OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011), pp. 14-26

EUROPEAN IDENTITY – SUPRANATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

Paula Marques Santos

PhD, Ms, PG, BSc. in International Relations. Coordinator of the Postgraduate,

long life learning and Bachelor Degree in

Executive Secretary Skills (Secretarial Studies) at ESTGL

Mónica Silva

BSc in International Relations, Professor at

Higher School of Technology and Management Studies in Lamego (ESTGL)

Abstract

The present article aims to advance a reflexion on the construction of the European Union

citizenship/identity and identify the main challenges behind the consolidation of the

citizenship bond and the difficulties in making EU citizens becoming more involved in the

integration process and in bringing European institutions closer to normal citizens.

Keywords

European citizenship; Treaty of Lisbon; supranationality; fundamental rights;

democratic citizenship; challenges

How to cite this article

Santos, Paula Marques; Silva, Mónica (2011). "European identity – supranational

citizenship”. JANUS.NET e-journal of International Relations, Vol. 2, N.º 1, Spring 2011.

Consulted [online] on date of last visit, observare.ual.pt/janus.net/en_vol2_n1_art2.

Article received in December 2010 and accepted for publication in March 2011

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

EUROPEAN IDENTITY – SUPRANATIONAL CITIZENSHIP

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

Context

In the last few years, European citizenship has assumed increased significance in the

debate on the importance of its efficient strengthening to ensure the consolidation of

European integration and to bring institutions closer to citizens.

In fact, although Monet did refer to the construction of the community as a union of

people and not just states, it was only in the 1990s

, with the Treaty on the European

Union (TEU) and the Treaty of the European Community (TEC), that article 17 clearly

defined a citizen of the EU – this quality was to be recognized in any national of a

Member State (MS), whose nationality was that stated in the national laws of the

Member State in question.

This citizenship concept immediately took up a supranational nature complementary to

that of national citizenship. In other words, EU citizenship was to complement national

citizenship, not replace it, and encompassed a set of rights and duties in addition to

those stemming from the quality of being a citizen of a MS

The statute of EU citizenship implied, up to now and for all EU citizens, just a list of

rights, of which the following stand out: right to free movement and the right of

residence in the territory of any MS; active and passive electoral acts in the

elections into the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the MS of

residence, in the same conditions as nationals of the MS in question; right to

diplomatic protection in a third country (non-EU state) by the diplomatic or consular

authorities of another Member State, if their own country does not have diplomatic

representation there, to the same extent as that provided for nationals of that Member

State; the right to petition the European Parliament and the right to appeal to an

Ombudsman appointed by the European Parliament concerning instances of

maladministration in the activities of Community institutions or bodies (procedures

governed by Articles 194 and 195 of the TEC; the right to write to any Community

institution or body in one of the languages of the Member States and to receive a

response in the same language (Article 21, third paragraph, TEC);the right to access

Before the signing of the TEU and TEC, joint work was carried out to make the community area more

cohesive. During the 1990s, there were significant developments to conceptualize and implement

citizenship and education for citizenship in Europe, a process that involved several institutions and

entities, including the Council of Europe and the European Commission. The Council of Europe has been

involved in human rights and citizenship education since the 1980s. The Erasmus mobility programme,

through which the European Commission started promoting educational transnational projects, is an

example of that effort. The common denominator in these initiatives was to encourage a feeling of

European identity and citizenship.

The listed duties are those that stem from the nationality of each citizen, and there is no added duty

resulting from EU citizenship, other than the duty to respect European citizenship and the duty to protect

that same citizenship.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

European Parliament, Council

and Commission documents, subject to certain

conditions (Article 255, TEC).

However, all these duties associated with European citizenship have always had

obvious restrictions: according to article 18, paragraph 1 of the TEC, “every citizen of

the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the

Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by

the measures adopted to give it effect”. This reservation refers in particular to the

legitimate interest of Member States in requesting social and financial backing before

guaranteeing residence permits, in other to protect their public funds. In similar

fashion, as Besson points out (2007), these reservations and constraints apply to all

European citizenship rights, which are guaranteed and bound by the Treaties. This has

been object of concern, since these reservations are acceptable with regard to

economic fundamental freedoms, but not in social and political matters. The difficulty

increased from the moment EU jurisprudence became more generous in guaranteeing

national limits for European citizenship rights than it should have, and allowed these

rights to be evoked as one of the four fundamental freedoms. And if it is true that the

Court of Justice started an unheard-of and much needed initiative to expand EU

citizenship rights in material and personal terms, unfortunately this development has

been counteracted by over-broad justifications to limit those rights.

The Treaty of Lisbon denotes the same intention to reinforce citizenship in the Union by

increasingly involving citizens in the construction of the EU and in its policy-making

using several mechanisms and tools (maintenance or reinforcement of those mentioned

above, and creation of others which we shall refer to and which informed our analysis).

To this effect, we believe it is of the utmost importance to understand the scope of the

concept of European citizenship and how it can truly become operational, so that the

dichotomy institutions-citizens can become a real tool for deepening interaction in the

construction of the Union, given its unique specificities. In other words, if citizenship is

a legal bond between an individual and corresponding Member State in a strict sense,

which translates into a set of rights and duties, then we need to provide a frame for

this new supranational bond between citizens and the Union, always bearing in mind

the absence of duties directly allocated to this supranational relationship, even with the

entering into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the binding/compulsory nature of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Indeed, this concept has been given considerable reflection: on the one hand, there

have been attempts to identify existing issues preventing the consolidation of European

citizenship. On the other, a sufficiently broad definition has been put forward in order to

clarify this new type of bond that overflows national borders. Nyers (cf. 2007) offers a

summary of some authors’ approaches and contributions. Gerard Delanty examines

European citizenship policy and notes some concerns related with lack of solidarity and

social justice in this citizenship emerging model. For other authors, such as Aihwa Ong,

the concern lies on knowing if the territorial notions of citizenship are still current and

relevant or if, nowadays, the concept ought to find other meanings in accordance with

the global movements that determine contemporary politics4. For Figueroa, in turn,

In accordance with the wording of the Treaty of Lisbon, this means the Council of Ministers.

Ong stresses the importance of the large urban metropolises that take on global migration flows and

theorises how these centres can become a “mutation in citizenship zone” where punishments and

rewards are distributed according with the assets that contribute to the urban economy Cf. Nyers (2007).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

citizenship involves the following: a commitment to society taking into account its

diversity; openness to and solidarity with other individuals and their differences:

acceptance of all people; rejection of any form of exploitation, discriminatory treatment

or racism (Figueroa, 2000: 57).

Faced with all these uncertainties, we must not forget, as defended by Yeatman (op.

cit.), that any debate on future European citizenship must always take into account the

complex and long-lasting relationship between sovereignty and subjectivity, between

the search for individual self-preservation and the States and other entities that aim to

legitimize their authority (where we place the EU). In other words, the concept of

citizenship will need to be reformulated, since, as Preuss pointed out, “citizenship does

not presuppose the community of which the citizen is a member, but creates this very

community” (apud Osler: 2006).

So far, the level of citizenship attainment in the Union has mostly been due (with the

exception of electoral capacity) to a mere systematization of existing rights (particularly

in what concerns freedom of movement, right to stay and right to petition). Citizenship

is now being enshrined in primary law in the name of a political project.

Contrary to what we have seen with regard to the existing concept of constitution in

European states since the proclamation of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of

the Citizen (1789), there are no specific guarantees with regard to fundamental rights

associated with EU citizenship

. Although paragraph 2 of article 6 of the TEU states that

the “Union shall respect” fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as

“the constitutional traditions common” to Member States as general principles of

Community law, the article does not mention the legal statute of citizenship of the

Union (with regard to the fundamental rights of the Union)

. Accordingly, despite what

is laid down in paragraph 2 of article 17 of the TEC, EU citizenship does not imply any

duties for the Union’s citizens, which is a major difference with regard to citizenship of

Member States, except the respect for Fundamental Rights and respect for citizenship

and defence of the EU, as seen earlier.

With the coming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we need to understand how the

Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the binding nature it has attained, and the various

forms of citizens’ direct participation in the policy-making process (especially with the

setting up of the European Citizens’ Initiative) may favour increasing engagement of

citizens in European integration. In other words, how can these mechanisms effectively

potentiate the defence of citizens and active citizenship which, according to Hoskins’

definition, implies involvement in civil society, in the community and/or political life

characterised by mutual respect and non-violence, in accordance with human rights

and democracy (Hoskins et al., 2006). This author also aims to demonstrate the

existing heterogeneity among EU Member States, in terms of active citizenship,

according to the construction of the composite indicator

The TL changed this, as the Charter of Fundamental Rights became binding.

Cf. “The Citizens of the Union and Their Rights”. Fact Sheets on the European Union. [CD-ROM]

European Parliament: 2009.

The Active Citizenship Composite Indicator (Hoskins et al.) covers 19 European countries and is based on

63 indicators using data collected in the European Social Survey of 2002. The theoretical framework used

to construct the active citizenship composite indicator was developed – in cooperation with the Council of

Europe – by a team of European experts and presented at an international conference in Ispra in

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

Figure 1 – Active Citizenship Composite Indicator

Source: Hoskins et al. (2006)

In addition, evaluating the capacity and will of each Member State to participate in

advancing this ongoing political experimentation project will also be important, as it

requires a much shared interdependence and the establishment of institutional

agreements in the face of contestation and conflicts within a community made up of

communities. Due to their adhesion to the EU, the actual Member States are forced to

question the concepts of sovereignty and citizenship, and accept the impact of Europe

on their own organization, institutions and policies, and the fact that community

political decisions will not necessarily reflect their national interests.

1. European citizenship in the Treaty of Lisbon

The concept of citizenship, based on the definition of former treaties, is explicitly laid

down in article 9 of the Treaty of Lisbon (TL), which states that “in all its activities, the

Union shall observe the principle of the equality of its citizens, who shall receive equal

attention from its institutions, bodies, offices, and agencies. Every national of a Member

State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to

national citizenship and shall not replace it” (our underlining)

September 2006. The authors established several items organized around four major dimensions,

namely: political life, civil society, community life, and values. As the constructed indicator shows, we

see a heterogeneous Europe where Nordic countries lead and Southern countries have positive

performances with regard to values and political life, and negatives ones concerning civil society and

community life. According to this indicator, the top five countries are: Sweden, Norway, Denmark,

Austria, and Belgium. At the bottom of the list are Italy, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, and Poland.

However, the five best positioned countries do not have the highest points in the 4 dimensions. The

same applies to the least well-placed. For instance, Poland has one of the highest performances in the

values dimension, while Portugal is halfway the table in the same dimension.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

The TL also consecrates the fundamental principles of democratic equality, of

representative democracy (article 10)

and of participatory democracy. As an example

of the intention to promote participatory democracy, the Treaty proposes a new

interaction mechanism – in fact, article 11, paragraph 4, introduces a new right for

citizens of the Union: “Not less than one million citizens who are nationals of a

significant number of Member States may take the initiative of inviting the European

Commission, within the framework of its powers, to submit any appropriate proposal on

matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose

of implementing the Treaties”.

Accordingly, the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) becomes one of the most important

innovations brought about by the TL in terms of citizenship. In addition to the

previously proposed interaction mechanisms with institutions and bodies, of which the

European Parliament and the Ombudsman stand out, respectively, it aims to strengthen

citizens’ capacities to pro-actively participate in the Union’s policy-making process.

Apart from the ECI novelty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights became binding in

2009, which attests the aim to make Europe a more uniform union in social terms. The

ECI and the binding nature of the Charter are two examples we shall now analyze in

greater depth in terms of building a European identity.

2. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights

In order to enshrine civil, political, economic, and social rights, the Treaty of Lisbon

also made the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding

, conferring it the same legal

standing as that of the Treaties, listing rights, freedoms and guarantees. As Isabel

Camisão explained “… it is an advance in the protection of the rights of European

citizens…” and has the “advantage of enabling European citizens to have a better

understanding of the guarantees that stem from their status as citizens of the Union.”

(www.ieei.pt, 22.12.09). It confirms the Union’s adhesion to the European Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights, whose fundamental rights become part of the legal

system.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) was not directly incorporated into the Treaty

of Lisbon, but became legally binding under the terms of paragraph 1 of article 6 of the

Treaty on the European Union, which confers the Charter the same legal value as the

Treaties. As stated in the Charter, it does not increase the competences of the Union as

set out in the Treaties. The Charter has a protocol announcing specific measures for the

United Kingdom and Poland, listing exceptions to the Charter’s legal binding nature in

the national courts of those countries.

The EU shall adhere to the European Convention as soon as the 14th protocol of the

ECPHR comes into force, which will enable both states and international organisations

to become signatories of the ECPHR. However, the adhesion act must be ratified by all

EU Member States.

According to article 10, paragraph 3 “every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic

life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

The Member States had already signed the Charter in 2000.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

The CFR

consecrates all the civil, political, economic and social rights of all Union

citizens. It is a set of rights, freedoms and guarantees that decisively contributes to the

consolidation of the concept of European Citizenship, representing a synopsis of

common values of Member States of the Union. The Charter aims to promote human

dignity, illustrate the fundamental rights of European citizens, show the intellectual and

legal foundations of the Union and present it as a rule of law community of values. This

document ensures that all European institutions shall respect those fundamental rights

and guarantee they will be respected by all.

The Cologne European Council, which met in June 1999, deemed it convenient to bring

together the panoply of rights of all EU citizens in a single document, in order to clarify

them. For the first time in the entire judicial history of the European project, a

document encompassing all fundamental rights granted to citizens, which hitherto were

dispersed in many legal texts, was prepared, which was a real innovation. In this

fashion, the Council of Europe mandated a Convention to write a Charter project. The

EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights was enforced in December of that same year,

presided by Roman Herzog, and included representatives

from national parliaments

and governments of the Member States, Euro MPs and the European Commissioner

responsible for that area. The Convention’s

meetings were open and all the

documentation produced as a result was made available online, so that citizens could

access and follow up on the work. The method chosen to write the Charter led to a

widened debate and, subsequently, to an agreed document that was approved by a

large majority on 2 October 2000. The Biarritz European Council that met on 13-14

October unanimously approved the Charter and sent it to the European Parliament and

the European Commission, which approved it on 14 November and on 6 December,

respectively. On 7 December and at the Nice European Council, the Presidents of the

European Council, Nicole Fontaine, of the Council, Jacques Chirac, and of the

Commission, Romano Prodi, signed the Charter on behalf of their corresponding

institutions, and, accordingly, its political value was recognized. The Constitutional

Treaty

envisaged its integral inclusion in Part II, thus making it legally binding.

The Charter is drawn from several judicial sources and is the result of existing

legislation stemming from the Treaty that established the European Union, the Treaty

on the European Union, the constitutional traditions of the 15 Member States, the 1950

Council of Europe European Convention on Human Rights and additional protocols, the

body of laws of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the body of laws of

the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the 1961 European Social Charter of

the Council of Europe, the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights

of Workers, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Statute of the

International Criminal Court, among others. The Charter has 54 articles divided into 6

chapters: dignity, freedom, equality, solidarity, citizenship, and justice.

This is the most recent declaration on fundamental rights worldwide, and the first of the new millennium.

The Portuguese government was represented by Euro MP Teresa Almeida Garrett, by MP Maria Eduarda

Azevedo, and by Pedro Bacelar de Vasconcelos and Miguel de Serpa Soares (substitutes).

There were public audiences with representatives of the civil society, and this generated over 1500

proposals on the contents of the Charter. National parliaments also started consultation processes,

parliamentary debates and collected opinions on the wording of the Charter.

It was signed on 29 October 2004, but has not yet come into force.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

The intention was not to write a European Constitution nor formulate a new set of

rights, let alone transfer responsibilities from the Member States to the Union

. The

aim was to clarify existing legislation. The objective of the Charter is to certify

individual fundamental rights, explain that European Institutions and States are bound

by citizens’ fundamental rights when promoting and enforcing the law of the Union and

in negotiations with candidate or third party countries, strengthen the idea that the

European Union has always been an area for shared values and rights, and protect

citizens from power abuse on the part of the state. There was equally a concern for

current challenges, and importance was paid to bioethics, data protection and the

environment, and consumer protection. Attention was drawn to the importance of

putting an end to racial, sexual, skin colour, and religious discrimination. The Charter is

a major interpretation instrument that assists the European Court of Justice in its work.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights was solemnly proclaimed on 12 December 2007 in

Strasbourg by the Presidents of European institutions. It was not directly incorporated

into the Treaty of Lisbon, but became legally binding under the terms of paragraph 1 of

article 8 of the TEU, which confers the Charter the same legal value as the Treaties. As

stated in this document, it does not expand the competences of the Union established

in the Treaties. The Charter comes with a protocol that introduces specific procedures

for the United Kingdom and Poland, which anticipate exceptions to the legally binding

nature of the Charter with regard to the national courts in those countries. The Treaty

of Lisbon confirmed the support of the Union for the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights, whose fundamental rights became part of the legal body of

laws. The EU shall adhere to the European Convention as soon as the 14

protocol of

the ECHR comes into force, allowing both states and international organizations to be

signatories of the ECHR. However, the adhesion act must be ratified by all EU Member

States.

With this Charter, European politics aimed to pass on a message of their commitment

to citizens’ rights and values to EU candidate countries, neighbouring countries and the

international community at large. The Charter of Fundamental Rights does not give the

Union new responsibilities, nor does it force Member States to change their

constitutions. Its aim is to emphasize respect for democratic values, human rights and

fundamental reasons. Accordingly, we are pleased to state that it is an inspiring

document of reference that mirrors the freedom and respect for the fundamental rights

enjoyed in the Union. As

Isabel Camisão explains, “… it has the advantage of enabling European citizens to have

a better understanding of the guarantees that stem from their status as citizens of the

Union.” (www.ieei.pt, 22.12.09). This document is a sign that the European integration

project of the last 50 years has been anchored on fundamental rights right from the

onset.

Change of responsibilities is a right and a function of the exclusive competence of Member States, in the

form of amendment of the Treaties.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

3. The European Citizens Initiative (EIC) – article 11, paragraph 4

The introduction of the EIC attests the decision expressed in the TL to encourage

citizens’ engagement with institutions and, in this case, specifically with the European

Commission, since the practice of publically consulting the civil society no longer

produced effective results

. Article 11, paragraph 4, introduced a new mechanism for

the promotion of active citizenship in the Union, stating that at least one million of EU

citizens and nationals from a significant number of Member States could take the

initiative to invite the European Commission, in the context of its competences, to

present a proposal on matters the citizens believed a legal act from the Union was

necessary to enforce the Treaties. The procedures and conditions for taking the

initiative are set out in the first paragraph of article 24 of the Treaty on the Functioning

of the European Union, but they still await regulation

However, and despite this mechanism, several practical issues remain open, and

answers need to be given rapidly to make it effective and not become a wasted

opportunity rendering the wording on the treaty meaningless. For instance, what is

meant by a “significant number of countries”? How many signatures are necessary from

each country? What is the minimum age of participants and who is in charge of

checking their signatures? Who should submit the initiative in the end? Is the

Commission obliged to reply or take the initiative? Alternatively, if it agrees with the

relevance of the matter it was presented with, can it make any changes to the citizens’

request? In short, what is the citizens’ real capacity to carry out an ECI?

As the above shows, some practical aspects of the citizens’ initiative still need to be

defined, and the European Commission has tried to collect the necessary information in

order to regulate the initiative, so as to establish the minimum rules and procedures.

To that effect, and as the ECI should be regulated by the end of 2010, the Commission

launched a public consultation

to gather opinions from the citizens before concluding

works on the matter.

The Green Book and the public consultation posed key questions that aimed to define

the practical issues before carrying out the ECI:

- minimum number of Member States from which citizens must come;

- minimum number of signatures per Member State;

- minimum age of signatories;

For purposes of clarification and standardisation, we have used the numbering shown in the consolidated

versions of the Treaties published in the Official Journal of the EU C115, on 9 May 2008, since the

version of the Treaty of Lisbon published on 17 December 2007 has a different numbering.

The European Commission has set up an electronic area exclusively for the consultation of topics under

discussion in the European agenda by the civil society, with the aim of obtaining citizens’ feedback on

those matters, and involve them in decision-making processes. Cf.

http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_en.htm.

Another example of good practice was the Commission’s creation of several thematic fora (also online)

where citizens can ask questions and debate issues common to all Member States, and try to influence

decision-making processes, as well as negotiations with non-EU countries with regard certain

partnerships, citizens’ rights, etc. The Citizens’ Energy Forum is an example of this. It was launched

by the Commission in collaboration with national and European consumers’ associations, representatives

of Member States, and of the Energy Community, among others, and its main goal is to protect

consumers’ interests when drafting policies and ensure consumers’ rights are respected when

implemented.

The ECI is due to be regulated at the end of 2010 and to come into force in 2011.

Cf. Green Book on the ECI, of the European Commission– public consultation carried out until 31 January

2010.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

- form and wording of a citizens' initiative;

- requirements for the collection, verification and authentication of signatures;

- time limit for the collection of signatures;

- registration of proposed initiatives;

- requirements for organisers - transparency and funding;

- time limit for the Commission’s response;

- what to do should there be several initiatives on the same issue.

As seen, the scope and efficacy of the ECI cannot be accurately measured, given that it

cannot be enforced yet, and we still do not know if this mechanism will actually

translate into increased proximity and involvement of citizens in the policy making of

the EU. In fact, the complexity of the requirements for carrying out and validating an

ECI may have a counter effect and keep citizens further away, leaving the capacity for

preparing these initiatives in the hands of associations and/or social movements that

may, on occasions, be more focused on attaining their specific goals and relegate the

common and community good to second place.

Final considerations

The renewed Lisbon Strategy (Strategy 2020) and the Treaty of Lisbon brought social

cohesion into the centre of the European political agenda. European citizenship is a

crucial aspect of the entire strategy, focusing on values, representative democracy and

civil society. However, before being able to evaluate the importance of European

citizenship and its real impact in the process of deepening integration, we need to know

if citizens actually feel citizens of the Union and wish to be involved in that process. In

other words, we need to ascertain if we can refer to a cohesion capacity that

corresponds to a European identity.

It is obvious that divergences and opposing interests will persist for a long time in this

Europe with 27 member states, as well as within national societies. Accordingly, the

real Europe is a long and major learning and experimentation process at a continent’s

level, with all the difficulties and resistances that it implies (cf. Ribeiro, 2009).

Having access to the information made available by European institutions and entities

does not mean a matching adhesion of citizens to that information, nor the existence of

a better informed, proactive society concerned with European integration. Indeed,

talking of European society implies talking of national citizenship first, and of the

capacity each country has to train citizens more concerned and involved in the

community.

To this effect, higher education entities play a crucial role in the training of young

citizens who are interested about the decision-making process that will influence our

presence in society. It is necessary to create areas where young people may find the

answers to their queries and which offer them a better understanding of the European

Union they belong to, which has become the area where their employment

opportunities, competitiveness and natural competition naturally are. It will only be

through investment in training anchored on values such as citizenship, volunteer work

and accountability, that we will have citizens contributing more actively to the

deepening of European integration. That is, bringing citizens closer to the integration

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

process is underpinned by active citizenship and the states’ capacity to promote and

strengthen the importance of their social capital.

Like Robert Putman affirms, active citizenship is strongly related to “civic involvement”,

which plays a fundamental role in the formation of social capital. The search for

common objectives offers a way for people to experience “reciprocity” and helps create

networks anchored on shared values. The high levels resulting from social trust leads to

increased cooperation among people and reduces the chances of anti-social behaviour

(Putnam, 2000).

Any future debate on this topic will need to underline the importance of adopting a

process based on a reflective approach to the study of European citizenship. This

means that instead of attempting to establish the supremacy of a particular level of

premeditated or unpremeditated standardised citizenship backed by ideological

influences (cf. Kostakopoulou, 2007), the most important is to start with the

presupposition that the EU and national citizenships are interdependent and examine

their interaction and gradual transformation.

The Treaty of Lisbon attests the will to turn an economy-based Europe into a Europe of

Citizens, a Social Europe that aims to transmit the sense of belonging to a

supranational entity. In fact, European citizenship made us rethink the “impossible” and

look for a new model that grants citizens ways to fight discrimination, exclusion and the

inability to find a job, and achieve individual and collective stability. Perhaps this is the

way to redefine the concept of citizenship and simultaneously answer current issues,

making the EU more competitive and a leader in training and citizenship.

If the main objective of European citizenship, as a supranational concept, is to reinforce

the protection of EU citizens’ rights and interests, and also strengthen and consolidate

the identity of Europe by creating a set of rights and duties enabling increased

engagement of citizens in the integration process, such as the right to residence as a

fundamental right, political participation, diplomatic and consular protection, petition

right, among others, the need to initiate and disseminate that sense of belonging to the

community becomes the key point of the debate. Accordingly, it is necessary to identify

methodologies to fortify that supranational citizenship.

European citizenship can only be reinforced after national citizenship at each member

state has been strengthened through the training of better informed citizens concerned

about the community they belong to “… all young people acquire the competencies

required for personal autonomy and for citizenship, to enter the world of work and

social life, with a view to respecting their identity, openness to the world and social and

cultural diversity. (UNESCO, 2004: 3).

To that effect, we need to implement the mechanisms set out in the Treaties. Following

the voting at the European Parliament in December 2010, the Council adopted the

regulations on the European Citizens’ Initiative on 15 February 2010. Accordingly, the

ECI will be enforced as from the end of March of 2012.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

References

Besson, S.; Utzinger, A. (2007). “Introduction: Future Challenges of European

Citizenship – Facing a wide-open Pandora’s box”, European Law Journal, 5, vol. 13:

573-590.

Centro de Informação Europeia Jacques Delors (2009). Treaty of Lisbon. Available at

http://eurocid.pt. [Retrieved on 13 December 2009].

Centro de Informação Europeia Jacques Delors (2009) – Cidadania Europeia. Available

at http://eurocid.pt. Retrieved on 13 December 2009.

European Commission (2009). Treaty of Lisbon. Available at http://ec.europa.eu.

[Retrieved on 13 December 2009].

Epiney, Astrid (2007). “The scope of article 12 EC: some remarks on the influence of

European citizenship”, European Law Journal, 5, vol. 13, 611-622.

Europa (2009). Treaty of Lisbon. Available at http://europa.eu. [Retrieved on 13

December 2009].

Figueroa, P. (2000). “Citizenship education for a plural society” In A. Osler (Ed.)

Citizenship and democracy in schools: diversity, identity, equality (Stoke-on-Trent,

Trentham): 47–62.

Hoskins et al. (2006). Measuring active citizenship in Europe. Luxemburg: European

Commission, Institute for the Protection and Safety of the Citizen. ISBN: 92-79-03738-

Camisão, Isabel (2009). “ O Tratado de Lisboa e o funcionamento institucional da União

– Um relance sobre as consequências institucionais do Tratado de Lisboa”. Instituto de

Estudos Estratégicos Internacionais. Available at www.ieei.pt. [Retrieved on 22

December 2009].

Kostakopoulou, Dora (2007). “European Union Citizenship: writing the future”,

European Law Journal, 5, vol. 13, 623-646.

Leinen, Jo (2007). The Evolution of a European Citizenship: From a Europe of States to

a Europe of Citizens, The Journal of European Left. Retrieved on 30 December 2009.

Osler, A.; Starkey, H. (2006). “Education for democratic citizenship: a review of

research, policy and practice 1995-2005”, Research Papers in Education, 4, vol. 21,

433-466. ISSN 1470-1146.

Nyers, Peter (2007). “Why Citizenship Studies”, Citizenship studies, 1, vol. 11, 1-4.

ISSN 1469-3593, online, /07/010001-4.

Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros (2009). Relatório sobre as modificações

introduzidas pelo Tratado de Lisboa. Lisbon.

European Parliament (2009). European Citizenship. Available at

www.europarl.europa.eu. [Retrieved on 13 December 2009].

Ribeiro, Manuela (2009). (Re)Pensar a Europa. Livraria Almedina.

Ribeiro, Manuela (2010). De Roma a Lisboa. Livraria Almedina.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

ISSN: 1647-7251

Vol. 2, n.º 1 (Spring 2011) pp. 14-26

European Identity – Supranational Citizenship

Paula Marques Santos e Mónica Silva

UNESCO (2004). Message from the 47th session of the UNESCO International

Conference on Education and proposed priorities for action to improve the quality of

education for all young people (Geneva, International Bureau of Education).

United Nations (1994). “Vienna declaration and programme of action on education for

peace, human rights and democracy” In United Nations High Commission for Human

Rights (UNCHR), Human rights: the new consensus (London, Regency Press

(Humanity)).

United Nations General Assembly (2005). Revised draft plan of action for the first phase

(2005–2007) of the World Programme for Human Rights Education (fifty ninth session

A/59/525/Rev.1) (New York, United Nations)