German Law Journal 1641 United States of America, with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and its extension of birthright citizenship.31 For example, enhanced citizenship status or rights have regularly been used during and after wars to reward combatants, or those whose status within society has changed as a result, for example, of labor shortages. A good example is the granting of female suffrage in many countries after the First World War during which many women had become involved in the labor market.32 The relationship between citizenship and war is complex, and goes back many centuries, right to Roman times, but has evolved in more recent times to encompass also an enhanced concern about the relationship between enemy aliens and national belonging, which casts into doubt also the allegiance of naturalized citizens.33 During the COVID-19 pandemic, tropes of war and dis-allegiance have invaded the language of many politicians, who have employed martial metaphors to suggest that combatting the virus/disease is something like a case of going to war, and who have invested the description of the virus with xenophobia, such as Donald Trump’s use of “China virus”, or the negative connotations invested in the naming of the “Indian variant” until the World Health Organization (WHO) retitled the variants of the virus according to the Greek alphabet in substitution for the place where they were first sequenced. The main part of the analysis in this article highlights some of the most important areas where we can see an impact of the pandemic on aspects of citizenship as understood in its constitutional context, where there are risks that such impacts may be exacerbated by existing vulnerabilities or inequalities. There is inevitably some overlap between the different topics discussed, and the coverage is certainly not comprehensive, not least because the pandemic/syndemic remains an evolving scenario. Since the coronavirus first emerged as a threat to human health and wellbeing at the end of 2019, the COVID-19 epidemic has already passed through a number of phases. These have revealed the tensions that exist, for example, between human rights and health protection. During the initial phases of the pandemic, the primacy of health protection was characterized by strong movement restrictions, adopted in order to reduce drastically the contacts between people. In the shorter term, these could be justified on emergency grounds. In the longer term societies may need substantial regulatory and structural adjustments in order to make it possible for humans to co-exist successfully with the virus, which is likely to remain in circulation in most countries.34 Out of emergency may emerge a new experimentalism.35 Even so, the fundamental tension between individual freedoms, as well as broader social questions such as the impact on mental health, education, the economy, and the protection of the right to life and to health, especially of the most vulnerable, will persist, although how precisely this tension plays out will vary from country to country and according to the point in the cycle of the pandemic at which any given country is located. The calculus in relation to the mix of measures to be adopted depends upon scientific and medical questions as well as socio-economic and political ones. There are also profound tensions between thinking about a rights-based approach in a national context involving the partial or complete closure of borders, where the protection of the existing resident population is given precedence above other interests, and broader internationalist or global perspectives on human rights, which take into consideration, for example, the capacity of richer countries to corner supplies of drugs or vaccines,36 which are desperately needed elsewhere in the world, 31 See SHAW, supra note 25. MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN, EARNED CITIZENSHIP (Oxford Univ. Press 2019). 33 DANIELA L. CAGLIOTI, WAR AND CITIZENSHIP: ENEMY ALIENS AND NATIONAL BELONGING FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR (Cambridge Univ. Press 2021). 34 Nicky Phillips, The Coronavirus Is Here to Stay—Here’s What That Means, 590 NATURE 382 (2021). 35 Bonnie Honig, Three Models of Emergency Politics, 41 BOUNDARY 2, 45 (2014). 36 For evidence of how rich countries have cornered the supply of vaccines, see the work of Duke Global Health Innovation Center. See also Jackie Dugard, Jeff Handmaker, & Bruce Porter, Vaccine Nationalism and Vaccine “Apartheid,” OPINIO JURIS (Feb. 18, 2021), http://opiniojuris.org/2021/02/18/mobilising-human-rights-to-address-coronavirus-vaccine-apartheid/. As of November 8, 2021, only 4.1 percent of the populations of low-income countries had received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine. Hannah Ritchie, Edouard Mathieu, Lucas Rodes-Guirao, Cameron Appel, Charlie Giattino, Esteban Ortiz-Ospina, 32 https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.77 Published online by Cambridge University Press