Legend has it that the devil wanted to test the faith of a coal asking "What do you think?" The coal answered "in everything the Church believes" the Devil asked again: "And do you think the Church?" And the coal answered "the same thing that I think", overcoming the temptation to argue their beliefs. If we approach a national of any coat and asked him about the Nation is very likely that we find such a spectacle; circular arguments about empty words. The same can happen if we asked many lawyers by nationality. At this point, we will have already led to the scandal of legal positivists. If I allow a pejorative definition, legal positivism is the belief that the law is only what it seems. You only have to dissociate the law and social reality, like parallel dimensions. With this simple procedure, a positivist can exclaim that nationality has nothing to do with the Nation (the dark deity worshiped by the nationalists). I would say maybe it's simply an abstract legal category, denoting the legal relationship between an individual and a State and that from the standpoint of public law, creates a series of rights and obligations between the parties and from the point of view of private law sets a status that determines the personal law applicable.
If we were lulled by this speech as technical and formal, and we interpret a devilish role, we may ask then what is the qualitative difference to distinguish between nationals and foreigners. Because, however we define "nationality" as a relationship that creates rights and obligations between the national and state, it is clear that "foreigners" may also have rights and obligations against the State, on the other hand, in private law is not always necessary link of nationality to determine the applicable law (sometimes under the law of domicile, for example). The ideal model in which underpin more formal definition of "nationality" which derives, of course, of the metaphysics of nationalism as a political ideology, assumes that each person has the legal relations only with a state. This was never true, even in the heyday of nationalism, which was also an era of economic globalization, it is an ideological fiction propagated by the law, one of many other fictions.
The civilistas Díez Picazo and Gullón are not as formal. Recognize that the concept of "nationality" has two dimensions (they refer to a "double burden ideological"). The first of these dimensions is the formal definition (apparently devoid of substance, I'd say) that we have seen. The second refers to " [...] exists or can be a really historic, cultural and social called Nation, which is a genuine national community of organic, because of the destination drive, history and cultural characteristics its components. " Meanwhile Mancini , the father of Italian Private International Law (and a man liberal, not at all in favor of supremacist doctrines), I thought the region, race, language, customs, history, laws, religions determined the nature of each people, creating "intimate relations such material and moral, legitimate purpose that is born among them a community of law, can not exist between individuals of different nations ." With these premisasse created Italy, on the basis of identity of a language spoken by about 8% of the population (I think), that is, political and economic elites who had read the Divine Comedy and constituted the real Nation.
Of course, this second dimension of the legal concept of "nationality" is the social substance that lies below the shape of the more technical definition. This is why, of course, that many definitions of "nationality" places the object defined in the definition. It is faith circular coal, which refers only to relationships, without getting into the substance: I have a relationship with my nation and the nation is the set of those who have a relationship with her. Metaphysical reference to an alleged extra-legal reality, is implied.
Of course, this second dimension of the legal concept of "nationality" is the social substance that lies below the shape of the more technical definition. This is why, of course, that many definitions of "nationality" places the object defined in the definition. It is faith circular coal, which refers only to relationships, without getting into the substance: I have a relationship with my nation and the nation is the set of those who have a relationship with her. Metaphysical reference to an alleged extra-legal reality, is implied.
Now this social substance does not refer directly to a specific reality. It is a symbol. Symbols are signs that refer to an ineffable reality, connecting an ideological expression to the feelings of our viscera reports. It is not easy to define what is rational nation, in the same way that coal was not able to define their beliefs enough to affirm their relationship with the Church. These symbols are used as a malleable instrument for power, leading to relations of exploitation and exclusion. In the case of Argentina, the most obvious at first sight are excluded. When recruiting arm for the bourgeois revolution, the Nation seemed to include everyone, but when the truth will incorporate only the white-owned bourgeoisie and among them, only to males.
The most obvious exclusions deriving from the "original sin" of all nationalities, from the most moderate to the most extreme: the claim that identity (ethnic) and power must be matched. This identity is inevitably built from power, which means pretending that within the nation, the people are more or less homogeneous and quite different from people elsewhere. As this is not true in any case (and not only by the presence of people considered "foreign") excursion is imposed on those who are perceived as "different", more or less intense. In the most extreme cases leads to massive displacement, detention and genocide (or the terrorist murder, by the way). Many people somehow excluded from the ideal of the nation, but contaminated by ideological virus end up concluding that the only way to save their "identity" and thereby his own dignity, is to build a nation for themselves - ethnic, therefore, in the image of power that oppresses them, this happens everywhere separatists, with the Zionist Jews and sometimes with the liberation movements of the colonial power. For Of course, it is not uncommon for this process involves new exclusions when they get older have excluded the odd upper hand. Implicitly or explicitly, so intense or more dilute potential or actual, all forms of nationalism are, ultimately, ethnicity and exclusion. Cultural differences exist but never with the map of the powerful or legitimate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a reality of power and democracy is only the recipients of the power to control it somehow. The workers who fought for universal suffrage, coal or not, came from the deep field and had their small homelands by country of so lacking in principle of "national" identity whatsoever. Just wanted to influence what affected them.
The legal category of "nationality" inherits some of the dysfunctions of the ideology that gives substance LLE. First, the Nation is "a jealous god" (only supports a primary identity) and that, except in regard to certain international treaties, people can have only one nationality, causing legal and identity disorders. Secondly, nationality may become an exclusion criterion in this case, exclusion of some recipients of the power of political participation in control (you are a subject of political debate and not a party if you do not vote and therefore the power can sift everywhere). Third, nationality and formal link allows more credible appeals to a fictitious single homogeneous identity through circular reasoning. that use the formalism of legal categories. Fourth, the ethnic nationality is an inevitable burden, is built on ethnic and parameters used as criteria for determining categories distinctive ethnic discrimination. Thus, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments speak of discrimination under "national origin".
Any lawyer would recognize that an employer may not have a preference to hire workers on grounds of national origin and that its decision can not be justified by invoking, as a generalization, of cultural, religious or ethnic groups, each person must be treated individually and not because the herd to which (supposedly) belongs. However, no one seems outraged that the national criteria for access are radically different between people and other arguments based on purely cultural, religious and historical, which are still doubtful. For example, those who belong to what formerly called "race of the English race" (for example, Latin American or Sephardic Jews) or from Equatorial Guinea need 2 years of legal residence for access to citizenship, while a procedea saharahoui or someone of that part of Morocco which was formerly a English colony requires 10 years. Sure, here you forget, do not know why, relations with some former English colonies. But why ex-colonies? Why do general differences with respect to the Chinese or in respect Americans than Latin Americans? Because it is assumed that a Chinese or an American has a lower degree of linkage with "Spain." And how do we know? That is just a generalization, which also refers to a vague and ambiguous, as is the English nation. But is that individuals should be treated as they themselves are applied to them rather than ethnic generalizations. We still have no clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat defines the "national", which is what legitimizes the differences between nationals and foreigners beyond the membership of an imagined community.
you will be thinking that, after deconstructing the nationality, it is my duty to propose something more constructive. Try to deal with it in the next inning.
The most obvious exclusions deriving from the "original sin" of all nationalities, from the most moderate to the most extreme: the claim that identity (ethnic) and power must be matched. This identity is inevitably built from power, which means pretending that within the nation, the people are more or less homogeneous and quite different from people elsewhere. As this is not true in any case (and not only by the presence of people considered "foreign") excursion is imposed on those who are perceived as "different", more or less intense. In the most extreme cases leads to massive displacement, detention and genocide (or the terrorist murder, by the way). Many people somehow excluded from the ideal of the nation, but contaminated by ideological virus end up concluding that the only way to save their "identity" and thereby his own dignity, is to build a nation for themselves - ethnic, therefore, in the image of power that oppresses them, this happens everywhere separatists, with the Zionist Jews and sometimes with the liberation movements of the colonial power. For Of course, it is not uncommon for this process involves new exclusions when they get older have excluded the odd upper hand. Implicitly or explicitly, so intense or more dilute potential or actual, all forms of nationalism are, ultimately, ethnicity and exclusion. Cultural differences exist but never with the map of the powerful or legitimate sovereignty. Sovereignty is a reality of power and democracy is only the recipients of the power to control it somehow. The workers who fought for universal suffrage, coal or not, came from the deep field and had their small homelands by country of so lacking in principle of "national" identity whatsoever. Just wanted to influence what affected them.
The legal category of "nationality" inherits some of the dysfunctions of the ideology that gives substance LLE. First, the Nation is "a jealous god" (only supports a primary identity) and that, except in regard to certain international treaties, people can have only one nationality, causing legal and identity disorders. Secondly, nationality may become an exclusion criterion in this case, exclusion of some recipients of the power of political participation in control (you are a subject of political debate and not a party if you do not vote and therefore the power can sift everywhere). Third, nationality and formal link allows more credible appeals to a fictitious single homogeneous identity through circular reasoning. that use the formalism of legal categories. Fourth, the ethnic nationality is an inevitable burden, is built on ethnic and parameters used as criteria for determining categories distinctive ethnic discrimination. Thus, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments speak of discrimination under "national origin".
Any lawyer would recognize that an employer may not have a preference to hire workers on grounds of national origin and that its decision can not be justified by invoking, as a generalization, of cultural, religious or ethnic groups, each person must be treated individually and not because the herd to which (supposedly) belongs. However, no one seems outraged that the national criteria for access are radically different between people and other arguments based on purely cultural, religious and historical, which are still doubtful. For example, those who belong to what formerly called "race of the English race" (for example, Latin American or Sephardic Jews) or from Equatorial Guinea need 2 years of legal residence for access to citizenship, while a procedea saharahoui or someone of that part of Morocco which was formerly a English colony requires 10 years. Sure, here you forget, do not know why, relations with some former English colonies. But why ex-colonies? Why do general differences with respect to the Chinese or in respect Americans than Latin Americans? Because it is assumed that a Chinese or an American has a lower degree of linkage with "Spain." And how do we know? That is just a generalization, which also refers to a vague and ambiguous, as is the English nation. But is that individuals should be treated as they themselves are applied to them rather than ethnic generalizations. We still have no clear idea of \u200b\u200bwhat defines the "national", which is what legitimizes the differences between nationals and foreigners beyond the membership of an imagined community.
you will be thinking that, after deconstructing the nationality, it is my duty to propose something more constructive. Try to deal with it in the next inning.
