222 Mapping a Sociology of Statelessness crux of the problem lies with the international state system, by which the party seeking self-determination has not yet been considered legitimate. By situating the issue of statelessness within its political context, it thus becomes apparent that the inclusion sought by the stateless individuals or groups is not an inclusion that can be achieved through citizenship of the state in question. 5 Citizenship as a Political Tool When situating statelessness within its appropriate political context, it becomes imperative to identify who the different actors are and what their intentions might be. In light of this, I argue that both statelessness and citizenship are deeply political and that both can be used as political tools and, in some cases, specifically as tools of oppression. The idea of statelessness as a form of oppression recognizes the political dimension of denial of citizenship and situates the issue of statelessness within a framework of structural violence.37 Direct causes of statelessness, such as gender discriminatory citizenship laws, would is this framework be understood as manifestations of the structural violence of patriarchy. Furthermore, a state’s capacity to grant citizenship can also be understood as a political tool. The idea that a state can use the granting of citizenship as a means to achieve a particular political aim goes back to the origins of citizenship, where it has largely been associated with states’ interests in mobilizing labor, drafting citizens to the army and collecting taxes.38 Although these are arguably political intentions, several contemporary examples, such as the Russian state granting citizenship to subjects in Abkhazia or the Donbas region in Ukraine in attempts to undermine the sovereignty of other states, exemplify explicitly political intentions that are even more difficult to overlook.39 Relating this idea to statelessness, McGee illustrates how the Syrian state used citizenship as a tool in its relationship with Syrian Kurds, and explains how Kurds were made eligible to apply for citizenship as part of a strategic government decree to dissuade Kurds from mobilizing as part of ongoing anti-government protests.40 In this case it is important to note that individuals did benefit from acquiring Syrian citizenship. However, it is crucial to situate this within its political context in order to understand how citizenship was granted as a consequence of dominant state interests rather than from an underlying intention of ensuring that Syrian Kurds would be included within the Syrian nation-state as equals. Despite the majority of eligible Syrian Kurds applying for Syrian citizenship, most people also acknowledged the value in rejecting Syrian citizenship and echoed the idea of Syrian citizenship being insufficient in ending the injustice they have experienced (both as stateless and as a Kurdish minority).41 In an explicit example of how citizenship can be used as a political tool of oppression, Eliassi outlines how the Iraqi government has made use of the Iraqi citizenship of Kurds in the country to be able to legitimately exert political authority and violence over the community. He argues that the mass murder campaign targeting Kurds in the 1980s was commonly referred to as Saddam Hussein killing ‘his own people’, and suggests that it was the Kurds’ Iraqi citizenship that initially denied them international protection at the time.42 Eliassi thereby provides a stark example of when the idea of the state as an emancipatory actor is vastly inappropriate, and where citizenship has been used by the state as a tool to legitimize oppression. The term ‘tool’ is used here to signify that the root cause of the exclusion is not citizenship in itself, but rather that citizenship can be used within contexts of extreme oppression as a political tool to legitimize and reinforce violence carried out by the state. 6 Conclusion A sociologically informed approach to statelessness challenges several of the pillars of the legal understanding of this issue, and thereby provides an alternative framework for conceptualizing and addressing statelessness. The concept of citizenship—at the crux of any understanding of statelessness—is approached from the field of citizenship studies, in which it is understood as a broad idea, heavily interrelated with ideas of nationhood, which cannot be reduced to formal legal status. The sociological distinction between ‘stateless person’ and ‘stateless people’ is then considered in light of the hegemonic international 37 38 39 40 41 42 Structural violence is here understood as violence that ‘is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently unequal life chances’, in accordance with Johan Galtung’s definition in ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’ (1969) 6 Journal of Peace Research 171. John Torpey, ‘Coming and Going: On State Monopolization of the Legitimate “Means of Movement”’ (1998) 16 Sociological Theory 241. Blitz (n 24) 74. McGee (n 20) 178. McGee (n 20) 179. Eliassi (n 20) 1410.