Retain Ius Sanguinis, but Don’t Take it Literally!

N/ACitations
Citations of this article
1Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Costica Dumbrava has raised an important question about whether to abandon ius sanguinis citizenship. His arguments are that ius sanguinis is historically tainted and unfit to deal with contemporary issues such as developments in reproductive technologies and changes in family practices and norms. He also claims that ius sanguinis is normatively unnecessary, as it is possible to deliver its advantages by other means. In my response I argue that – from a human rights perspective – children need their parents’ citizenship – or rather, the citizenship of their primary caretakers, be they biological parents or not. Consequently, although I concur with the argument that ius sanguinis, if taken literally, is unfit to deal with some new family arrangements, I do not endorse the viewpoint that it is time to abandon ius sanguinis. Rather, ius sanguinis should be translated into ius filiationis by entitling children to their social parents’ citizenship. In order to achieve mutual understanding about this, states should engage in international cooperation with a view to adopting common guidelines on the recognition of the legal parent-child relationship –as happens already with regard to adoption.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ersbøll, E. (2018). Retain Ius Sanguinis, but Don’t Take it Literally! In IMISCOE Research Series (pp. 137–142). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92719-0_27

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free