viduals and their states differ from country to country. 34 An individual’s responsibilities towards states are complicated when we consider those who reside outside of their state, and are further obscured for those who are not legal members of any state. However, the inclusion of the stateless is still conceptualized within the realm of the state system. It is the state that decides whether a person should be granted membership, and the state is the leading community into which non-members wish to be included. But what of those who choose to be stateless? How do we begin thinking of autonomy and obligation, for example, when our frame of reference is those who have decided to free themselves of the obligations toward their “Yet people continue to eschew citizenship: state? by renouncing it, refusing to engage with The idea that peo- practices of citizenship, or not registering ple choose to live outside for it in the first place” of formal membership and “off the grid” is not new. For millennia people have chosen exile and many have fared well without formal membership. As the sovereign state system has evolved and citizenship has become institutionalized, however, formal membership has permeated the daily aspects of modern life. Yet people continue to eschew citizenship: by renouncing it, refusing to engage with practices of citizenship, or not registering for it in the first place. The following is a brief overview of some of the individuals and communities who choose statelessness. Identity, agency and activism: social and anthropological perspectives There are several individuals who have voluntarily become stateless in the name of humanitarianism. Mike Gogulski, Garry Davis, and Clark Hanjian have all renounced their respective citizenships and become stateless in resistance to what they believe are oppressive state practices in which citizenship renders them complicit. For these individuals voluntarily becoming stateless is an act of conscience, so as to live responsibly in the world (Hanjian 2017: 1, Abrahamian 2014, nostate.com n.d., Bhagavan 2012). These men are characterized as quirky and rebellious, but it is social and global justice that drives them. Renunciation of one’s citizenship can also be understood as a measure to achieve personal goals with respect to financial gain and individual liberty. Glen L. Roberts states that in addition to perceiving allegiance to any state as an affront to his free will, his anti-government activities in the United States and his desire to free There are several theoretical approaches to the ‘social contract’. These span centuries and categorise persons differently including subjects, citizens, members, and individuals, among others. For the purpose of this paper I use the term individuals and I refer to the parties of the ‘social contract’ generally as individuals and states. 4 An attempt to define the rights and responsibilities of states can be seen in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States. 3 http://community.apsanet.org/migrationcitizenship/home 45