what is global citizenship essay brainly

Essay on Global Citizenship

Students are often asked to write an essay on Global Citizenship in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

What is global citizenship.

Global citizenship means seeing yourself as a part of the whole world, not just your country. It’s about caring for people and the planet, no matter where they are. Global citizens work together to solve big problems like poverty and climate change.

Responsibilities of Global Citizens

Being a global citizen means you have duties. You should learn about different cultures, respect the environment, and help others. It’s about making good choices that don’t hurt others around the world.

Benefits of Global Citizenship

When we act as global citizens, we make the world better. We get to understand different people and can work on making peace. It also helps us to solve big problems that affect everyone, like keeping the earth clean and safe.

250 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Global citizenship is the idea that everyone on our planet is part of a big community. It’s like thinking of the whole world as one big neighborhood. People who believe in global citizenship care about issues that affect everyone, no matter where they live.

Caring for the Earth

Helping each other.

Global citizens also think it’s important to help people in need. This could be by giving money to charities that work all over the world or by learning about different cultures and understanding people who are different from us.

Another big idea in global citizenship is fairness. This means making sure that people everywhere have what they need, like food, water, and a chance to go to school. It’s not fair if some people have too much while others have too little.

Working Together

Finally, global citizenship is about countries and people working together to solve big problems. This can be anything from fighting diseases that spread across countries to making sure everyone has a good place to live.

In short, being a global citizen means caring for our world and the people in it. It’s about learning, sharing, and working together to make the world a better place for everyone.

500 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Imagine a big school that has students from every part of the world. These students learn together, play together, and help each other. This is a bit like what global citizenship is. Global citizenship means thinking of yourself as a part of one big world community. Instead of just looking after the people in your own town or country, you care about everyone on Earth.

Why is Global Citizenship Important?

Respecting cultures and people.

Global citizens respect and learn about different cultures and people. Every culture has its own special stories, food, and ways of living. When you are a global citizen, you are curious about these differences and you understand that every person is important, no matter where they come from.

Taking Care of the Planet

Our Earth is the only home we have. Global citizens take care of it by doing things like recycling, saving water, and planting trees. We all share the same air, water, and land, so it’s everyone’s job to look after them.

Helping Others

Learning and sharing knowledge.

Being a global citizen also means learning about the world and sharing what you know. You can read books, watch films, or talk to people from different places. Then, you can share what you learn with your friends and family.

Being Active in Your Community

Even though global citizenship is about the whole world, it starts in your own community. You can join groups that clean up parks, help people who are sick, or raise money for good causes. By doing small things where you live, you are being a part of something much bigger.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Oxfam education

Ideas, resources and support for active global citizenship in the classroom and beyond.

What is Global Citizenship?

Global citizenship is the term for social, environmental, and economic actions of individuals and communities who recognise that every person is a citizen of the world.

It is about how decisions in one part of the planet can affect people living in a different part of it, and about how we all share a common humanity and are of equal worth.

It means being open to engaging positively with other identities and cultures and being able to recognise and challenge stereotypes.

It is also about how we use and share the earth's resources fairly and uphold the human rights of all.

What does it mean to be a global citizen?

A global citizen is someone who is aware of and understands the wider world – and their place in it. They are a citizen of the world. They take an active role in their community and work with others to make our planet more peaceful, sustainable and fairer.

Examples of global citizenship

Global citizenship involves...

Exploring local and global connections and our views, values and assumptions
Exploring issues of social justice locally and globally
Exploring the complexity of global issues and engaging with multiple perspectives
Applying learning to real-world issues and contexts
Opportunities to make informed, reflective action and be heard

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

For Oxfam, global citizenship is all about encouraging young people to develop the knowledge, skills and values they need to engage with the world. And it's about the belief that we can all make a difference.

Education for global citizenship isn't an additional subject – it's a framework for learning, reaching beyond school to the wider community. It can be promoted in class through the existing curriculum or through new initiatives and activities.

BENEFITS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Global citizenship helps young people to:

Build their own understanding of world events.
Think about their values and what's important to them.
Take learning into the real world.
Challenge ignorance and intolerance.
Get involved in their local, national and global communities.
Develop an argument and voice their opinions.
See that they have power to act and influence the world around them.

What's more, global citizenship inspires and informs teachers and parents, too. But above all, it shows young people that they have a voice. The world may be changing fast, but they can make a positive difference – and help build a fairer, safer and more secure world for everyone.

Photo: John Mclaverty / Oxfam

Teaching resources

Ideas, activities and support for developing global learning in the classroom and beyond.

Photo: Andy Aitchison/Oxfam.

Practical advice and inspiration for embedding global citizenship in the curriculum and across the whole school.

Active global citizenship

Beyond the classroom, we give young people lots of ways to take action for a better world.

Discover More

Home learning activities.

Global learning at home, in the classroom or wherever you are!

Schools Speak Out

Support young people to demonstrate leadership, take part in our latest campaigns and speak out about global poverty.

Also in this section

Importance of Being a Global Citizen Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

The distinction between globalism and globalization, being a global citizen in the world of advanced technologies, disagreement between theorists about the definition of global citizenship, choosing and explaining two of the six outcomes of global citizenship, describing at least two personal examples, identifying and explaining two specific general education courses.

The relevance of being a global citizen is that through international encounters, people develop a considerable awareness of the problems faced by various parts of the world. In this case, being such a person encourages young individuals to focus more deeply on the effects of their activities and decisions on other areas of the world. Although becoming such a citizen is critical in contemporary society, there is a need to differentiate between globalism and globalization.

Globalization refers to the spread of jobs, information, products, and technology across nations in the world. On the other hand, globalism refers to an ideology regarding the belief that goods, knowledge, and people should cross international borders without restrictions (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). Globalization means civilization, where people migrate to any part of the world despite the risks involved. Globalism is an ideology committed to favoring globalization and placing the interests of the world above the interests of individual countries.

Global citizenship is a crucial step that people should take because it has its advantages. In the world of advanced technology, being a global citizen is helpful because it assists in succeeding in meeting individual, professional, and academic goals and objectives. Modern technology helps people to keep in touch or communicate with business partners, family, and friends through text messages and emails (Ahmad, 2013). Through globalization, people can share information from any part of the world. In contemporary society, advanced technology has become the key to communication, enabling people to meet their professional, academic, and individual goals.

Various theorists disagree about the definition of global citizenship because they have divergent meanings. For this reason, some define the concept in their own words, while others believe that it is a concept that has to be taught to people (Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013). In addition, other individuals believe that global citizenship needs people to be isolated from their customs and cultures. Some theorists feel that when a person becomes a global citizen, they will not be considered fully part of one country. Therefore, such people will have challenges living within the social spheres of such an area. After reading the article by Katzarska-Miller and Reysen, I defined global citizenship as becoming exposed and interconnected to international cultures that give people opportunities to develop their identities.

The two of the six outcomes that I choose include social justice and valuing diversity, and they are the most relevant in becoming a global citizen concerning others. When a person embraces such citizenship, one understands that silencing people is not the solution in the community and that they have to be allowed to serve (Arditi, 2004). Therefore, social justice ensures that oppressing others is not the solution and that giving individuals a chance is the best thing. Social justice ensures that human beings do not miss out on growth and development opportunities because of a lack of diversity. Valuing diversity helps one to become such an individual as it assists a person in recognizing the fact that the world has different people. Therefore, global citizenship can relate to individuals from other parts of the globe. Such an interaction could be on academic or business grounds as the world becomes increasingly interconnected.

In my life, I have had to relate with individuals from all corners of the world. Therefore, I view myself as a global citizen because I value and embrace diversity in all my undertakings. For example, my school embraces diversity and inclusion, where students are admitted from different parts of the world. In this case, my school environment has become one of the most significant contributors to my value for diversity over the years (De Soto, 2015). In school, I interact with other students from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, Canada, and other parts of America other than the United States. I have understood the challenges of interacting with foreigners, such as differentiated business cultures and language barriers. In school and my immediate environment, I have come to appreciate treating other people as the law requires. Therefore, I have come to respect everyone and do not like seeing people being oppressed.

The two general education courses that contributed the most to being a global citizen include Introduction to Literature and Introduction to social responsibility and Ethics. The concept of global citizenship has shaped my identity, and being such a citizen has made me a better person in the community (Arditi, 2004). The literature course has strengthened my ability to learn other people’s cultures, customs, and traditions, which has enabled me to appreciate diversity more. Social responsibility and ethics as a course have helped me to strengthen my ability to determine what is right before taking any action.

In conclusion, global citizenship is a concept that has relevance in contemporary society. In addition, being a citizen enables one to comprehend other relevant concepts, such as globalization and globalism. Being a student allows one to appreciate diversity and inclusivity, pertinent elements of globalization or being a global citizen. For example, studying some courses such as ethics and literature helps one understand and appreciate others.

Ahmad, A. (2013). A global ethics for a globalized world (Links to an external site.). Policy Perspectives, 10(1), 63-77. Web.

Arditi, B. (2004). From globalism to globalization: The Politics of Resistance . New Political Science , 26 (1), 5–22. Web.

De Soto, H. (2015) . Globalization at the Crossroads. [Video]. You Tube. Web.

Reysen, S., & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology , 48 (5), 858–870.

Globalization and Japanese Cultures
The Importance of the Rule of Law in Global Business
Concept of the Globalization’ Ideology
Globalization Theory in Political Economy
International Entrepreneurship: Competing Models of Nationalism
Transportation and Globalization in North America and Europe: Comparison
Development in a Globalized World
The Globalized World: Threats and Challenges
Globalization Debates and Pressures on Companies
Outsourcing and Globalization in Indian Society
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, August 19). Importance of Being a Global Citizen. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-being-a-global-citizen/

"Importance of Being a Global Citizen." IvyPanda , 19 Aug. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-being-a-global-citizen/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Importance of Being a Global Citizen'. 19 August.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Importance of Being a Global Citizen." August 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-being-a-global-citizen/.

1. IvyPanda . "Importance of Being a Global Citizen." August 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-being-a-global-citizen/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Importance of Being a Global Citizen." August 19, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/importance-of-being-a-global-citizen/.

The Rights & Responsibilities of Global Citizenship

Rights and responsibilities.

By Ron Israel, Co-Founder and Director, The Global Citizens’ 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 that community. Many people today identify with being 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 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 II. 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 had 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 rights abuses. There also are 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 update of our current human rights policies and programs.

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP 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 Responsibility to respect the principle of cultural diversity : The multiple perspectives that exist with most global issues often are a reflection of different cultural belief systems. 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 connections 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. It is quite easy to build global relationships. Most countries, cities, and towns are now populated with immigrants and people from different ethnic traditions. The Internet offers a range of opportunities 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 and 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 peoples 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 understand they ways in which 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 quality 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. For 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 populations.

#6 Responsibility to advocate for greater international cooperation with other nations : Global citizens need to play activist roles in urging greater international cooperation between their nation and others. When a global issue 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 responsibility 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 domains 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 lack 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.

Search the United Nations

UNAI Principles
Map of UNAI Members
List of UNAI Members
Special Series
Select UN Events
UNAI Events
SDGs Best Practices
SDGs Guidelines
SDGs Training Sessions
SDGs Workshops
The Why Join Guide
Tools for Researchers
Bulletin Board
Submit the 2024 Activity Report
Become a Millennium Fellow
UNAI Voices
Sustainable Development Goals
UN Agencies
UN Information Centres
Dag Hammarskjöld Library
UN Stories Archive
UN Publications
Internships
X (Former Twitter)

Global Citizenship

Global citizenship is the umbrella term for social, political, environmental, and economic actions of globally minded individuals and communities on a worldwide scale. The term can refer to the belief that individuals are members of multiple, diverse, local and non-local networks rather than single actors affecting isolated societies. Promoting global citizenship in sustainable development will allow individuals to embrace their social responsibility to act for the benefit of all societies, not just their own.

The concept of global citizenship is embedded in the Sustainable Development Goals though SDG 4: Insuring Inclusive and Quality Education for All and Promote Life Long Learning, which includes global citizenship as one of its targets. By 2030, the international community has agreed to ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including global citizenship. Universities have a responsibility to promote global citizenship by teaching their students that they are members of a large global community and can use their skills and education to contribute to that community.

About the Hub: Ana G. Méndez University (UAGM) is a private non-profit higher education institution founded over seven decades ago in Puerto Rico. UAGM provides quality education and promotes research with a vision of innovation and entrepreneurship. Through its three main campuses (Gurabo, Cupey, and Carolina) and eight off-campus centers located around the island, UAGM offers a variety of academic programs in different modalities and excellent services designed to fulfill the needs and expectations of a diverse student population. UAGM is the global center of UNAI to promote the exchange of knowledge and information regarding global citizenship. Its activities in this theme solidify its commitment to the development of global citizens by ensuring that its graduates are fully prepared to assume leadership roles and present solutions to humanity's challenges and needs.

Ana G. Mendez University

UNITED NATIONS

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

TAKE ACTION

Lazy Person's Guide
UN Volunteers
Youth Engagement
Past Contests and Scholarships
Request a Speaker
Visit the UN

NEWS AND MEDIA

UN News Centre
Press Releases
Office of the Spokesperson
UN in Action
UN Social Media
The Essential UN

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

SDG of the Month
Observances and Commemorations
Celebrity Advocates for the UN

What you need to know about global citizenship education

For centuries, common aspirations for mutual respect, peace, and understanding were reflected in traditional concepts across cultures and civilizations – from 'ubuntu' (I am because of who we all are) in African philosophy to 'sumak kawsay' (harmony within communities, ourselves and nature) in Quechua. Although the term "global citizenship education" (GCED) was only coined in 2011, the values it represents have been central to UNESCO's mission since its founding in 1947.

By building peace through education and reminding humanity of our common ties, UNESCO has long championed the ideas now formalized as GCED. As our world grows increasingly interdependent, GCED is more vital than ever for international solidarity and inspiring learners of all ages to positively contribute to their local and global communities. But what exactly does global citizenship education entail, why it matters today, and how UNESCO is driving this movement?

What’s the idea behind global citizenship?

Unlike citizenship – special rights, privileges and responsibilities related to "belonging" to a particular nation/state, the global citizenship concept is based on the idea we are connected not just with one country but with a broader global community. So, by positively contributing to it, we can also influence change on regional, national and local levels. Global citizens don't have a special passport or official title, nor do they need to travel to other countries or speak different languages to become one. It's more about the mindset and actual actions that a person takes daily. A global citizen understands how the world works, values differences in people, and works with others to find solutions to challenges too big for any one nation.

Citizenship and global citizenship do not exclude each other. Instead, these two concepts are mutually reinforcing.

What is global citizenship education about?

Economically, environmentally, socially and politically, we are linked to other people on the planet as never before. With the transformations that the world has gone through in the past decades – expansion of digital technology, international travel and migration, economic crises, conflicts, and environmental degradation – how we work, teach and learn has to change, too. UNESCO promotes global citizenship education to help learners understand the world around them and work together to fix the big problems that affect everyone, no matter where they're from.

GCED is about teaching and learning to become these global citizens who live together peacefully on one planet. What does it entail?

Adjusting curricula and content of the lessons to provide knowledge about the world and the interconnected nature of contemporary challenges and threats. Among other things, a deep understanding of human rights, geography, the environment, systems of inequalities, and historical events that underpinned current developments;

Nurturing cognitive, social and other skills to put the knowledge into practice and make it relevant to learners' realities. For example, thinking critically and asking questions about what's equitable and just, taking and understanding other perspectives and opinions, resolving conflicts constructively, working in teams, and interacting with people of different backgrounds, origins, cultures and perspectives;

Instilling values that reflect the vision of the world and provide purpose, such as respect for diversity, empathy, open-mindedness, justice and fairness for everyone;

Adopting behaviours to act on their values and beliefs: participating actively in the society to solve global, national and local challenges and strive for the collective good.

What UNESCO does in global citizenship education

UNESCO works with countries to improve and rewire their education systems so that they support creativity, innovation and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development.

Provides a big-picture vision for an education that learners of all ages need to survive and thrive in the 21 st century. Adopted in 2023, the UNESCO Recommendation on Education for Peace and Human Rights, International Understanding, Cooperation, Fundamental Freedoms, Global Citizenship and Sustainable Development is a global standard-setting instrument that lays out how education should be used to bring about lasting peace and foster human development.

Supports the development of curricula and learning materials on global citizenship themes tailored for diverse cultural contexts. Among many examples are the general guidance document on teaching and learning objectives of global citizenship education or recommendations on integrating social and emotional learning principles (SEL) in the education process.

Studies the positive impact of learning across subjects and builds linkages between sectors and spheres . One of the key focus areas is the Framework on Culture and Arts Education , in which UNESCO highlights the positive impact learning of the arts and through the arts has on academic performance, acquisition of different skills and greater well-being, as well as broadening of the horizons.

Collaborates with partners across UNESCO programmes and the broader UN system to address contemporary threats to human rights and peace and infuse the principles of understanding, non-discrimination and respect for human dignity in education. Among others, UNESCO leads the global education efforts to counter hate speech online and offline, address antisemitism , fight racism , prevent violent extremism , enable cultural dialogue , educate about human rights violations and violent pasts.

Monitors how the core values of global citizenship education are reflected in and supported by education policy and the curriculum to deliver it effectively. For example, by collecting global data on this indicator every four years through a survey questionnaire designed for the Recommendation.

Promotes international collaboration in education through UNITWIN/UNESCO Chairs , and UNESCO Associated Schools Network , connecting over 12,000 educational institutions worldwide.

Why does UNESCO prioritize global citizenship education?

Quality education is among 17 Sustainable Development Goals put forth by the United Nations, where GCED is mentioned as one of the topic areas that countries must promote. While leading the global efforts to achieve this goal, UNESCO sees education as the main driver of human development that can accelerate progress in bringing about social justice, gender equality, inclusion, and other Goals.

UNESCO believes that only an education that provides a global outlook with a deep appreciation of local perspectives can address the cross-cutting challenges of today and tomorrow. This vision is reaffirmed in the Incheon Declaration made in 2015 at the World Education Forum and further reflected in UNESCO's Futures of Education report.

Based on the evidence that UNESCO has accumulated on GCED impact, learners who benefit from such education from early stages become less prone to conflicts and are more open to resolving them peacefully while respecting each other's differences. It has also proven successful in post-conflict transformation. For example, discussing the root causes of human rights violations that occurred in the past helps to detect alarming tendencies and avoid them in the future.

How is GCED implemented?

GCED is not a single subject with a set curriculum but rather a framework, a prism through which education is seen. It can be delivered as an integral part of existing subjects – from geography to social studies – or independently. UNESCO supports the dissemination of GCED on different levels and in multiple areas of life beyond the classroom.

On a policy level: Governments can develop national strategies and frameworks that recognize the importance of understanding local issues from a broader global perspective and prioritize education programmes that reflect this vision.

In the classroom: Teachers can incorporate content and materials that build awareness of global issues and intercultural understanding. For instance, in Geography, pupils can learn about climate change and the distribution of resources. In Social Sciences, they find out how environmental degradation impacts children's rights worldwide. In Science, they discover how trees soak up carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and can help tackle climate change. Teachers can also assign students a group project where they will have to devise a campaign to address climate change in their local community.

Out of school: Museums and cultural institutions can design exhibits and educational materials that inspire global citizenship. Exchange programs allow young people to broaden their horizons by visiting other communities and countries.

Article contents

Global citizenship.

April R. Biccum April R. Biccum School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.556
Published online: 19 November 2020

The concept of “Global Citizenship” is enjoying increased currency in the public and academic domains. Conventionally associated with cosmopolitan political theory, it has moved into the public domain, marshaled by elite actors, international institutions, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations, and ordinary people. At the same time, scholarship on Global Citizenship has increased in volume in several domains (International Law, Political Theory, Citizenship Studies, Education, and Global Business), with the most substantial growth areas in Education and Political Science, specifically in International Relations and Political Theory. The public use of the concept is significant in light of what many scholars regard as a breakdown and reconfiguration of national citizenship in both theory and practice. The rise in its use is indicative of a more general change in the discourse on citizenship. It has become commonplace to offer globalization as a cause for these changes, citing increases in regular and irregular migration, economic and political dispossession owing to insertion in the global economy, the ceding of sovereignty to global governance, the pressure on policy caused by financial flows, and cross-border information-sharing and political mobilization made possible by information communications technologies (ICTs), insecurities caused by environmental degradation, political fragmentation, and inequality as key drivers of change. Global Citizenship is thus one among a string of adjectives attempting to characterize and conceptualize a transformative connection between globalization, political subjectivity, and affiliation. It is endorsed by elite global actors and the subject of an educational reform movement. Some scholarship observes empirical evidence of Global Citizenship, understood as active, socially and globally responsible political participation which contributes to global democracy, within global institutions, elites, and the marginalized themselves. Arguments for or against a cosmopolitan sensibility in political theory have been superseded by both the technological capability to make global personal legal recognition a possibility, and by the widespread endorsement of Global Citizenship among the Global Education Policy regime. In educational scholarship Global Citizenship is regarded as a form of contemporary political being that needs to be socially engineered to facilitate the spread of global democracy or the emergence of new political arrangements. Its increasing currency among a diverse range of actors has prompted a variety of attempts either to codify or to study the variety of usages in situ. As such the use of Global Citizenship speaks to a central methodological problem in the social sciences: how to fix key conceptual variables when the same concepts are a key aspect of the behavior of the actors being studied? As a concept, Global Citizenship is also intimately associated with other concepts and theoretical traditions, and is among the variety of terms used in recent years to try to reconceptualize changes it the international system. Theoretically it has complex connections to cosmopolitanism, liberalism, and republicanism; empirically it is the object of descriptive and normative scholarship. In the latter domain, two central cleavages repeat: the first is between those who see Global Citizenship as the redress for global injustices and the extension of global democracy, and those who see it as irredeemably capitalist and imperial; the second is between those who see evidence for Global Citizenship in the actions and behavior of a wide range of actors, and those who seek to socially engineer Global Citizenship through educational reform.

globalization
global governance
cosmopolitanism
citizenship
global civil society

What is Global Citizenship?

Global Citizenship (hereafter GC) as a concept is enjoying some currency in the public and academic domains. The theory and study of GC has been a growth industry especially in philosophy, international relations, and education, and it has been adopted as a central educational reform under the Sustainable Development Goals and endorsed by major international organizations, think tanks, and the expanded regime of Global Education Policy (Mundy, 2016 ). What is meant by GC varies between political actors and academics. The academic literature on GC divides into two branches. The normative theoretical branch has a number of overlaps and engagements with cosmopolitan, liberal, and republican political theory. The empirical scholarship, meanwhile, observes GC’s existence in individual behavior and the structures of transnational organization; in the case of education, empirical scholarship offers ways and means of producing GC through a reform of pedagogy, curriculum, and educational design. It is commonplace to begin any discussion of GC with an account of cosmopolitan political theory dating back to the ancients. The problem with this account is that these theoretical arguments for and against GC have been superseded both by its increasingly widespread use among political actors and by the technological capability to make it something of an institutional reality. GC is no longer simply a theoretical or philosophical discussion but is increasingly also a diversified field of empirical study. The problem with the study of GC empirically is that it is one of those conceptual variables that cuts across scholarship and public use. It is a concept, according to Reinhart Koselleck’s understanding of that term, in that it is an inherently contestable carrier of signification with multiple meanings (Koselleck, 2002 ).

What is true of GC is equally true of citizenship. Both are used by political actors and institutions, and also by academics, to inform empirical study; they are equally both concepts that inform normative political theory about the ordering foundations of society. They thus straddle the distance near (ordinary usage), distance far (academic and technocratic usage), and the normative theoretical of both political actors and academics (other conceptual variables with a similar bifurcation are democracy and the state) (Ferguson & Mansbach, 2010 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). This entanglement speaks to methodological problems at the heart of all social science endeavor: the use of the same concepts by political actors, institutions, and academics; and the problem of trying to fix those concepts for the purposes of advancing knowledge, or equally, trying to elaborate them philosophically for the purposes of creating social change. In the case of both citizenship and GC, the attempt to use various methodological techniques to fix their meaning and tie them to concrete empirical phenomena (Sartori, 1984 ) is unproductive because all these concepts are quintessential examples of the fact that political actors are themselves also self-conscious conceptualizers. Moreover, the way GC is conceptualized by certain political actors is currently having concrete political outcomes (Biccum, 2018b , 2020 ). Trying to improve its study by using Sartori’s ladder of abstraction to parse it into conceptual precision will not do when conceptualization is itself an integral part of its political impact and institutionalization. Moreover, there is increasing overlap between academic scholarship and the concept’s political operationalization, particularly in education.

Interpretive social science offers a way of grappling with this complexity by recognizing what a concept is (i.e., the function in language that allows for multiplicity of meaning and abstraction) (Koselleck, 2002 ), the ubiquity of the use of concepts for all language users (Geertz, 1973 ), and methodological techniques that are consistent with the properties of language and its study in use (Fairclough, 1989 ; Schaffer, 2016 ). The interpretivist approach is more appropriate for fleshing out the complexity of defining GC by recognizing that the rise in its use both academically and politically is in response to changing circumstances, but also and concurrently that its take up is an attempt to by actors to change political circumstances. The interpretivist approach equips scholars with a sensitivity for assessing how and why GC’s use is significant. GC is one among a variety of adjectival variations on citizenship, but it is one that has taken greater hold than any of its rivals and, depending on who uses it and how, has implications for a shift in identity and allegiance from the national to the global. Therefore, its increased use by elites and operationalization in policy to affect change should be recognized as politically significant. Interpretive social science provides the analytical and methodological tools to ground, locate, and elucidate the various meanings of GC in theory and in practice (Schaffer, 2016 ).

Citizenship, as a concept, is also both a variably applied political institution and a contested theoretical concept. It emerged as a body of study in its own right in the 20th century only to be problematized toward the end of the century with a variety of qualifying adjectives, including postnational citizenship (Rose, 1996 ), the denationalization of citizenship (Soysal, 1994 ), extrastatal citizenship (Lee, 2014 ), cultural citizenship (Richardson, 1998 ), minority citizenship (Yuval-Davis, 1997 ), ecological citizenship (van Steenbergen, 1994 ), cosmopolitan citizenship (Held, 1995 ), consumer citizenship (Stevenson, 1997 ), and mobility citizenship (Urry, 1990 ). The meaning and theorization of citizenship itself in the context of globalization have undergone some considerable contestation. In the late 1990s, sociologist John Urry noted the contradiction that just as everyone is seeking to be a citizen of an existing national society, globalization is changing what it means to be a citizen (Urry, 1999 ). For some theorists of citizenship, it has normative dimensions. Brian Turner in particular made a distinction between a conservative view of citizenship as passive and private, and a more revolutionary idea of citizenship as active and public (Bowden, 2003 ; Turner, 1990 ). For theorists of citizenship it is a mode of political membership that has as a performative nature, even by those who are not officially recognized. Understood this way, it is a quintessentially democratic political subjectivity, where agency is expressed in struggles for rights and inclusion for the benefit of self and others.

Historicized as an actually existing political institution, citizenship can be shown to be a mechanism of differentiation through rights allocation, inclusion, and exclusion that is unavoidably connected to state and imperial violence, interest, and power. For critical scholars, it is gendered, racialized, and colonial and has been a mechanism not for the expansion of civil, political, and social rights (as canonized in Marshall’s 1949 account) but as a means of conferring those rights on the few (Isin & Nyers, 2014b ; Marshall, 1949 ). Editors of the Routledge Handbook of GC Studies survey the various ways in which national citizenship has been conceptualized and how Citizenship Studies must be revised in light of globalization (Isin & Nyers, 2014b ; Lee, 2014 ). A work in “critical Citizenship Studies,” this volume notes that citizenship has been defined as membership, status, practice, or performance, with each definition harboring presumptions about politics and agency. To overcome these shortcomings, the editors offer a minimal definition which contains conceptual complexity. For Isin and Nyers, citizenship is “an institution, mediating rights between the subjects of politics and the polity” (Isin & Nyers, 2014a , p. 1). The word “polity” enables a conceptualization of diverse political entities and overlapping governance configurations. “Rights mediation” recognizes that citizenship is inclusive and exclusive simultaneously and that it is most often expanded through political struggle. Finally, the “Subject” is a way of understanding political behavior on the part of people with no formal institutional recognition. The volume aims to address the fact that Citizenship Studies is globalizing because people around the world are articulating their struggles through the political institution of citizenship, and they see this struggle as the performative dimension or enactment of citizenship in political behavior that makes claims upon states and governing institutions. This is why scholars are engaged in “a competition to invent new names to describe the political subjects that are enacting political agency today. Whether it is the Activist or the Actant, the Militant or the Multitude” (Isin & Nyers, 2014a , p. 5). Contributors to this volume are highly skeptical of the concept of GC, but this is precisely the kind of active enactment of rights and responsibilities that scholars of GC see as evidence of its existence, or endorsement for its contribution to the globalization of democracy. Thus, the emergence of GC is part and parcel of the very contestation over citizenship that contributors to this volume see as evidence for grassroots political agency and democratic political change.

As a concept, GC is often linked with the body of cosmopolitan political thought dating back to antiquity (Heater, 1996 ), but this association needs to be qualified. Its increased usage in the early 21st century among scholars, philosophers, policymakers, global institutions, and educators has been prolific, leading to several attempts in the literature to codify its various meanings (Fanghanel & Cousin, 2012 ; Hicks, 2003 ; Sant, Davies, Pashby, & Shultz, 2018 ), or to study its variation in use empirically (Gaudelli, 2009 ). Some have argued that its conceptual heterogeneity is strategically advantageous for those who are using it in practice, and political actors particularly in education have devoted a substantial amount of time to conceptualizing it for the purposes of its articulation in policy (Biccum, 2018b ; Hartmeyer, 2015 ). In the education space, an agreed-upon meaning organized around attitudes, aptitudes, and behavior is now being utilized by international organizations (specifically the United Nations, United Nations Education Science and Culture Organisation, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), which are disseminating their preferred definitions through the expanded global education community via declarations, policy advice, research, information portals, and international conferences. Attempts to codify the different meanings of GC in the academic scholarship have used different metatheoretical concepts to understand the systematic organization of meaning, among them heuristics (Gaudelli, 2009 ), discourse (Karlberg, 2008 ; Parmenter, 2011 ; Schattle, 2015 ; Shukla, 2009 ), ideology (Pais & Costa, 2017 ; Schattle, 2008 ), and typology (Andreotti, 2014 ; Oxley & Morris, 2013 ). For all this definitional and metatheoretical categorization, what cuts across all are the notions that a global citizen is a type of person (endowed with a certain kind of knowledge, values, attitudes, and aptitudes) and that GC is expressed in behavior (always active). Oxley and Morris’s ( 2013 ) codification is often cited in educational scholarship that is working to provide the pedagogical and theoretical foundations for producing Global Citizens (Bosio & Torres, 2019 ) or critically contesting existing practices and theoretical models of GC education in order to make them live up to what both scholarly factions regard as its emancipatory potential (Andreotti, 2014 ).

The various attempts to codify the use of GC in situ tend to make a distinction between hegemonic use and attempts by both scholars and political actors to expand its meaning for political purposes. In this context Oxley and Morris ( 2013 ) make a distinction between “cosmopolitan based” GC Education, which is further nuanced by political, moral, economic, and cultural considerations; and “advocacy based,” which is inflected by social, critical, environmental, and spiritual features. This distinction effectively codifies the differences between official uses of GC by elite actors, and the contestations from critical practitioners and scholars who seek to expand its official meaning (a) to include the grassroots activity of activists; and (b) in educational policy and practice, to include knowledge of global capital and European colonial history, a normative attitude against the inequalities and injustices these have produced, and the aptitude to hold elite actors to account (Andreotti & Souza, 2011 ). Gaudelli ( 2009 ) and Schattle ( 2008 ) based their discursive and ideological codifications on methodologically informed definitions of discourse and ideology and an empirical focus on the use of the concept in multiple sites. Gaudelli identifies five different discursive framings (neoliberal, nationalist, Marxist, world justice and governance, and cosmopolitan), and Schattle ( 2008 ) deploys an ideological analysis to determine whether the discourse of GC in education constitutes a new “globalist” ideology. He finds that in fact it remains inflected by varieties of liberal ideology, even its critical variants, because of its emphasis on human rights, equality, and social justice.

Despite contestations over meaning and use, there are those in the literature who regard GC as the conceptual iteration that underpins a hegemonic ordering of a global governance to further globalize the market by creating market-ready “neoliberal subjectivities” (Chapman, Ruiz-Chapman, & Eglin, 2018 ), or who argue that the proselytizing gesture of its proponents and its rootedness in Western liberal democratic culture make it inescapably imperial (Andreotti & Souza, 2011 ). A common accusation is that GC is an attempt to put a progressive veneer on the global market. In addition, definitions of GC that link it to worldly cosmopolitan values, high-tech skills, and enough cross-cultural knowledge to enable flexibility and adaptability map neatly onto the kinds of subjectivities one will find among the world’s most privileged and highly mobile workers. For critics, there is evidence for this critique in the individualizing and entrepreneurial programs which make elites responsible for limited social change that won’t disrupt market relations. Conversely, the neorepublican and neoliberal response to this critique is that citizenship is inseparable from market-based participation in society because it is the market’s tendency to untether people from social, political, and economic constraints and to diversify the economy that creates free rational agents capable of participating democratically (Lovett & Pettit, 2009 ). From this perspective, chauvinism, discrimination, and communitarianism are bad for global markets, ergo the promotion of the progressive social values of GC is good for the global economy. The critics of GC are quite right in that it is being articulated and reframed to fit the particular ideological commitments of promarket actors in certain sites (Chapman et al., 2018 ; Pais & Costa, 2017 ). However, paying close empirical attention to how conceptualization works, what should be emphasized is that GC’s heterogeneity, fluidity, and contested meaning ensure that it cannot be dismissed as essentially one thing and serving a single purpose (Biccum, 2020 ). Instead, close empirical attention needs to be paid to who is using it, how, and for what purpose.

The Theory of GC

It is commonplace to want to tell the story of GC as the next step in the genealogy of the cosmopolitan tradition. But the picture is more complex than that, because while both cosmopolitanism and GC have close family ties with liberal political theory, it is a mistake to collapse them because there are articulations of liberalism which reject cosmopolitanism, such as the work of John Rawls. Equally, in GC’s associations with antiquity there are concrete connections also with republican political thought (Pagden, 2000 ). In fact, republicanism has equally enjoyed a revival since the 1990s (Costa, 2009 ; Dagger, 2006 ; Lovett & Pettit, 2009 ) and, when examined in detail, the approach to the market found in elite articulations of GC do bear a closer affinity with neorepublicanism than, as critics maintain, neoliberalism (Biccum, 2020 ). The work of Luis Cabrera argues for maintaining a distinction between cosmopolitanism and GC while understanding their connections (Cabrera, 2008 ). Succinct political theories of GC have emerged (Carter, 2001 ; Dower, 2000 ; Tully, 2014 ), some of which try to counter this tradition and some of which marshal GC as a suitable replacement for aggressive American militarism (Arneil, 2007 ; Hunter, 1992 ), arguing that it will allow the United States to pass an “Augustan Threshold.” However articulated theoretically, GC is intimately tied up with questions of human nature, political subjectivity, and appropriate political arrangements, such as polis, state, republic, global governance, world state or empire, with a characteristic omission of political arrangements deemed less formal or “modern.”

The commonplace narrative that places GC within the history of the repetitive revival of cosmopolitan thought is best expressed by April Carter ( 2001 ) and Derek Heater ( 1996 ), whose histories observe a cycle of periodic revival in which the structural contradictions of imperial formations follow a pattern of critique and externalization. Heater begins with Aristotle’s view of the polis as a form of political organization that is congruent with the nature of man. 1 This is an intellectual gesture that naturalizes the polis, making it an expression of the final and perfect condition of human development, and provides legitimacy for its transplantation elsewhere (similar to Hegel’s view of the state). These ideas were put under sustained pressure from circumstances that bear a remarkable similarity to patterns coded by contemporary scholars as “globalization,” including territorial expansion, extensions of governance, migration, and the privatization of the military. Cosmopolitan ideas, Heater argues, arise out of the failure of the polis to live up to claims that it is the expression of human nature. This led to the exploration of two other ideas: the true nature of human beings should be sought either in solitary individualism, or in the essential oneness of the human race. These were first articulated by figures who were critical of existing political arrangements such as Diogenes, Cicero, and Zeno. According to Heater, the periodic revival of cosmopolitan ideas since ancient times is caused by a sense of external threat, whether it be war or environmental catastrophe. Each articulation differs in emphasis over the role of the state, the role of the individual, the role of global institutions, and the desirability of a world state. Similarly, historian Anthony Pagden offers a genealogy of cosmopolitan thought which sees it as indelibly rooted in imperial structures but finds its culmination in the global republicanism of Immanuel Kant, in which Pagden finds there are also critiques of imperialism (Pagden, 2000 ). Thus, an analytical distinction must be maintained between concrete political projects for the realization of global democracy or a world state, and cosmopolitan political philosophy, although they certainly intersect. So, for example, the early cosmopolitans did not devise plans for constitutions and governance, and early- 20th-century advocates for a world state (such as H. G. Wells) were not philosophers (Heater, 1996 ). The International Relations (IR) scholarship which sees the eventuation of a world state deriving from structural conditions is not necessarily engaging normatively with the concept of GC (Ruggie, 2002 ; Wendt, 2003 ), and some scholarship on GC sees its democratic potential in the fact that it is a set of citizen claims, attitudes, and behaviors in the absence of a world state (Dower, 2000 ; Dower & Williams, 2002 ; Falk, 2002 ).

Understanding GC as the culmination in the genealogy of cosmopolitan thought also conflicts with the cosmopolitan revival in IR, although these scholars repeat the formulation described by Heater: namely, the contradictions of globalization demonstrate the flaws in the Hegelian understanding that the nation state is the perfect reflection of human rationality and the only political arrangement that will enable the full flowering of human development. The turn to cosmopolitanism in IR is also occasioned by the end of the Cold War and the disillusionment with Marx in the context of a recognition of diverse identities and non-class-based modes of social, political, and economic exclusion and the new social movements that sprang up as a redress. The cosmopolitan vision for the extension of democracy through reformed institutions is articulated by Richard Linklater ( 1998 ), Daniele Archibugi ( 1993 ), and David Held ( 1995 ) as a redress for these structural conditions. The sovereign state cannot continue to claim to be the only relevant moral community when the opportunities and incidences of transnational harm rise alongside increasing interdependence (Doyle, 2007 ). Similar to their ancient counterparts, Linklater, Archibugi, and Held offer cosmopolitan democracy as both a critique of the Hegelian theory of the state as the highest expression human rationality and a method of expanding democracy transnationally. Both Archibugi and Linklater offer the possibility of direct citizen participation in global institutions as the mechanism that would make for a robust global democracy. Global or world citizenship is implicated in this project, but these scholars do not offer a political theory of GC as such.

The cosmopolitan revival in political theory does, however, theorize GC as a way of reconfiguring ethical foundations of the individual connection to state and world (Appiah, 2007 ; Nussbaum, 1996 ; Parekh, 2003 ). The cosmopolitanism of these scholars is organized around the premise that, in the context of “complex interdependence,” individuals in advanced economies have ethical obligations to the rest of the human race which can override their obligations to fellow citizens. Contained within many arguments in favor of GC is a latent criticism of the nation state and transnational capital. For Thomas Pogge ( 1992 ) this amounts to recognition of the insertion of the citizens of advanced economies into global value and production chains; for Bhiku Parekh this amounts to recognition of the political and economic debt gained through European colonization, and he calls for a globally oriented national citizenship (Parekh, 2003 ). 2

The central cleavage is the relevance and role of the state. Critics of GC argue that GC’s rootless sense of obligation from nowhere undermines Aristotelian notions of civic virtue, and that the nation state is the only community where active citizenship can be practiced (Carter, 2001 ; Miller, 1999 ; Walzer, 1994 ). Others offer GC as a way of being that does not devalue, erode, or supersede the nation state. Nigel Dower, for example, argued in 2000 that a world state is not needed for GC (Dower, 2000 ). Here he is responding to critics who argued at the time that GC cannot exist, because of a lack of common identity and institutions. Some scholars offer “rooted cosmopolitanism” as an affinity to the global that is grounded in individual biography and location (Kymlicka & Walker, 2012 ). Similarly, Martha Nussbaum sparked a debate among prominent political, social, legal, and literary theorists over the competing merits of national versus cosmopolitan affinity, and offered concentric circles of affinity from the individual to the global because the state as nothing more than a “morally arbitrary boundary” (Nussbaum, 1996 , p. 14). Nussbaum later revised this position to articulate a “globally sensitive patriotism,” arguing that the sentiments that underpin patriotism can be used to rescue the concept from its chauvinistic variants, allowing it then to play a role in creating a “decent world culture” (Nussbaum, 2008 , p. 81). But for most of these scholars the state is the starting point for either advocacy or critique of GC.

There are other scholars in the analytic tradition attaching to GC a notion of cosmopolitan right, meaning the restriction of individual freedom so that it harmonizes with the freedom of everyone else. For Luis Cabrera ( 2008 ) this is an important step toward developing an overarching conception of cosmopolitanism, one that details appropriate courses of action and reform in relation to individuals and institutions in the current global system. The collapsing of GC and cosmopolitanism as synonymous is for Cabrera a mistake. There are clear differences between them, as well as different conceptual inflections within them. Within cosmopolitanism, Cabrera details the institutional cosmopolitanism of Archibugi and Linklater, which is concerned with the creation of a comprehensive network of global governing institutions to achieve just global distributive outcomes; and moral cosmopolitanism, which as we see in Appiah, Pogge, and Parekh is concerned not with institution-building but with assessing the justice of institutions according to how individuals fare in relation to them. Cabrera’s claim is that individual cosmopolitanism should be understood as GC. GC for Cabrera is a moral orientation toward and a claim to membership of the whole of the human community and a theory of citizenship that is fundamentally concerned with appropriate individual action. In other words, Cabrera is offering a theoretical framework for the operationalization of GC which offers guidelines of “right action” for the global human community. “Right action” can be objectively known for Cabrera following the analytical tradition and particularly the liberal thought of John Rawls. On the question of the world state Cabrera equivocates. He argues that GC is the ethical orientation guiding individual action in a global human community and not preparation for a world state, but he nevertheless advocates for a world state because of the biases against cosmopolitan distributive justice inherent in the sovereign state system. For Cabrera GC identifies the very specific duties incumbent on all humankind to promote the creation of an actual global political community up to and including the creation of a world state.

The question of empire is conspicuously absent among these scholars, while other scholars fully implicate Western imperial history in their account of GC. James Tully ( 2014 ) is the only political theorist of GC to pay close attention the role of European empire in constructing, globalizing, and making modular civil citizenship. With a focus on language and meaning as the sites of political contestation, Tully sees GC as articulating a locus of struggle, noting that because of empire, most of the enduring struggles in the history of politics have taken place in and over the language of citizenship and the activities and institutions into which it is woven. GC for Tully is neither fixed nor determinable, as it is for Cabrera; it contains no calculus or universal rule for its application in particular cases. Rather it is a conjunction of “global” and “citizenship” that can be regarded as the linguistic artifact of the innovative tendency of citizens and noncitizens to contest and create something new in the practice of citizenship. Basing his account of “public philosophy” on a philosophy of language drawn from Wittgenstein, Skinner, and Foucault, in which language is constitutive of human social and political relations, Tully regards freedom and democracy as practiced through language. Language is inseparable from cognition, and in practices of meaning-making human beings continually (re)negotiate their circumstances, and in so doing have the capacity to change the language, and in changing the language, change the game. Tully offers a political theory of GC that builds on the open-endedness indicated by Linklater and Falk, and sees in the multitudinous expressions of transnational political activism the possibility of different, more democratic political arrangements. This is consistent with decolonial scholarship in IR, postcolonial scholarship in education, and critical scholarship on sustainability, which argue that the modernistic, dualist language of science is part of the problem in that it hinders the ability of scholars and citizens to conceptualize life differently. To change social reality, they argue, we have to change our language (Shallcross & Robinson, 2006 ), and for many critical scholars GC is part of this conceptual shift.

The Study of GC

Research on the practice of GC can be roughly divided between the normative theoretical and the phenomenological empirical and contains a tension between GC as actually existing and needing to be produced. Scholarship has expanded substantially since the 1990s and moved away from an association with cosmopolitanism toward a direct engagement with GC as a concept and field of study in its own right. Contributions to the field have appeared in Media and Cultural Studies (Khatib, 2003 ; Nash, 2009 ), International Law (Hunter, 1992 ; Torre, 2005 ), Psychology (Reysen & Hackett, 2017 ; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013 ), and Citizenship Studies (Arneil, 2007 ; Bowden, 2003 ; Soguk, 2014 ), but the bulk of the scholarship appears in International Relations (IR) (residing in roughly the subfields of Globalization, Global Governance, Social Movements, and Global Civil Society) and in educational scholarship (residing in pedagogical scholarship but also emerging interdisciplinary fields where educational scholarship is overlapping with International Political Economy, IR, and International Political Sociology) (Armstrong, 2006 ; Ball, 2012 ; Dale, 2000 ; Desforges, 2004 ). Methodologically, most of the scholarship has been qualitative and interpretive or critical, with a handful of quantitative approaches just emerging in Psychology seeking to measure global citizen attributes, and one study providing a quantitative aggregate account of the appearance of “GC” in textbooks (Buckner & Russell, 2013 ; Katzarska-Miller & Reysen, 2018 ; Reysen & Katzarska-Miller, 2013 ). Debates across much of the scholarship follow an optimistic–pessimistic or normative–critical dichotomy.

Sociological scholarship on globalization going back to the 1990s describes a growing global awareness that can be causally attributed to information communications technologies (ICTs). ICTs play a central role in all accounts of “observable” GC, even if operating in the background as the necessary sufficient conditions for transnational cooperation and mobilization. This sociological approach sees in the massification of communications technology a distribution of symbolic resources that inform how people see themselves and their knowledge of others in time and space. This is in keeping with 20th-century scholarship in the fields of nationalism, communication, and the histories of knowledge which have posited the constitutive nature of communications technology and identity (Anderson, 1983 ; Foucault, 1982 , 2000 ; Lule, 2015 ; Martin, Manns, & Bowe, 2004 ; Norris, 2009 ). For Urry, Pippa Norris, and others, just as national broadcasting can be causally credited with the development of national citizenship, so can ICTs be credited with the rise in global affinities, cosmopolitan worldviews, and self-identification as a global citizen. In addition to transforming the possibilities for transnational interaction, mobilization, and governance and the market across terrestrial space, ICTs enable visibility, the spread of knowledge and shared experiences, the perception of threat, and a sense of the world as a whole. For this approach there is a historical connection between ICTs and democracy dating back to the social upheaval in Europe that went with the introduction of the printing press. When ICTs are global, they enable more political transparency through the identification and exposing of wrongdoing. Harmful backstage behavior can be revealed, put on display, and represented over and over again. This has been done to states and corporations over their environmental and human-rights transgressions and has fuelled the activities of new social movements. Such revelations contribute to the knowledge base of those claiming to be global citizens, and of those being so characterized in the scholarship.

Communications technology is one of the structural factors making it possible to uncouple citizenship from the territorial state. Advances in ICTs have also created the technical capacity to make GC an institutional reality. The volume Debating Transformations of National Citizenship devotes a section to debating the possibilities inherent in blockchain technology to confer a grant of citizenship to all humanity through a universal digital identity. Blockchain technology provides the technological capability, international law provides the global juridical framework (Article 25(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), according to which every citizen should have the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs), and the Sustainable Development Goals articulate a political will and policy framework (goal 16.9 aims to provide a legal identity for all, including birth registration by 2030 ). For optimists, blockchain technology would provide universal recognition of personhood; enhance individual freedom by allowing people to create self-sovereign identities with control over their personal data; mitigate against the increased politicization of citizenship; and could have the benefit of protecting human rights and stateless persons, assisting in the fight against human trafficking, and even mitigate the tendency of states to monetize naturalization (De Filippi, 2018 ). In addition, it contains the possibility for emancipatory movements to mobilize across territorial borders. The creation of multiple cloud communities would allow for experimentation with democratic utopias and would enable a direct global democracy by creating the possibility of a one-person-one-vote participation in global governance (Orgad, 2018 ). By extending decision-making power to individuals and communities that are currently excluded, it contains the potential for the realization of cosmopolitan democracy as envisaged by Linklater and Archibugi. For pessimists, this would require a globalization of communications technology that is not environmentally sustainable and would centralize power in the hands of states and corporations.

Moving beyond technological determinism, a common refrain in the study of GC is that it is organically expressed, manifested and spread by the globalizing of civil society and transnational advocacy networks (TANs) (Armstrong, 2006 ; Carter, 2001 ; Desforges, 2004 ; Meutzelfeldt & Smith, 2002 ). Here, the attribute of causality is not necessarily with the individual, but with the variety of political arrangements that have emerged to address transnational issues. According to April Carter, “amnesty as an organisation can be seen as a collective global citizen” (Carter, 2001 , p. 83). While not all the groups that fall within the designation Global Civil Society (GCS) can be associated with GC, it is the groups which are engaged in political lobbying, policy work, volunteering, campaigning, fundraising, and protest on social justice issues to do with poverty, inequality, and human rights that are regarded as sites for the study of GC because they are ostensibly motivated by identification with the whole of humanity, cosmopolitan values, a concern about injustice, a willingness to act collaboratively and cooperatively. Moreover, their activities are undergirded by and contribute to the operationalization of a universal system of human rights. They assist local populations in making claims against state governments and they make claims against global institutions for redress of problems. Participants in these networks are transnationally mobile through associations which facilitate the production of knowledge, the formation of “epistemic communities,” and consensus therefore around the policy response to the transnational issues around which they are organized (Haas, 1989 , 1992 ).

A circular logic is at play here. Activists who care about social justice issues comprise the personnel of groups which create networks for the purposes of making change. These networks in turn are new forms of association wherein participation engenders the sorts of values and attributes which can be assigned to the global citizen (Pallas, 2012 ). This logic of learning through participation is a common refrain across political theory, constructivist IR, social movements, and education scholarship (Finnemore, 1993 ). These developments in transnational collective action underpin the claim that changing patterns of global governance create new consequences for citizenship. Much of the scholarship regards this as a democratic trend because many of the groups which inhabit these networks are (semi)autonomous from states and governance structures; use knowledge gathered from grassroots and professional experience to highlight global issues to shape public opinion in such a way as to put pressure on states and corporations responsible for abuses; or push global public policy around health, education, and development in the direction of a more equitable distribution and access and inclusion. Even when the policy preferences of TANs make it onto the global agenda (such as happened with educational access and inclusion and GC education via the Sustainable Development Goals), these groups can continue to apply pressure by also monitoring the operation of UN agencies or national compliance with particular international agreements: the Global Education Monitoring Reports and a special issue of Global Policy (volume 10, supplement 1, September 2019 ) are good examples of this. TANs are regarded as strengthening international society and linkages between states (mitigating the structural condition of anarchy initially posed by IR). For scholars, these spaces of activity embody GC by promoting a world order based not on state interests but on human rights, and acting as a vehicle for strengthening the legitimacy of global institutions and international law (Jelin, 2010 ; Shallcross & Robinson, 2006 ). The interaction they create between the bottom-up and top-down in an expanded architecture of global governance divided by policy specialism is evidence of Alexander Wendt’s claim that a world state is inevitable (Wendt, 2003 ).

However, civil-society groups and TANs are not the only nonstate actors laying claim to the label “global citizen.” Corporations and their representative organizations (e.g., the World Economic Forum) are also adopting the label, and the literature on Global Corporate Citizenship cites the same set of circumstances regarding the pressure that globalization has put upon state capacity. In the circumstance of a “global regulatory deficit” that has been created by financing conditions that required the shrinkage of the state, corporations have a choice between exploiting that deficit for gain, or exhibiting “enlightened self-interest” by recognizing that they have social responsibilities as well as rights. Corporations act as global citizens, according to this literature, by assuming responsibilities of a state, such as the provision of public-health programs, education, and protection of human rights through working conditions while operating in countries with repressive regimes. Global corporate citizens engage in self-regulation to ensure the peace and stability required for continued realization of profits (Henderson, 2000 ; Schwab, 2008 ; Sherer & Palazzo, 2008 ). Considering that much of the activism of social movements against neoliberal globalization has been directed against corporations and the global institutions promoting their preferred policy agendas, this raises a question in need of further exploration. How can the site of the trouble provide ostensibly the solution? Should observers be relieved by the corporate recognition of social justice issues when economic nationalism is on the rise, or should it be regarded as an instrumental attempt at co-opting?

Here lies a central cleavage animating both the endorsement and the critiques of GC. Does capitalism underwrite democracy through economic growth, or does it erode democracy by facilitating monopolies which put power and wealth in the hands of a few? For many commentators, the expanded networks of global governance are not democratic, because they are inhabited by powerful actors with asymmetric bargaining power and the ability to ensure that whatever compromises are made do not trouble the logic of the existing system (El Bouhali, 2015 ; Caballero, 2019 ). The spaces inhabited by global citizens are not in fact spaces of negotiation open to all, and particularly as they are formalized and professionalized, they create an elite (Pallas, 2012 ) of what are effectively bureaucratic functionaries of global governance. Moreover, these elites are primarily from the Global North and are criticized for pursuing an elite-led advanced economy agenda for the international system. Structural imbalances are often cited between Southern and Northern participants because participation requires resources and this creates a Western bias (Gaventa & Tandon, 2010 ). Rather than seeing these actors as representing and advocating on behalf of voiceless constituents, Pallas ( 2012 ) sees a moral hazard and a lack of accountability in “global citizens” who propose policy solutions for which they may not bear the costs by intervening in problems that do not affect them directly. Participants may mistake as “global connectedness” what is in effect identity-sharing among elites. In addition, it is the institutional structure and the funding models of GCS, which have long been subjects of critique, that limit the ability of these groups to entreat the public to behave as global citizens (Desforges, 2004 ).

Richard Falk’s 1993 essay “The Making of Global Citizenship” describes the global citizen as “a type of global reformer: an individual who intellectually perceives a better way of organizing the political life of the planet” (Falk, 1993 , p. 41). This brings us to the assumption of causality which individualizes the emergence of GC in a quintessentially modern gesture which sees GC born of individuals who think critically and do not accept the organization of political life as they find it, but instead ask foundational questions and engage in utopian visions. Falk describes GC as “thinking, feeling and acting for the sake of the human species” (Falk, 1993 , p. 20). GC is thus an orientation toward the collective which begins in the individual with a specific kind of attitude, aptitude, and knowledge. Something peculiar is happening with the consolidation of GC discourse and scholarship. With its uniform emphasis on activism, the global-citizen discourse, whether it occurs in international organisations, corporations, global civil society, individuals or scholarship, has the effect of normalizing and shifting the normative orientation around political activism. This is a significant development given the context of the proliferation of political activisms since the 1960s and the wide variety of political mobilizations occurring on both the right and left of the spectrum in the 21st century . Moreover, the global-citizen discourse has the effect of legitimating the transnational agendas of certain activists (Pallas, 2012 ), and has resulted in a significant normative shift within global institutions in favor of the issues first brought to attention by antiglobalization activists of the 1980s and 1990s. This could be regarded with considerable skepticism as a form of co-opting, or with some relief as a welcome salve to chauvinisms of all varieties. Under the rubric of “GC,” the notion that globalizing capital might have any causal connection to political instability, environmental and health catastrophes, and growing inequality is seldom entertained, even as GC’s insertion into the Sustainable Development Goals sees the production of global citizens as the solution to global problems through the production of global “change makers.” Either way, there is a marked tension between two areas of scholarship in education and political science, where one sees in transnational advocacy the existence of global citizens, and the other sees in the globalization of education policy a strategy for their production.

The conceptualization of GC informs how it is studied. Optimistic scholarship observes what it considers to be organic expressions of GC in social movements, transnational advocacy networks, global governance, and among elite actors. Pessimistic scholarship observes the promotion of GC by elites and through private and governance institutions as a hegemonic strategy to contain and displace social movements; to institutionalize an epistemic paradigm which forecloses on critical thinking and non-Western, particularly indigenous knowledges; and to create a political subject which is amenable to globalizing capital (Bowden, 2003 ; Chapman, 2018 ). Across all this scholarship there are differing accounts of causality which traverse assumptions around human agency, social structure, technological change, and social engineering (Wendt, 1987 ). Technological determinant accounts attribute change to communications technology, top-down accounts attribute change to institutions and governance, and bottom-up accounts attribute change to individual and group agency. The latter two are complicated by the now very large field of GC Education, which has emerged from a combination of elite-led and social movement approaches to education in the 20th century . What is common to all is a characterization of GC as a change in the political subject. Despite the variety in conceptualization and definition of GC, the active, collective, and public element is consistent throughout. Across all the scholarship and debate there appear to be two central issues which require more systematic engagement. The first is the assumption that all forms of political activism are politically “progressive” (that is, in favor of human rights, political freedom, democracy, and equality); and the second is the assumption that GC is inherently neoliberal and therefore also inherently imperial.

A continuing blind spot in much of this scholarship is the concurrent rise of the right-wing political mobilization in various locations. This issue is debated in a volume in dialogue with Tully’s essay “On Global Citizenship” (Tully, 2014 ), and forms a substantive limitation in Tully’s account. Tully is overly optimistic that all forms of nonviolent contestation of civil citizenship are aimed at democracy, freedom, human rights, peace, and equality. He does not consider that alongside more “progressive” globally networked forms of activism are equally regressive forms of negotiation for more conservative and chauvinistic aims, sometimes enacted through violent means (Comas, Shrivastava, & Martin, 2015 ). Duncan Bell makes this criticism as well as raising the question of subject formation, which Tully leaves unaddressed (Bell, 2014 ). This is a notable absence in a time when the social engineering of GC is an active multilateral project. Part of this multilateral project is also an attempt to recapture youth mobilization away from the mobilizing tactics of various far-right or terrorist groups (Bersaglio et al., 2015 ; OECD, 2018 ; Sukarieh & Tannock, 2018 ). In the production of the “global citizen,” then, is also a contestation over what counts as politics, and Tully and other global citizen optimists fail to account for the potential weaponization of the political orientation and allegiance of young people.

Equally, Tully’s engagement in favor of GC is in tension with critical scholarship which sees in GC the continuance of an imperial project. Tully’s understanding of empire is reduced to Western European empire (as is it for most scholars critical of the Western tradition, including both postcolonial and decolonial). This is both one-sided and ahistorical and fails to consider the world historical development of empires in the plural and the fact that what Europe colonized at its periphery was, in many cases, other empires (Burbank & Cooper, 2010 ). There is a growing body of scholarship in International Relations (IR) which attempts to grapple in various ways, some more successful than others, with the peculiar absence of the history of empire from the discipline (Barkawi, 2010 ; Blanken, 2012 ; Colas, 2010 ; Dillon Savage, 2010 ; Go, 2011 ; Nexon & Wright, 2007 ; Spruyt, 2016 ); a growing body of scholarship which is calling for disciplinary decolonization (Abdi et al., 2015 ; Apffel-Marglin, 2004 ; Go, 2013 ; Gutierrez et al., 2010 ; Hudson, 2016 ; Taylor, 2012 ); and a growing body of historical scholarship which takes a comparative approach both to empires and to their role in constructing the international system (Burbank & Cooper, 2010 ; Darwin, 2007 ; Alcock et. al., 2001 ). The problem with the GC-is-imperial critique is that it has been made without a systematic engagement with the theoretical and methodological problem that empire poses for the social sciences. Equally, scholarship within IR that has begun to broach this question has done so without contending seriously with what postcolonial scholarship has done to further such an endeavor, or with how the reintroduction of empire poses serious problems for the very foundations of the discipline of political science (Biccum, 2018a ; Barkawi, 2010 ; Barkawi & Laffey, 2002 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). The recognition of empire and state co-constitution, which is made legible by the scholars who (in both history and historical IR) have begun to make empire an inescapable foundation of inquiry, necessitates a denaturalization of the state. Once the nation state is properly historically contextualized as embedded in imperial politics, the cosmopolitan debate over whether individual allegiance and identity is owed to state or humanity becomes remarkably hollow.

But equally, the state is as much a conceptual variable as GC, and a common critique of the methodological nationalism of much Western political thought and of the social sciences is that it has contributed to a normalization and naturalization of the state which is not consistent with the historical facts of the international system (Ferguson & Mansbach, 2010 ; Mitchell, 1991 ). Once this foundational problem that empire poses for how the social sciences have traditionally understood the state is properly engaged, scholars who value democracy, human rights, and justice have no choice but to normatively endorse GC, or perhaps, following Vandana Shiva, Earth Democracy (Shiva, 2005 ). In addition, scholars need to be careful about continuing to brandish critiques of GC under the rubric of “neoliberalism” in an age of hegemonic decline (Biccum, 2020 ). If GC is indeed imperial, this claim must be made with a very robust understanding of what is meant by empire, which is among many other things, after all, also a concept (Biccum, 2018a ). Scholarship on GC needs to continue, as it has begun to do, to empirically map its usage, operationalization, and institutionalization, with a particular focus on how concepts do political work. The field, practice, and use of the concept is growing. Future scholarship should be paying close empirical attention to how, by whom, and to what purposes it is being used while engaging robustly with questions of norms, methods, and the politics of knowledge. Scholars across the different fields and different normative, theoretical, and empirical divides need to begin to speak to one another. Most importantly, scholars need to keep as the focal point of their inquiry how the concept of GC itself raises important foundational questions about how we should live.

Abdi, A. A. , Shultz, L. , Pillay, T. (Eds.). (2015). Decolonising global citizenship education . Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Alcock, S. E. , D’altroy, T. , Morrison, D. , Sinopoli, C.M. (Eds.). (2001). Empires; perspectives from archaeology and history . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism . London, UK: Verso.
Andreotti, V. , & Souza, L. M. (Eds.), (2011). Post-colonial perspectives on Global Citizenship Education . New York, NY, Routledge.
Andreotti, V. (2014). Soft versus critical GC education. In S. McCloskey (Ed.), Development education in policy and practice (pp. 21–31). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Apffel-Marglin, F. , & Marglin, S. A. (Eds.), (2004). Decolonising Knowledge: From Development to Dialogue. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Appiah, K. A. (2007). Global Citizenship. Fordham Law Review , 75 (5), 2375–2392.
Archibugi, D. (1993). The reform of the UN and cosmopolitan democracy: A critical review. Journal of Peace Research , 30 (3), 301–315.
Armstrong, C. (2006). Global civil society and the question of GC. Voluntas , 17 , 349–357.
Arneil, B. (2007). Global Citizenship and empire. Citizenship Studies , 11 (3), 301–328.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary . New York, NY: Routledge.
Barkawi, T. , & Laffey, M. (2002). "Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations." Millenium - Journal of International Studies , 31 (1), 109–127.
Barkawi, T. (2010). Empire and order in international relations and security studies. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
Bell, D. (2014). To act otherwise: Agonistic republicanism and GC. In J. Tully (Ed.), On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue (pp. 181–205). London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Biccum, A. (2018a). What is an empire? Assessing the postcolonial contribution to the American empire debate. Interventions: Journal of Post-Colonial Studies , 20 (5), 697–716.
Biccum, A. (2018b). Editorial: Global Citizenship and the politics of conceptualisation. International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning , 10 (2), 119–124.
Biccum, A. (2020). Global Citizenship and neo-republicanism? Problematising the “neoliberal subjectivities” critique. In P. Eglin , T. Ruiz-Chapman , & D. D. Chapman (Eds.), Going global? Critical studies on GC (pp. 129–152). London, NY: Routledge.
Bersaglio, B. , Ennis, C. , Kepe, T. (2015). Youth under construction: The United Nations’ representations of youth in the global conversation on the post-2015 development agenda. Canadian Journal of Development Studies , 36 (1), 57–71.
Blanken, L. J. (2012). Rational empires: Institutional incentives and imperial expansion . Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
Bosio, E. , & Torres, C. A. (2019). Global citizenship education: An educational theory of the common good? A conversation with Carlos Alberto Torres. Policy Futures in Education , 17 (6), 745–760.
El Bouhali, C. (2015). The OECD neoliberal governance: Policies of international testing and their impact on global education systems. In A. A. Abdi , L. Shultz , & T. Pillay (Eds.), Decolonising global citizenship education (pp. 119–130). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Bowden, B. (2003). The perils of Global Citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 7 (3), 349–362.
Buckner, E. , & Russell, S. G. (2013). Portraying the global: Cross-national trends in textbooks’ portrayal of globalization and Global Citizenship. International Studies Quarterly , 57 , 738–750.
Burbank, J. , & Cooper, F. (2010). Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Caballero, P. (2019). The SDGs: Changing how development is understood. Global Policy , 10 (1), 138–140.
Cabrera, L. (2008). Global citizenship as the completion of cosmopolitanism. Journal of International Political Theory , 4 (1), 84–104.
Carter, A. (2001). The political theory of Global Citizenship . London, UK: Verso.
Chapman, D. D. , Ruiz-Chapman, T. , & Eglin, P. (2018). Global Citizenship267 as neoliberal propaganda: A political economic and postcolonial critique. Alternate Routes , 29 , 142–166.
Clark, I. (1999). Globalisation and international relations theory . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Colas, A. (2010). The international political sociology of Empire. Oxford Research Encyclopedia International Studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
Comas, J. , Shrivastava, P. , & Martin, E. (2015). Terrorism as formal organization, network, and social movement. Journal of Management Inquiry , 24 (1), 47–60.
Costa, V. (2009). Neo-republicanism, freedom as non-domination and civizen virtue. Politics, Philosophy and Economics , 8 (4), 401–419.
Dagger, R. (2006). Neo-republicanism and the civic economy. Politics, Philosophy and Economics , 5 (2), 151–173.
Dale, R. (2000). "Globalisation and Education: demonstrating a 'common world educational culture' or locating a 'globally structured educational agenda'?" Educational Theory , 50 (4), 427–448.
Darwin, J. (2007). * After Tamerlane: The global history of empire since 1405 . London: Allen Lane.
De Filippi, P. (2018). Citizenship in the era of blockchain-based virtual nations. In R. Baubock (Ed.), Debating transformations of national citizenship (pp. 267–278). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Desforges, L. (2004). The formation of Global Citizenship: International non-governmental organisations in Britain. Political Geography , 23 (5), 549–569.
Dillon Savage, J. (2010). The stability and breakdown of empire: European informal empire in China, the Ottoman Empire and Egypt. European Journal of International Relations , 17 (2), 161–185.
Dower, N. (2000). The idea of Global Citizenship—A sympathetic assessment. Global Society , 14 (4), 553–567.
Dower, N. , & Williams, J. (Eds.). (2002). Global Citizenship: A critical introduction . New York, NY: Routledge.
Doyle, M. (2007). The liberal peace, democratic accountability and the challenge of globalisation. In D. Held & A. McGrew (Eds.), Globalisation theory: Approaches and controversies (pp. 190–206). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Falk, R. (1993). The making of Global Citizenship. In J. Brecher , J. B. Childs , & J. Cutler (Eds.), Global visions: Beyond the new world order (pp. 39–50). Boston, MA: South End Press.
Falk, R. (2002). An emergent matrix of citizenship: Complex, uneven, fluid. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Eds.), Global Citizenship: A critical reader (pp. 15–29). London, UK: Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.
Fanghanel, J. , & Cousin, G. (2012). “Worldly” pedagogy: A way of conceptualising teaching towards Global Citizenship. Teaching in Higher Education , 17 (1), 39–50.
Finnemore, M. (1993). International organisations as teachers of norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and science policy. International Organisation , 47 (4), 565–597.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry , 8 (4), 777–795.
Foucault, M. (2000). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language . New York, NY: Vintage Books.
The original edition was published in French by Gallimard in 1969. The first English translation appeared in 1972.
Ferguson, Y. H. , & Mansbach, R. W. (2010). The sociology of the state: The state as conceptual variable. In Oxford research encyclopedia of internatioanl studies . USA: International Studies Association and Oxford University Press.
Gaventa, J. , & Tandon, R. (Eds.). (2010). Globalising citizens: New dynamics of inclusion and exclusion . Claiming Citizenship. London: Zed Books.
Gaudelli, W. (2009). Heuristics of Global Citizenship discourses towards curriculum enhancement. Journal of Curriculum Theorising , 25 (1), 68–85.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.
Go, J. (2011). Patterns of empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the present . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Go, J. (2013). Decolonising Bourdieu: Colonial and postcolonial theory in Bourdieu's early work. Sociological Theory , 31 (1), 49–74.
Gutierrez, R. , Encarnacion, M.B. , Costa, S. (Eds.). (2010). Decolonising European sociology: Transdisciplinary approaches . Farnham, England: Ashgate.
Haas, P. M. (1989). Do regime matter? Epistemic communities and mediterranean pollution control. International Organisation , 43 (3), 377–403.
Haas, P. M. (1992). Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organisation , 46 (1), 1–35.
Hartmeyer, H. (2015). The state of global education in Europe: A GENE report . Dublin, Ireland: European Union.
Heater, D. (1996). World citizenship and government: Cosmopolitan ideas in the history of Western political thought . Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan Press.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the global order . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Henderson, H. (2000). Transnational corporations and Global Citizenship. American Behavioural Scientist , 43 (8), 1231–1261.
Hicks, D. (2003). Thirty years of global education: A reminder of key principles and precedents. Educational Review , 55 (3), 265–275.
Hudson, H. (2016). Decolonising gender and peacebuilding: Feminist frontiers and border thinking in Africa. Peacebuilding , 4 (2), 194–209.
Hunter, D. B. (1992). Toward Global Citizenship in international environmental law. Willamette Law Review , 28 (3), 547–564.
Isin, E. F. , & Nyers, P. (2014a). Introduction: Globalising citizenship studies. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of Global Citizenship studies (pp. 1–11). London, UK: Routledge.
Isin, E. F. , & Nyers, P. (Eds.). (2014b). Routledge handbook of Global Citizenship studies . London, UK: Routledge.
Jelin, E. (2010). Towards a global environmental citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 4 (1), 47–63.
Karlberg, M. (2008). Discourse, identity and Global Citizenship. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice , 20 (3), 310–320.
Katzarska-Miller, I. , & Reysen, S. (2018). The psychology of Global Citizenship: A review of theory and research . Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Khatib, L. (2003). Communicating Islamic fundamentalism as Global Citizenship. Journal of Communication Inquiry , 27 (4), 389–409.
Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts . Stanford, California: Standford University Press.
Kymlicka, W. , & Walker, K. (Eds.). (2012). Rooted cosmopolitanism: Canada and the world . Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Lee, C. (2014). Decolonising Global Citizenship. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of GC studies (pp. 75–85). London, UK: Routledge.
Linklater, A. (1998). Cosmopolitan citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 2 (1), 23–41.
Lovett, F. , & Pettit, P. (2009). Neorepublicanism: A normative and institutional research program. The Annual Review of Political Science , 12 , 11–29.
Lule, J. (2015). Globalisation and media: Global village of Babel . London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.
Marshall, T. H. (1949). In T. B. Bottomore (Ed.), Citizenship and social class . Pluto Perspectives. London, UK: Pluto Press.
Martin, K. , Manns, H. , & Bowe, H. (2004). Communication across cultures: Mutual understanding in a global world . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Meutzelfeldt, M. , & Smith, G. (2002). Civil society and global governance: The possibilities for Global Citizenship. Citizenship Studies , 6 (1), 55–75.
Miller, D. (1999). Bounded citizenship. In K. Hutchings & R. Dannreuther (Eds.), Cosmopolitan citizenship (pp. 60–82). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: Beyond statist approaches and their critics. The American Political Science Review , 85 (1), 77–96.
Mundy, K. , Green, A. , Lingard, B. , Verger, A. (Eds.). (2016). The handbook of global education policy . West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Nash, K. (2009). Global citizens as show business: The cultural politics of make poverty history. Media, Culture and Society , 30 (2), 167–181.
Nexon, D. H. , & Wright, T. (2007). What's at stake in the American Empire debate. American Political Science Review , 101 (2), 253–271.
Norris, P. (2009). Cosmopolitan communications: Cultural diversity in a globalised world . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. (1996). Patriotism and cosmopolitanism. In M. Nussbaum & J. Cohen (Eds.), For love of country (pp. 3–20). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Nussbaum, M. (2008). Toward a globally sensitive patriotism. Daedalus , 137 (3), 78–93.
OECD . (2018). Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world: The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris: OECD Directorate for Education and Skills.
Orgad, L. (2018). Cloud communities: The dawn of Global Citizenship? In R. Baubock (Ed.), Debating transformations of national citizenship (pp. 251-26). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Oxley, L. , & Morris, P. (2013). GC: A typology for distinguishing its multiple conceptions. British Journal of Education Studies , 61 (3), 301–325.
Pagden, A. (2000). Stoicism, cosmopolitanism and the legacy of European imperialism. Constellations , 7 (1), 3–22.
Pallas, C. L. (2012). Identity, individualism and activism beyond the state: Examining the impacts of Global Citienship. Global Society , 26 (2), 169–189.
Pais, A. , & Costa, M. (2017). An ideology critique of Global Citizenship education. Critical Studies in Education , 61 (1), 1–16.
Pallas, C. L. (2012). Identity, individualism and activism beyond the state: Examining the impacts of global citizenship. Global Society , 26 (2), 169–189.
Parekh, B. (2003). Cosmopolitanism and Global Citizenship. Review of International Studies , 29 , 3–17.
Parmenter, L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of Global Citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education , 9 (3–4), 367–380.
Pogge, T. (1992). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics , 103 (1), 48–75.
Reysen, S. , & Hackett, J. (2017). Activism as a pathway to Global Citizenship. The Social Science Journal , 54 , 132–138.
Reysen, S. , & Katzarska-Miller, I. (2013). A model of Global Citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology , 48 (5), 858–870.
Richardson, D. (1998). Sexuality and citizenship. Sociology , 32 , 83–100.
Rose, N. (1996). Refiguring the territory of government. Economy and Society , 25 , 227–256.
Ruggie, J. (2002). Constructing the world polity: Essays on international institutionalisation . London, UK: Routledge.
Sant, E. , Davies, I. , Pashby, K. , & Shultz, L. (2018). Global Citizenship education: A critical introduction to key concepts and debates . London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Sartori, G. (Ed.). (1984). Social science concepts: A systematic analysis . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Schaffer, F. C. (2016). Elucidating social science concepts: An interpretivist guide . London & New York: Routledge.
Schattle, H. (2008). Education for Global Citizenship: Illustrations of ideological pluralism and adaptation. Journal of Political Ideologies , 13 (1), 73–94.
Schattle, H. (2015). Global Citizenship as a national discourse: The evolution of segye shimin in South Korean public discourse. Citizenship Studies , 19 (1), 53–68.
Schwab, K. (2008). Global corporate citizenship: Working with governments and civil society. Council on Foreign Relations , 87 (1), 107–118.
Shallcross, T. , & Robinson, J. (Eds.). (2006). Global Citizenship and environmental justice . Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Sherer, A. G. , & Palazzo, G. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship . Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Shiva, V. (2005). Earth democracy: Justice sustainability and peace . London: Zed Books.
Shukla, N. (2009). Power, discourse and learning Global Citizenship: A case study of international NGOs and a grassroots movement in the Narmada Valley, India. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 4 (2), 133–147.
Soguk, N. (2014). Global Citizenship in an insurrectional era. In E. F. Isin & P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge handbook of GC studies (pp. 49–61). London, UK: Routledge.
Soysal, Y. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Spruyt, H. (2016). Empires, past and present: The relevance of empire as an analytic concept . N. Parker. New York: Routledge.
Stevenson, N. (1997). Globalisation, national cultures and cultural citizenship. The Sociological Quarterly , 38 , 41–66.
Sukarieh, M. , & Tannock, S. (2018). The global securitisation of youth. Third World Quarterly , 39 (5), 854–870.
Taylor, L. (2012). Decolonising international relations: Perspectives from Latin America. International Studies Review , 14 (3), 386–400.
Torre, M. la. (2005). Global Citizenship? Political rights under imperial conditions. Ratio Juris , 18 (2), 236–257.
Tully, J. (2014). On Global Citizenship: James Tully in dialogue . Critical Powers. London, UK: Bloomsbury.
Turner, B. S. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology , 24 (2), 189–217.
Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze . London, UK: SAGE.
Urry, J. (1999). Globalisation and citizenship. Journal of World Systems Research , 5 (2), 311–324.
van Steenbergen, B. (1994). Towards a global ecological citizenship. In B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 141–152). London, UK: SAGE.
Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral arguments at home and abroad . London, UK: University of Notre Dame Press.
Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International Organisation , 41 (3), 335–370.
Wendt, A. (2003). Why a world state is inevitable. European Journal of International Relations , 9 (4), 491–542.
Yuval-Davis, N. (1997, Month). National spaces and collective identities: Border, boundaries, citizenship and gender relations . Inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Greenwich, London, UK.

1. Derek Heater acknowledges that similar themes advocating world community and government can be found in the Indian, Chinese, and Japanese intellectual traditions (Heater, 1996 ).

2. This view has been problematized by scholarship occurring at the same time which examines the ways in which globalization has changed the state through the very same transnational governance structures that contemporary scholarship regards as empirical evidence for the existence of GC. For an account of globalization and the state see Clark ( 1999 ).

Global Distributive Justice
Cooperative Learning in International Relations
Global Democracy
Globalization and Globality
Globalization and Human Rights
Globalization through Feminist Lenses
The International Political Sociology of Empire

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, International Studies. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 22 August 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[81.177.180.204]
81.177.180.204

Character limit 500 /500

IMAGES

Importance of Global Citizenship Free Essay Example
Essay on Global Citizenship
Justice and the Concept of Global Citizenship
TCW Study- Guide-7
My Roles and Responsibilities as a Global Citizen Free Essay Example
The Global Citizenship Concept

COMMENTS

In a short essay, discuss your personal definition of global
Global citizenship refers to viewing oneself responsible to a world community rather than just a national one. As a Filipino, becoming an active member of the global village involves engaging in cross-cultural exchanges, supporting global initiatives, and advocating for global issues.
Essay on Global Citizenship
Conclusion. Global citizenship is like being a friend to the entire world. It means learning, sharing, and caring for others and our planet. Even if you are just one person, you can make a big difference. When we all work together as global citizens, we make the world a happier, healthier, and more peaceful place.
Global citizenship
Global citizenship is a form of transnationality, specifically the idea that one's identity transcends geography or political borders and that responsibilities or rights are derived from membership in a broader global class of "humanity".This does not mean that such a person denounces or waives their nationality or other, more local identities, but that such identities are given "second place ...
What is global citizenship?
Global citizens include individuals, corporations, global nomads, "glocals," young and old, big and small, for-profit and non-profit, public and private, introverts and extroverts, men and women and children and anyone in between. Global citizenship and long-term, visionary leadership go hand-in-hand: Individual leaders who espouse shared ...
What is Global Citizenship?
What we do. Global citizenship is the term for social, environmental, and economic actions of individuals and communities who recognise that every person is a citizen of the world. It is about how decisions in one part of the planet can affect people living in a different part of it, and about how we all share a common humanity and are of equal ...
Importance of Being a Global Citizen
Global citizenship is a crucial step that people should take because it has its advantages. In the world of advanced technology, being a global citizen is helpful because it assists in succeeding in meeting individual, professional, and academic goals and objectives. Modern technology helps people to keep in touch or communicate with business ...
Rights and 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 ...
Global Citizenship
Global citizenship is the umbrella term for social, political, environmental, and economic actions of globally minded individuals and communities on a worldwide scale. The term can refer to the ...
What Exactly Does It Mean to Be a 'Global Citizen'?
What do Global Citizens believe in? At its core, being a Global Citizen means believing that extreme poverty can be eliminated, and that the resources to end it can be mobilized if enough people take action. It means learning about the systemic inequalities that fuel poverty — racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, and economic inequalities — and ...
What you need to know about global citizenship education
What UNESCO does in global citizenship education. UNESCO works with countries to improve and rewire their education systems so that they support creativity, innovation and commitment to peace, human rights and sustainable development. Provides a big-picture vision for an education that learners of all ages need to survive and thrive in the 21 ...
"I am a Global Citizen" essay 200-300 words
Answer. Answer: I am a global citizen. I am a person who believes that all people are connected and that we all have a responsibility to help make the world a better place. I believe in human rights and in the power of education to transform lives. I am committed to making a difference in the world, and I know that we can only do this if we ...
A Citizen of the World: A Global Citizen Essay
Global citizenship is not simply defined as one thing; it is a large array of various definitions. The basis of it is global citizenship is being a responsible and active member of the global community. To me a global citizen is a citizen of the world. Though global citizenship is being a citizen of the world, it takes more than just caring ...
Global Citizenship
Richard Falk's 1993 essay "The Making of Global Citizenship" describes the global citizen as "a type of global reformer: an individual who intellectually perceives a better way of organizing the political life of the planet" (Falk, 1993, p. 41). This brings us to the assumption of causality which individualizes the emergence of GC in ...
what does it mean to be a global citizen?
almatheia. A global citizen is an individual who recognizes with being part of an emerging global community and whose activities add to building the values and practices of the community. A global citizen plays a vital role in making our planet more equal fair and sustainable. Accordingly, global citizenship enables individual human beings to ...
b) Write an essay. Discuss how you can benefit from Global Citizenship
Global Citizenship Education (GCE) plays a vital role in equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to address global challenges like water pollution.Through the three domains of learning—cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral—GCE can empower individuals to become active agents in resolving water pollution issues.
how to be a global citizen
To become a global citizen is. •To be aware of the issues within the society and help or take part in solving it's problems. • Being respectful to each and everyone's differences and to know how to value everyone's worth is being a global citizen. • To become a global citizen, you must also not just take care of human welfare but as well ...
what does it mean to be a citizen of the world?
A global citizen is someone who identifies with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to building this community's values and practices. Such a definition of global citizenship is based on two assumptions which this article explores: (a) that there is such a thing as an emerging world community to which people ...

Essay on Global Citizenship

100 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Responsibilities of Global Citizens

Benefits of Global Citizenship

250 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Caring for the Earth

Working Together

500 Words Essay on Global Citizenship

Why is Global Citizenship Important?

Taking Care of the Planet

Helping Others

Being Active in Your Community

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Oxfam education

What is Global Citizenship?

What does it mean to be a global citizen?

Examples of global citizenship

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

BENEFITS OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Teaching resources

Active global citizenship

Discover More

Schools Speak Out

Also in this section

Importance of Being a Global Citizen Essay

Introduction

The Rights & Responsibilities of Global Citizenship

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES

Search the United Nations

Global Citizenship

Ana G. Mendez University

UNITED NATIONS

TAKE ACTION

NEWS AND MEDIA

ISSUES AND CAMPAIGNS

What you need to know about global citizenship education

What’s the idea behind global citizenship?

What is global citizenship education about?

What UNESCO does in global citizenship education

Why does UNESCO prioritize global citizenship education?

How is GCED implemented?

Related items

Article contents

What is Global Citizenship?

The Theory of GC

The Study of GC

Related Articles

IMAGES

COMMENTS