The Shifting Parameters of Nationality 275 2.1.1 Changing Spatiality of Citizenship: On‑Going Developments Until today the central reference point of citizenship, the most relevant ‘political community’, remains the (nation-)state, but it is obvious that various on-going developments imply a re-alignment of citizenship. Traditionally, the state represented the key institutional order, also because it had a central role in the facilitation and regulation of the industrial, educational and cultural sector.32 However, in the meantime the lives of people are increasingly determined by policies and practices that are not set by the state. The manifold developments in this respect have also triggered reconceptualisations of citizenship. Two developments are highlighted here. Firstly, powers that were traditionally held by states have been shifted towards regional and local governments (decentralisation) and towards international organisations (supranationalism). The resulting multi-level governance has gone hand in hand with the recognition of multiple, intersecting memberships.33 EU citizenship is particularly noteworthy in this respect. While EU citizenship is attached to national citizenship of one of the Member States, and these states in principle retain virtual complete freedom (see below) to decide the requirements for acquisition, the status of EU citizenship has increased the interdependence of nationality policies of the Member States.34 Furthermore, whereas EU citizenship aims to construct a European identity, and can thus been seen to undermine the link between nationality/ citizenship on the one hand and the traditional nation-state on the other,35 EU citizenship’s residence rights do facilitate naturalisation in the Member State of residence.36 Finally, and as will be argued more fully below, several key rights of EU citizens point to the crucial importance of residence and voting rights for the effective realisation of membership, more particularly the right to enter and reside, and the right to vote (in local and European elections).37 Secondly, the changes of the international order towards ‘global governance’ has resulted in the recognition of the growing role of non-state actors (not only various types of international organisations38 but also transnational corporations, NGO’s etc.), and their actual impact on the lives of people. These changes are further 32 Sassen (2002), p. 279. Bauböck and Giraudon (2009), p. 448. See also McMahon (2012), pp. 7–8. 34 Kochenov (2010), p. 2. See also Oosterom-Stapels (2018) in this special issue. 35 Rostek and Davies (2006), pp. 5–6. 36 Kochenov (2010), p. 3. 37 Kochenov (2011) on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on EU citizenship rights referring to the cases of Rottmann (Case C-135/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:104), Ruiz Zambrano (Case C-34/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:124) and McCarthy (Case C-434/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:277), and the extent to which it recognizes EU citizenship rights also when no border has been crossed, can be argued to rethink the boundaries of the community and thus also the nature of the community. EU citizenship is arguably less centrally concerned with free movement rights and economic integration but rather with the recognition of the central importance of fundamental rights, p. 55. 38 For an elaborate review of the enormous range of ‘international organisations’ and their position, and role, see Klabbers (2015). 33 123