Philosophical discussion about citizenship has traditionally focused on the questions of what citizenship is, its relationship to civic virtue and political participation, and whether or not it can be meaningfully exercised at the supra-national level. In recent years, however, philosophers have turned their attention to the legal status attached to citizenship and have questioned existing principles of citizenship allocation and withdrawal. With regard to the question of who is morally entitled to citizenship, philosophers have argued for principles of citizenship allocation that go beyond birth and lineage and have focused instead on the value of political attachment and located life plans. These principles have several advantages over existing legal principles, but they suffer from being under-specified, as well as being over and under-inclusive. With regard to loss of citizenship, philosophers have primarily denounced citizenship withdrawal as a form of punishment by appealing to principles of fair and equal treatment. However, theories purporting to show that denationalization is always wrong have trouble explaining why loss of citizenship is so problematic for persons who have committed the most horrendous crimes against their fellow citizens and who, in so doing, have in effect self-excluded from the political community.

中文翻译：

---

公民分配和退出：一些规范性问题

传统上，关于公民身份的哲学讨论主要集中在以下问题上：公民身份是什么，公民身份与公民美德和政治参与的关系以及是否可以在超国家层面有意义地行使公民身份。但是，近年来，哲学家将注意力转移到公民身份的法律地位上，并对现有的公民身份分配和退出原则提出了质疑。关于谁在道德上有权享有公民权的问题，哲学家们主张公民权的分配原则应超越出生和血统，而应侧重于政治依恋和定位的生活计划的价值。与现有的法律原则相比，这些原则具有若干优势，但它们的规格不足，以及包含在内的所有内容。关于丧失公民权，哲学家主要通过诉诸公平和平等待遇原则谴责撤回公民身份作为一种惩罚。但是，那些试图表明非国有化永远是错误的理论很难解释为什么对那些对同胞犯下最可怕罪行并且实际上已经被排斥在政治之外的人失去国籍的问题如此严重社区。