2020 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 2(2) conclusion. 14 This complexity is clearly Shaw’s intention and posits a great strength of the book. CHANGING CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT CHANGING CITIZENSHIP REGIMES Shaw’s notion of constitutional citizenship carefully builds on the work of constitutional theorists such as Michel Rosenfeld, who have identified citizenship as the ‘prism’ through which ‘constitutional identity emerges’. 15 She similarly conceives of citizenship as an ‘articulation’ of constitutional identity, 16 in the context of a specific polity at specific times. As Shaw rightly emphasises, for the interpretation of such meaning ‘context is indeed everything’. 17 However, her notion of constitutional citizenship allows us to go a step further; it also encompasses the relation the other way around. Namely, looking at constitutional identity discourse as the ‘prism’ that exposes a deeper meaning of citizenship. Her discussion of the Basic Law: Israel — The Nation-State of the Jewish People (‘Israeli Basic Law’) is a case in point. 18 Article 1 of the Israeli Basic Law constitutionalises the following brief narrative: the Jewish people established the State of Israel in its homeland and now exercises its unique right to selfdetermination in this land. The main character of this narrative of peoplehood, the Jewish people, excludes the country’s minority citizens. 19 In this way, the Israeli Basic Law gives Israeli constitutional citizenship a different and, arguably, more exclusive meaning by re-telling the narrative with a certain set of characters and without touching the formal Israeli citizenship regime itself. Such a perspective on the relation between constitutional discourse and citizenship also helps to make sense of other demands for constitutional change, which may indeed be in deep substantive contradiction to each other. For instance, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (‘German Basic Law’), 20 the German far-right ‘Alternative for Germany’ called to amend it to enshrine inter alia cultural identity, referring to the much-contested term Leitkultur. 21 On the other side of the political spectrum, some civil society organisations speaking for migrants and their descendants have advocated for a new section in art 20 of the German Basic Law, which would read: ‘The Federal Republic of Germany is a diverse country of immigration. It promotes the equal 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ibid 258. ibid 73; Michel Rosenfeld, The Identity of the Constitutional Subject: Selfhood, Citizenship, Culture, and Community (Routledge 2010) 243. Shaw (n 2) 75–76. ibid 33. Basic Law: Israel — The Nation-State of the Jewish People, 26 July 2018 (Israel). Shaw (n 2) 71–73. See also the contributions to a debate on Verfassungsblog in November 2018, ‘Debate: An Israel of, for and by the Jewish People?’, Verfassungsblog (Blog, 13 November 2018) <https://verfassungsblog.de/category/debates/an-israel-of-for-and-by-thejewish-people/>. Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutshland [Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]. Alternative for Germany, Antrag. 70 Jahre Grundgesetz — Bewährtes Bewahren, an Neue Herausforderungen Anpassen [Motion. 70 Years of the Basic Law — Proven Preservation, Adapting to New Changes] (Motion 19/10168, 14 May 2019). 374