278 K. Henrard as there is a commitment to liberal values and institutions.53 A republican theory on citizenship is all about active citizenship and participation in public life, and thus screens applicants for naturalization on their civic virtues, loyalty to constitution and integration efforts.54 When analysing citizenship as referring to the special bond between a citizen and a nation-state, different dimensions of citizenship have been distinguished. Citizenship as full (and equal) membership of the state,55 is further subdivided in citizenship as legal status on the one hand and citizenship as socio-political membership on the other. Put differently, in addition to legal citizenship (or nationality), referring to the legal bond between an individual and a state, also a more substantive citizenship can be identified.56 The legal status dimension triggers questions about criteria and procedures of acquisition of legal citizenship or nationality.57 Substantive citizenship not only encompasses the rights and duties contingent on (legal) citizenship, but also refers to questions of participation, identity and belonging.58 Whereas different authors identify slightly different dimensions,59 there are clearly recurring themes, as well as an acknowledgement that these dimensions are interrelated.60 While rights, equal rights, are an essential attribute of citizenship, this special membership is not only a matter of taking part (politically and otherwise), but also of creating a collective identity and feeling part (belonging).61 53 Honohan (2017), p. 90; Gans (2017), p. 116. Orgad (2017) correctly distinguishes between two types of liberalism. One concerns liberalism as modus vivendi, allowing plural ways of life as long as one is committed to obey the laws and to peaceful coexistence. The other considers liberalism as an ethical project and also require a commitment to liberal values and institutions (muscular liberalism), pp. 344–345. 54 Bauböck (2010), p. 852. 55 Rubenstein (2004), p. 27. 56 Citizenship has been described as ‘a collection of rights, duties and opportunities for participation that define the extent of socio-political membership’ (Rubenstein and Adler (2000), p. 522). 57 Brubaker (1992), p. 21. See infra and see Honohan and Rougier (2018) and De Groot and Vonk (2018) in this special issue. 58 In terms of citizenship and boundaries: citizenship identifies both legal boundaries (status/rights), and social boundaries (identity and belonging). 59 Contra Goodman (2014), critical about using citizenship as a catch all phrase for describing and rights, and status and identity, p. 19. 60 See also the introduction by Shaw and Stiks (2013) in the volume they edited on Citizenship Rights in which they refer to Joppke (status, rights, identity), Wiener (access, rights, belonging), Bauböck (practices, rights and membership), Bellamy (participation, rights, belonging) and Benhabib (collective identity, social rights, political membership). Bloemraad (2017) distinguishes between status/access, rights, participation, identity/belonging. Her account focuses strongly on bounded territory—state control over resources—equal access to right, p. 525. 61 See also Bloemraad et al. (2008), p. 154. 123