liberal citizenship: ambiguities and inconsistencies31 important elements, and second, goes on to posit an essential connection to a national state (Isin 2009, 369). The rise of state-based forms of political organization rendered nationality a central ingredient in the formulation of an institutionalized citizenship. As a result, while the terms ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ extend to different legal jurisdictions, as the former reflects a national sphere and the latter an international legal realm, both nevertheless denote a nationstate framework and bestow the individual with some form of state membership (Sassen 2005, 81–83). However, scholars increasingly question the inherent connection between citizenship and the nation-state framework, or the territorialization of citizenship. Yasemin Soysal’s important contribution on the codification and expansion of rights beyond the national framework of citizenship has since generated new models and understandings of (state) membership.4 Soysal writes: Historically, as the state has expanded and permeated new domains of social action, its responsibility has extended to different strata of society – workers, women, and children. The state has incorporated a larger and larger proportion of the population into its jurisdiction and into the public realm …. In this process, incorporation has affected the national citizenry through the establishment of citizenship rights and national institutions. However, in the postwar era, even foreign populations are incorporated into the institutions of the polity. In accordance with expanding notions of universalistic personhood, non-citizens, as much as citizens, are entitled (and authorized) as productive individuals wherever they reside (Soysal 1994, 31). What surfaces is a kind of dilution of the model of citizenship as a form of elite social membership used as a basis for claim-making. In outlining the conceptual and practical contradictions surrounding readings of citizenship as anchored in a territorialized nation-state, Soysal shows that the bestowing of universalistic rights of personhood moves beyond these boundaries, rendering “national citizenship particularly less important” (Soysal 1994,7–31). All in all, Soysal’s discourse is based on an observation of shifts in the social, political, legal, cultural and economic conditions that interrogate territorial readings of the concept of citizenship. As further explained below, such a non-territorialized reading also has implications for the kinds of actors included in the mechanisms and processes of claim-making. 4 See Soysal (1994). Further, Isin (2009) explains that while these new forms include post-national, transnational, global or cosmopolitan models of citizenship, the literature on citizenship nevertheless is, for the most part, outlined within a state framework.