debates for law reforms emerged, to the processes being implemented, the actors, and the implications. According to Rubenstein (2000, p. 520), citizenship is observed in terms of "political institutions" that are free to act according to the will of, in the interests of, or with authority over, their citizenry. Institutions are emergent national or international, higher-order factors above the individual spectrum, having the interests and political involvement of their actors without requiring recurring collective mobilisation or imposing intervention to realise these regularities. Transnational institutions are organisations with authority beyond single governments. Given their International obligations, I analysed the role of the UN, AU, and EAC in influencing the citizenship debates and reforms in Kenya and Uganda. Further, non-state actors, such as civil society, were considered. Veblen, (1899) describes institutions as a set of settled habits of thought common to the generality of men. Institutions function only because the rules involved are rooted in shared habits of thought and behaviour although there is some ambiguity in the definition of the term "habit". Whereas abstracts and definitions depend on different analytical procedures, institutions restrain some forms of action and facilitate others. Transnational institutions both restrict and aid behaviour. The famous "invisible hand" is nothing else but transnational institutions. Transnational theories, as applied to politics, posit two distinct forms that are of influence over policy and political action (Veblen, 1899). This influence and durability of institutions is "a function of the degree to which they are instilled in political actors at the individual or organisational level, and the extent to which they thereby "tie up" material resources and networks. Against this background, transitional networks with connection to Kenya and Uganda were considered alongside the diaspora from these two countries and their role in the debate and reforms on Dual citizenship. Sterian (2013, p. 310) notes that Nation states may be vulnerable to institutional influence and this vulnerability can pose a threat to a nation's autonomy, political legitimacy, and to the democratic public law. Transnational institutions sometimes "collide with the sovereignty of the state when they create new structures for regulating cross-border relationships". However, Griffin (2003) disagrees that transnational institutional behaviour is premised on the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Transnational institutions have become the main target of the lobby groups and civil society, consequently leading to excessive politicisation. Kenya and Uganda are member states not only of the broader African union but also of the E.A.C which has adopted elements of socio-economic uniformity. Therefore, in the comparative analysis, I examine the role of the East African Community and its partners in the dual citizenship debate on the two countries. I argue in the analysis that it is not only important to be a citizen within Kenya or Uganda but also important to discover how the issue of dual citizenship is legally interpreted within the borders of each individual nation-state. In light of this discussion, I agree with Mamdani's definition of the nation-state as a unique form of power introduced in Africa by colonial powers between 1880 and 1940 whose outcomes can be viewed as "debris of a modernist postcolonial project, an attempt to create a centralised modern state as the bearer of Westphalia sovereignty against the background of indirect rule" (Mamdani, 1996, p. xxii). I argue that this project has impacted the citizenship debate through the adopted legal framework of post colonialism, built partly on a class system, ethnic definitions, and political affiliation. I, however, insist that the nation-state should still be a vital custodian of the citizenship debate, not in any way denying the individual the rights to identity and belonging. The question then that arises is which type of nation-state? Mamdani (1996, p. 298) asserts that the core agenda that African states faced at independence was threefold: deracialising civil society; detribalising the native authority; and developing the economy in the context of unequal international relations. Post-independence governments grappled with overcoming the citizen and subject dichotomy through either preserving the customary in the name of "defending tradition against alien encroachment or abolishing it in the name of overcoming backwardness and embracing triumphant modernism". Kenya and Uganda are among countries that have reformed their citizenship laws attesting to Mamdani's latter assertion. Mamdani's (1996) assertions on how African states continue to deal with the issue of citizenship through either the defence of tradition against subjects or abolishing it in the name of overcoming backwardness and acceptance of triumphant modernism are based on the colonial legal theory and the citizen-subject dichotomy within Africa communities. To further create a wider perspective on legal theory, I argue that those assertions above, point to the historical divergence between the republican model of citizenship, which places emphasis on political agency as envisioned in Rousseau´s social contract, as opposed to the liberal model of citizenship, which stresses the legal status and protection (Pocock, 1995). I, therefore, compare the contexts of both Kenya and Uganda, the actors, the implications of transnationalism and post-nationalism, on the citizens, the nation-state and the region. I conclude by highlighting the shortcomings in the law reforms that allowed for dual citizenship, further demonstrating an urgent need to address issues, such as child statelessness, gender nationality laws, and the rights of dual citizens. Ethnicity, a weak nation state, and inconsistent citizenship legal reforms are closely linked to the historical factors of both countries. I further indicate the economic and political incentives that influenced the reform. Keywords: Citizenship, dual citizenship, nation state, republicanism, liberalism, transnationalism, post-nationalism},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Burkert2022,
  author    = {Burkert, Rebecca},
  title     = {Struggle for existence},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-54293},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-542937},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {XII, 239},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {In this project, I sought to understand how Palestinian claim-making in the West Bank is possible within the context of continuing Israeli occupation and repression by the Palestinian political leadership. I explored the questions of what channels non-state actors use to advance their claims, what opportunities they have for making these claims, and what challenges they face. This exploration covers the time period from the Oslo Accords in the mid-1990s to the so-called Great March of Return in 2018. I demonstrated that Palestinians used different modes and strategies of resistance in the past century, as the area of what today is Israel/Palestine has historically been a target for foreign penetration. Yet, the Oslo agreements between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership have ended Palestinians' decentralized and pluralist social governance, reinforced Israeli rule in the Palestinian territories, promoted continuing dispossession and segregation of Palestinians, and further restricted their rights and their claim-making opportunities until this day. Therefore, today, Palestinian society in the West Bank is characterized by fragmentation, geographical and societal segregation, and double repression by Israeli occupation and Palestinian Authority (PA) policies. What is more, Palestinian claim-making is legally curtailed due to the establishment of different geographical entities in which Palestinians are subjugated to different forms of Israeli rule and regulations. I argue that the concepts of civil society and acts of citizenship, which are often used to describe non-state actors' rights-seeking activities, fall short on understanding and describing Palestinian claim-making in the West Bank comprehensively. By determining their boundaries, the concept of acts of subjecthood evolved as a novel theoretical approach within the research process and as a means of claim-making within repressive contexts where claim makers' rights are curtailed and opportunities for rights-seeking activities are few. Thereby, this study applies a new theoretical framework to the conflict in Israel/Palestine and contributes to a better understanding of rights-seeking activities within the West Bank. Further, I argue that Palestinian acts of subjecthood against hostile Israeli rule in the West Bank are embedded within the comprehensive structure of settler colonialism. As a form of colonialism that aims at replacing an indigenous population, Israeli settler colonialism in the West Bank manifests itself in restrictions of Palestinian movement, settlement constructions, home demolitions, violence, and detentions. By using grounded theory and inductive reasoning as methodological approaches, I was able to make generalizations about the state of Palestinian claim-making. These generalizations are based on the analysis of secondary materials and data collected via face-to-face and video interviews with non-state actors in Israel/Palestine. The conducted research shows that there is not a single measure or a standalone condition that hinders Palestinian claim-making, but a complex and comprehensive structure that, on the one hand, shrinks Palestinian living space by occupation and destruction and, on the other hand, diminishes Palestinian civic space by limiting the fundamental rights to organize and build social movements to change the status Palestinians live in. Although the concrete, tangible outcomes of Palestinian acts of subjecthood are marginal, they contribute to strengthening and perpetuating Palestinian's long history of resistance against Israeli oppression. With a lack of adherence to international law, the neglect of UN resolutions by the Israeli government, the continuous defeats of rights organizations in Israeli courts, and the repression of institutions based in the West Bank by PA and occupation policies, Palestinian acts of subjecthood cannot overturn current power structures. Nevertheless, the ongoing persistence of non-state actors claiming rights, as well as the pop-up of new initiatives and youth movements are all essential for strengthening Palestinians' resilience and documenting current injustices. Therefore, they can build the pillars for social change in the future. Das Ziel der vorliegenden Dissertation war es zu untersuchen, wie pal{\"a}stinensisches claim-making, also die Artikulation von Forderungen bzw. die Geltendmachung von bestimmten Rechten, vor dem Hintergrund der anhaltenden israelischen Besatzung und Repressalien durch die pal{\"a}stinensische politische F{\"u}hrung im Westjordanland durchgesetzt werden kann. Dabei soll der Frage nachgegangen werden, welche Kan{\"a}le nichtstaatliche Akteure nutzen, um ihre Anspr{\"u}che geltend zu machen, welche M{\"o}glichkeiten sich ihnen daf{\"u}r bieten und vor welchen Herausforderungen sie stehen. Der Untersuchungszeitraum erstreckt sich dabei vom Osloer Friedensprozess Mitte der 1990er Jahre bis hin zum sogenannten Great March of Return im Jahr 2018. Die im Gebiet des heutigen Israel/Pal{\"a}stina lebenden Pal{\"a}stinenserInnen bedienten sich in Zeiten ausl{\"a}ndischer Einflussnahme, z.B. w{\"a}hrend der britischen Besatzung im vergangenen Jahrhundert, verschiedenster Widerstandsformen und -strategien. Jedoch haben die Osloer Abkommen zwischen der israelischen Regierung und der pal{\"a}stinensischen F{\"u}hrung die dezentrale und partizipative Mobilisierung der pal{\"a}stinensischen Gesellschaft erschwert, die andauernde Enteignung von Pal{\"a}stinenserInnen beg{\"u}nstigt und ihre Rechte bis zum heutigen Tag weiter eingeschr{\"a}nkt. Die heutige pal{\"a}stinensische Gesellschaft im Westjordanland ist daher durch Zersplitterung, geografische und gesellschaftliche Segregation und doppelte Un-terdr{\"u}ckung durch die israelische Besatzung sowie die Pal{\"a}stinensische Autonomiebeh{\"o}rde gekennzeichnet. Zudem f{\"u}hrt die Etablierung verschiedener geografischer Entit{\"a}ten, in denen Pal{\"a}stinenserInnen unterschiedlichen Formen israelischer Herrschaft, Regularien und Ein-griffsrechten unterworfen sind, dazu, dass pal{\"a}stinensisches claim-making auch formalrecht-lich eingeschr{\"a}nkt ist. Um die Aktivit{\"a}ten nichtstaatlicher Akteure in diesem Kontext beschreiben zu k{\"o}nnen, wer-den h{\"a}ufig das Konzept der Zivilgesellschaft oder das der acts of citizenship herangezogen. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird jedoch argumentiert, dass diese Konzepte nur bedingt auf den Status Quo im Westjordanland anwendbar sind und pal{\"a}stinensisches claim-making nicht hinreichend verstehen und beschreiben k{\"o}nnen. Im Laufe des Forschungsprozesses hat sich daher das Konzept der acts of subjecthood als neuer theoretischer Ansatz herausgebildet, der claim-making in repressiven Kontexten beschreibt, in denen nichtstaatliche Akteure nur geringen Handlungsspielraum haben, ihre Forderungen durchsetzen zu k{\"o}nnen. Durch diese „Theorie-Brille" erm{\"o}glicht meine Forschung einen neuartigen Blick auf den israelisch-pal{\"a}stinensischen Konflikt und tr{\"a}gt auf diese Weise zu einem besseren Verst{\"a}ndnis von claim-making-Aktivit{\"a}ten im Westjordanland bei. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus bettet die vorliegende Ar-beit acts of subjecthood in den gr{\"o}ßeren Kontext des Siedlungskolonialismus ein. Dieser beschreibt eine Form des Kolonialismus, die darauf abzielt, eine einheimische Bev{\"o}lkerung durch die der Kolonialmacht zu ersetzen. Im Westjordanland manifestiert sich der israelische Siedlungskolonialismus in der Einschr{\"a}nkung der Bewegungsfreiheit von Pal{\"a}stinenserIn-nen, dem Bau von Siedlungen, der Zerst{\"o}rung von H{\"a}usern, Gewalt und Inhaftierungen. Die Verwendung der Grounded Theory und des induktiven Denkens als methodische Ans{\"a}tze erm{\"o}glichte es, verallgemeinerbare Aussagen zum Zustand pal{\"a}stinensischen claim-makings treffen zu k{\"o}nnen. Diese Verallgemeinerungen beruhen auf der Analyse von Sekund{\"a}rquellen und Daten, die im Rahmen von Interviews mit VertreterInnen nichtstaatlicher Organisationen in Israel/Pal{\"a}stina erhoben wurden. Die durchgef{\"u}hrte Analyse macht deutlich, dass nicht eine einzelne Maßnahme oder Bedingung pal{\"a}stinensisches claim-making behindert, sondern eine komplexe, vielschichtige und zielgerichtet implementierte Struktur. Diese verringert einerseits den Lebensraum von Pal{\"a}stinenserInnen durch Besatzung und Zerst{\"o}rung und schr{\"a}nkt andererseits den zivilen Raum ein, indem sie ihnen grundlegende Rechte und fundamentale Freiheiten verwehrt. Obwohl die konkreten Auswirkungen pal{\"a}stinensischer acts of subjecthood marginal sind, tragen sie dazu bei, den Widerstand gegen politische Unterdr{\"u}ckung zu st{\"a}rken und fortzusetzen. Angesichts der Verletzung von V{\"o}lkerrecht und der Missachtung zahlreicher UN-Resolutionen durch die israelische Regierung, der Niederlagen von Menschenrechtsorganisationen vor israelischen Gerichten, der Unterdr{\"u}ckung von Institutionen im Westjordanland durch die Pal{\"a}stinensische Autonomiebeh{\"o}rde und die Besatzungspolitik k{\"o}nnen acts of subjecthood die derzeitigen Machtstrukturen nicht aufbrechen. Dennoch sind die anhaltende Beharrlichkeit nichtstaatlicher Akteure, Forderungen zu artikulieren und Rechte einzufordern und die Gr{\"u}ndung neuer Initiativen und Organisationen essenziell f{\"u}r die St{\"a}rkung gesellschaftlicher Resilienz sowie die Dokumentation von Ungerechtigkeiten und Rechtsverletzungen. Diese Akteure legen so den Grundstein f{\"u}r einen m{\"o}glichen gesellschaftspolitischen Wandel in der Zukunft.},
  language  = {en}
}