Governments and Citizens in a Globally

Interconnected World of States by Hans Schattle

 INTRODUCTION
• Globalization is one of the most debated topic in early years of twentieth century and
this century also shows that globalization has not replaced by state. Many people in
late twentieth explained and argued the concept of globalization one of these people
is Arjun Appadural a cultural anthropologist proclaim that the nation state is on its last
legs and Kenichi Ohmae explained that economic interdependence and global
communication had provide the nation state a nostalgic fiction. After the end of world
war 2 and by the end of 2012 united states had 193 members and these states
combined because of the breakup of Soviet Union and decolonization.
• Max Weber a german social theorist from early twentieth century has said the
definition of ‘state’ that a continuous operation of a compulsory political organization
is called “state”. Benedict Anderson's formulation of the nation as ‘an imagined
political community and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign'. Although
the terms ‘nation’ and ‘state’ are often used in everyday political speech and media
commentary, it is important to avoid conflating these two distinct concepts. As away
from ethnicity in favor of civic ties holding together diverse populations. Globalization
continuous to shape not just because of democracy but the diversity in its form.
• It is important to know and understand the why it matters and the
functions of the states and the continuous reshape of its roles. This
chapter describe the changes and the relationship between states and
citizens which are the economic interdependence, economic and
political integration, international law and universal norms,
transnational advocacy networks and new communication platforms
this will also explain about how the political engagement emerge
through practices of global citizenship and expressions then bypassing
states, economic, social political and cultural dynamics of globalization.
 The State in a World of Economic
Interdependence
• Globalization is commonly equated with the rising momentum
of global free-market capitalism in the final decades of the
twentieth century, the accompanying rise in transnational
enterprises, and the resulting disparities between easy flows of
money and commodities across international borders and the
legal barriers and logistical hurdles that keep most workers tied
to their home communities.
• Both champions and critics of the so-called Washington
Consensus and its ‘neo-liberal’ emphasis on deregulation,
privatization, and free trade see globalization as imposing a
forced choice upon states: either conform to free-market
principles or run the risk of being left behind.
• One well-known advocate of neo-liberalism, journalist
Thomas Friedman, translated this orthodoxy into plain English
when he came up with the phrase ‘Golden Straitjacket’ to
describe how states are now forced into policies that suit the
preferences of investment houses and corporate executives of
investment houses and corporate executives (the ‘Electronic
Herd,’ in Friedman's parlance) who swiftly move money and
resources into countries favoured asadaptable to the
demands of international business.
• This herd has grown exponentially thanks to the
democratization of finance, technology, and information so
much so that today it is beginning to replace governments as
the primary source of capital for both companies and
countries to grow.
• Friedman's colorful language here essentially claims that states have lost an
important element of economic sovereignty and that neo-liberalism is beyond
contestation.Friedman's outlook has been criticized as an overstated partisan
apologia for ‘market globalism’ that ironically celebrates the fading economic
sovereignty of states while also giving generous latitude to American military
dominance (Steger, 2005). Nevertheless, important changes within the world
economy reinvigorated global capitalism during the final quarter of the twentieth
century.
• State policies mattered greatly: national leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret
Thatcher who pursued the laissez-faire economics of Friedrich Hayek and Milton
Friedman, in the years leading up to the fall of Soviet communism, created the
conditions for deregulation, privatization, and free trade to spread around the world.
This prompted the world's poorer states, as noted by political economist Jeffry
Frieden (2006), to ‘orient their production to hundreds of millions of prosperous
consumers and attract the capital of the world’s wealthiest banks, corporations, and
investors' in hope of raising the living standards of their citizens
• The neoliberal theory is a product packaged for export to underdeveloped
nations. Rich countries like the U.S., Germany, France or Holland don't
practice it to the same degree at home because their citizens would be up
in arms at the consequences.
• As states continuously fine-tune their competitive strategies in the world
economy, national governments often deliberately place the interests of
external stakeholders and trading partners ahead of the interests of their
own citizens. When former United States trade negotiator Clyde Prestowitz
(2012) hailed South Korea's strong position in the world economy, he noted
that the government systematically boosts exports by keeping the national
currency ‘somewhat under-valued and by often selling abroad at prices
below their own domestic prices’ meaning that South Korean
conglomerates overcharge South Korean citizens for the same kinds of cars,
computers and mobile phones that it exports to citizens of other countries.
• Like the Japanese, they have rejected American ideas and advice
about specializing only in what they do best and trading for the
rest. Rather, they have concentrated on developing world-class
capabilities where before they had none. They did this by
protecting and subsidizing in various ways new, infant industries
like steel, consumer electronics, and semiconductors … The most
successful Korean companies are either those like steelmaker
POSCO that was founded with government investment or those
like Samsung that are giant familydominated conglomerates with
extensive special relationships with the government and
monopoly or quasimonopoly positions in many interlocking
industries and technologies.(Prestowitz, 2012)
• Working-class citizens in countries losing ground to global
market pressures must either find their ways into the
remaining industries in their hometowns, move (if they
can) to places with more opportunities, or become part of
the growing segment of dislocated and ‘underemployed’
workers. While critics point to the disposability of labor as
an inherent flaw of economic globalization, others see no
problem and believe that the costs imposed on dislocated
workers in declining regions within the more affluent
states are more than offset, in total, by rising living
standards in the ‘emerging market’ zones.
• The more trenchant critiques of economic globalization call for states to
take for themselves, in the words of Canadian activist Tony Clarke, the
power to ‘determine economic, social and environmental objectives for
national development and the capacity to ensure that transnational
corporations meet these priorities’ and to set the stage for ‘new forms of
participatory democracy whereby citizens become effectively involved in
international policymaking on trade, investment, and finance’ (Clarke,
quoted in Cavanagh and Mander, 2004).
• One obvious step forward, for instance, that has long languished on the
back burner would be to attach the conventions of the International
Labor Organization to the trade rules of the World Trade Organization.
Instead, the standards that good states uphold to protect their citizens
are likely to remain elusive more widely in the global economy for some
time to come.
 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INTEGRATION:
THE CASE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
• The rising economic interdependence of the past half century they formed regional
partnerships from loosely-knit organizations promoting trade and economic
cooperation such as the African union and the association of southeast asian nation
(asean) to trading blocks such as the north American free trade agreement (NAFTA)
and the Carribean community Europe clearly standout as the continental political
elites made the leap into market integration shortly after the second world war with
the launch of European coal and steel community Today the European union (EU) has
27 members state and in july 2013 croatia becoming the 28th member In recent treaty
revisions the EU has expanded into foreign and security policy and instituted with the
1992 signing of the Maastricht treaty The first decade of the twenty century closed
with the massive uncertainty about the EU long term prospects especially in light of a
public debt crisis that highlighted stark divergence across the euro zone and hesitancy
among the wealthier member states of the euro zone By the summer of 2012
europe`s financial crisis would yield more integration rather than less with plans for
fiscal union amond the 17 member states of the eurozone to accompany monetary
union
• The European parliament also passed legislation in September 2013 to implement
closer integration and supervision of the bank sector The financial crisis exacerbated
the democratic deficit a term that now encompasses the lack of popular
representation in European policy making growing public disenchantment with the eu
fueled by perceptions that the member states have irrevocably lost ground in their
capacities to advance the economic and social welfare interests of their citizen amid a
rising tide of immigration has driven voters in numerous member states to support far-
right political parties with nationalistic slogans such as france for the French. Europe
has seen a dramatic rise in continental jusrisprudenc during the past half-century with
two key institutions the European court of justice (ECJ) which has function since 1952
as the top dispute resolution body for the EU and its predecessors the European court
of human right (ECTHR) part of a larger organization the council of Europe upholds the
European convention of human rights (ECHR) now is signed by all of 47 of its member
states decisions in areas such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, protection
from discrimination, and the right to a fair trial which is the provision in the enchr most
often violated by member states (Council of europe, 2012).
• The EU is regarded by some leading scholars as having strengthened the state
because it emepowers the member statae to protect their interest into the
national arena that ENABLES NATIONAL GOVERMENTS TO BUILD RESOURCES
DIRECTED TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS and bolsters national
regulatory mechanism to fulfill the resulting international commitments
(moravcsik, 1994 and 2002) As Margaret thatcher learned the hardway in
1990 when britains conservative party forced her out of office as prime
minister after an internal row over europe. Historian Alan Milward has shown
how the early stages of European integration also provided the member state
with a crucial vehicle to rehabilitate themselves following the devastation of
the second world war and the liquidation of their former empires abroad
(Milward, 1994) The ongoing winter of public discontent in Europe and the
prospect of still more economic integration on the way has strengthened the
chase for Europe to address its democratic deficit more decisively with bold
steps such a creating a high-profile, directly elected presidency
(Marquands,2011). The EU provides an excellent illustration of how
international collaboration has been creating new roles and obligations for
states as well as how states now delegate specific elements of sovereignty to
international organizations without giving up sovereignty in absolute terms
 The rise of international law and universal principles

*What is the Interational Law

A body of rules established by custom or treaty and recngnize by nation as binding their relations with one another
* What is the Universal Principles
REFERS AS CONCEPTS OF LEGAL LEGITIMACY ACTIONS WHEREBY THOSE PRINCIPLES SAND RULES FOR GOVERNING HUMAN BEING CONDUCT WHICH ARE MOST UNIVERSAL IN THEIR ACCEPTABILITY THEIR
APPLICABILITY TRANSLATION AND PHILOSOPHICAL BASIC ARE THEREFORE CONSIDERED TO BE MOST LEGITIMATE
WW1 AND WW2

*The end of the second world war in 1945 led to a significant turn from the model of state soverignty dating back to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 that champioed absolute state autonomy and foreclsed
humanitarian intervention
*Leaders of the allies began framing themselves collectively as the (un) United Nations while fighting the war and the san francisco conference in the summer and autumn of 1945 set up the organization that
continues to this day.

-The System has huge limitation:

*The United Natins (UN) has never transcended the state system and instead operates mainly as a forum for states to air their composition that awards veto power to each of the five countries that won the
second world war, as well as the General Assemnbly's relative lack of power and it's state-based configuration.

(ICC) International Criminal Court

The mere existence of institutions such as the United Nation and the International Criminal Court and the ever-widening public validaion of key international human rights declaration relate in important ways
with global governance in a world of states.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with Britain, France, and th United States taking the lead, interverted in Libya

Anne Marie Slaughter biography

She believes that trans-governmental networks improve the ompetene ad regulatory effectiveness of governments and also bring governments around the world into greater harmony with international
norms and treaties. She also argues that relying on national governments to handle global issues is preferable to creating a world government that would be infeasible and undesirable

Daniele Archibugi Biography

has argued (2008: 284): "Only by creating a global commonwealth of citizens who will express themselves in world politics can some changes be achieved. Empowering the citizen of the world means to build
up, at the global level, those checks and balances that have nurtured the evolution of democracy."
 The Rise of International Law and Universal
Principles
• -When a state recognizes the legitimacy of international interventions and
changes its domestic behaviour in response to international pressure, it
reconstitutes the relationship between the state, its citizens and international
actors”’. This is ‘how network practices instantiate new norms’ as states
transform their policies and practices, especially with regard to human rights
and fundamental freedoms.
• Then there is the sustained global citizen’s campaign what many call the global
justice movement to call for alternatives to neoliberal economic globalization. 
• -Many scholars and activists trace the contemporary origins of this movement
to the transnational campaign launched in 1994 in Chiapas, Mexico. 
• -citizen activists stopped the Multilateral Agreement on Investment dead in its
tracks, with activists objecting that it would create a ‘bill of rights’ for global
corporations but make it difficult for states to regulate investors from abroad
(Barlow and Clarke, 1997)
And then in November 1999 came what remains the ‘alter-globalization’
movement's single most celebrated event: the meeting of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in Seattle.
-In any case, the surge in public consciousness of globalization and all its
implications led growing numbers of everyday people during this period to begin
thinking of themselves as ‘global citizens’ and to link this idea substantially with
concepts of awareness, responsibility, participation and cross-cultural empathy
(Schattle, 2008).
m-Following the terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington on 11
September 2001, the public visibility of the movement challenging the
‘Washington consensus’ version of economic globalization entered a doldrums
phase. It didn't help that the first WTO meeting held after 9/11 took place in
Dohar, Qatar, a remote location difficult for activists to target, and national
governments around the world have ratcheted up denials of entry to activists
seeking to travel into countries in the days leading up to the big meetings of
international organizations. The global justice movement as a vehicle for citizens
to interact beyond the nation-state continued to expand and become more
coherent, particularly with the entry of the World Social Forum as a counterpoint
to the World Economic Forum (Steger and Wilson, 2012). And yet, power
disparities have solidified during the past decade: while the World Economic
Forum is lavishly funded, efficiently organized, and easy to observe online (at
least superficially)
with a comprehensive website and abundantly archived documents and transcripts
of proceedings (print, audio and video), the World Social Forum can be trickier for
everyday people to follow, partly because its culture of avoiding hierarchy and
centralized control leaves it without a single permanent website. While this does
not keep the World Social Forum's active members from communicating with each
other all year round, it renders this civil society clearinghouse less transparent, in
some important respects, than its more powerful counterparts underwritten by the
world's largest corporations and national governments. The disparities in power
and public visibility hand an advantage in the globalization debates to market and
state forces that ultimately back neoliberalism rather than more socially and
environmentally responsive alternatives. Scholarship in this field has advanced
steadily, especially by examining the ways transnational activism has opened up
new points of interaction between domestic politics and international relations.
From the perspective of contentious politics, Sidney Tarrow (2005: 59#x2013;60)
has shown how domestic political and social activists ‘come to see their local
grievances in terms that connect them to economic globalization’. As a result, they
turn to what Tarrow calls ‘global framing’ and link their particular local or national
claims with more widely recognized claims, causes and symbols than their original
issue might have seemed to warrant. (Tarrow describes, for example, how
American activists fighting to save community gardens
partnered with farmers from developing countries outside the
1999 World Trade Organization sumit in Seattle.) Tarrow also has
explored how transnational activists tend to be ‘rooted
cosmopolitans’ who stay planted mainly within their respective
home countries and local communities alongside occasional
forays abroad that place them more directly in contact with
fellow activists and the governing or corporate institutions of
interest: The new transnational activism is as multifaceted as the
internationalism within which it has emerged. Although
globalization and global neoliberalism are frames around which
many activists mobilize, the protests and organizations we have
seen in this study are not the product of a global imaginary but of
domestically rooted activists …(who) are the connective tissue of
the global and the local, working as activators, brokers and
advocates for claims both domestic and international. (Tarrow,
2005: 205#x2013;6) Global activists, then, direct a great deal of
energy at states,
 The rise of transnational activism
• When a state recognizes the legitimacy of
international interventions and changes its
domestic behaviour in response to international
pressure, it reconstitutes the relationship
between the state, its citizens and international
actors”’. This is ‘how network practices
instantiate new norms’ as states transform their
policies and practices, especially with regard to
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
• -Then there is the sustained global citizen’s campaign what many
call the global justice movement to call for alternatives to
neoliberal economic globalization.

• -Many scholars and activists trace the contemporary origins of this

movement to the transnational campaign launched in 1994 in
Chiapas, Mexico.

citizen activists stopped the Multilateral Agreement on Investment

dead in its tracks, with activists objecting that it would create a ‘bill
of rights’ for global corporations but make it difficult for states to
regulate investors from abroad (Barlow and Clarke, 1997)
• -And then in November 1999 came what remains
the ‘alter-globalization’ movement's single most
celebrated event: the meeting of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) in Seattle.
• -In any case, the surge in public consciousness of
globalization and all its implications led growing
numbers of everyday people during this period to
begin thinking of themselves as ‘global citizens’
and to link this idea substantially with concepts
of awareness, responsibility, participation and
cross-cultural empathy (Schattle, 2008).
• Following the terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington
on 11 September 2001, the public visibility of the movement
challenging the ‘Washington consensus’ version of economic
globalization entered a doldrums phase. It didn't help that the first
WTO meeting held after 9/11 took place in Dohar, Qatar, a remote
location difficult for activists to target, and national governments
around the world have ratcheted up denials of entry to activists
seeking to travel into countries in the days leading up to the big
meetings of international organizations. The global justice
movement as a vehicle for citizens to interact beyond the nation-
state continued to expand and become more coherent, particularly
with the entry of the World Social Forum as a counterpoint to the
World Economic Forum (Steger and Wilson, 2012). And yet, power
disparities have solidified during the past decade: while the World
Economic Forum is lavishly funded, efficiently organized, and easy
to observe online (at least superficially)
with a comprehensive website and abundantly archived documents and transcripts of proceedings (print,
audio and video), the World Social Forum can be trickier for everyday people to follow, partly because its
culture of avoiding hierarchy and centralized control leaves it without a single permanent website. While
this does not keep the World Social Forum's active members from communicating with each other all year
round, it renders this civil society clearinghouse less transparent, in some important respects, than its more
powerful counterparts underwritten by the world's largest corporations and national governments. The
disparities in power and public visibility hand an advantage in the globalization debates to market and state
forces that ultimately back neoliberalism rather than more socially and environmentally responsive
alternatives. Scholarship in this field has advanced steadily, especially by examining the ways transnational
activism has opened up new points of interaction between domestic politics and international relations.
From the perspective of contentious politics, Sidney Tarrow (2005: 59#x2013;60) has shown how domestic
political and social activists ‘come to see their local grievances in terms that connect them to economic
globalization’. As a result, they turn to what Tarrow calls ‘global framing’ and link their particular local or
national claims with more widely recognized claims, causes and symbols than their original issue might have
seemed to warrant. (Tarrow describes, for example, how American activists fighting to save community
gardens partnered with farmers from developing countries outside the 1999 World Trade Organization sumit
in Seattle.) Tarrow also has explored how transnational activists tend to be ‘rooted cosmopolitans’ who stay
planted mainly within their respective home countries and local communities alongside occasional forays
abroad that place them more directly in contact with fellow activists and the governing or corporate
institutions of interest: The new transnational activism is as multifaceted as the internationalism within
which it has emerged. Although globalization and global neoliberalism are frames around which many
activists mobilize, the protests and organizations we have seen in this study are not the product of a global
imaginary but of domestically rooted activists …(who) are the connective tissue of the global and the local,
working as activators, brokers and advocates for claims both domestic and international. (Tarrow, 2005:
205#x2013;6) Global activists, then, direct a great deal of energy at states,
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS, NEW MEDIA,
AND THE STATE
• GLOBALIZATION has accompanied new forms of digital media that bring to light the
possibilities for new kinds of communities to coalesce via networks and create new
arenas for political interaction, indeity and belonging. Sociologist and communication
theorist manuel castells pioneered the concept of the network society (2000). Manuel
Castells believes states are making a pragmatic transformation by adapting to fit in
among other. Castells sees an inherent deficiency in how states have cast themselves
into the global arena. National governments view themselves as representing merely
their immediate and particular interests rather than working to pursue any king of
global common good. Global governance is seen as a field of opportunity to maximize
ones own interests rather than a new context. In fact the more the globalization
process proceeds the more the contradictions it generates (identity crises. Economic
crises,security crises) lead to a revival of nationalism and to attempt to restore the
primacy of sovereignty. The silver lining is that new media opens up potential for
citizens to gain leverage. The occupy movement targeting the forces behind social and
economic inequality took this insurgent politics to a new level with protest cresting in
the fall of 2011 that swiftly spread to dozens of countries
• A new intellectual fault line though has been emerging at the nexus of political
communication and international relations regarding whether the new
communications technology is giving the upper hand to citizens or state. In his book
the net delusion the dark side of internet freedom. The world warns the
constitutional democracies such as the united states are not always careful enough to
avoid unintended outcomes when advocating for dissidents in countries such as iran
and china. An official in the us state department for instance sent an email message
to twitter in june 2009 in the midst of massive street demonstration in Tehran
following a disputed result in iran presidential election.Technology advances have
also made it easier for authoritarian states from Russia to Saudi Arabia to Myanmar
to silence pesky blooger using software program. Writes morozov it is not
government officials who carry out cyber- attacks and censorship these days but
rather their intermediaries and sympathizers. The old model assumed that censorship
was expensive and could only be carried out by one party.As much as morozov
worries about internet communication and its ill effects upon civil rights and free
expenssion
• There are plenty of other ways states have been trying to be strong and effective in a world
(partial) media globalization, especially when it comes to strategic communication both at
home and abroad. States now compete in all sorts of ways for economic advantage and moral
credibility and states counterparts in the court of global public opinion even the world most
isolated and repressive states most and repressive states most notably north korea maintain
websites trumpeting their national leader and churning out colorful and frequently cellicose
news releases. Interactive e-government sites have spread world wide in tandem with
constitutional democracies citizens can communicate back and forth with government
officials online not only o gain information about government policies and initiatives but to
articulate their concerns (Coleman and blumler, 2009).
• Even more visible to media mavens is the dramatic rise in states funded television networks
diversifying the landscapes of global electronic news gathering.No longer is the American
vanguard of cnn a hegemonic presense BBC World (united kingdom), AI Jazeera English
(Qatar), AI arabiya (Saudi Arabia),france 24, Russia today, CCTV (China), NHK WORLD (Japan),
are among the most visible players in the growing industry. Television news played a pivotal
role during the dismantling of the berlin wall in 1989. A growing segment of global
broadcasting is state controlled and this bring mixed consequences they also often hold other
countries to critical scrutiny while downplaying or even ignoring domestic controversies in
their own backyards. Ai jazeera tends to go easy on the emir of Qatar. Participatory news
organizations (often reliant upon volunteer activists as correspondents) have become
important player in global public space. http://indymedia.org launched one week before the
1999 world trade organization meeting in seattle. Wikipedia and wikileaks obviously fall into a
similar category of information sharing by global citizens for global citizens The digital divide
remains a problem
 CONCLUSION
• functions and hold themselves increasingly accountable to international norms and
principles.
• We also see more citizens, civil society organizations and corporations than ever seeking
to transcend the boundaries of states and place their enterprises, endeavors, and daily
lives beyond and particular territory or political community narrow defined in spatial
terms #x2013; even as states respond by tightening up the legal requirements for citizen
ship status and trying to curb unauthorized immigration.
• The state as we know is neither being eclipsed nor gaining exclusive monopoly power over
citizen and their allegiances.
• - As Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach have noted (2012: 280):
• When all is said and done, it is difficult to generalize about the impact of globalization on
states.
• Globalization has been facilitataed by state behavior even as it constrains state autonomy
and reduces states capacity.
• For national leaders, the claim that globalization limits autonomy provides justification for
policies they wish to undertake while denying resposibility for them
• Richard Mansbach studied political science, history, and Spanish at Swarthmore
College and graduated in 1964. He then attended the University of Oxford as a
Marshall Scholar. After completing his dissertation, Mansbach joined the
Swarthmore College faculty, where he taught for two years. While teaching at
Rutgers University, Mansbach named a fellow of the American Council on
Education in 1981,[3] and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. He later
moved to Iowa State University. From 1999 to 2004, Mansbach was a co-editor
of International Studies Quarterly. In 2017, the International Studies Association
convened a Distinguished Scholar Panel to honor Mansbach and Yale H.
Ferguson.
• Several related concluding points, then emerge from our analysis:
• States now operate in a world in which power is dispersed both horizontally
(civil society and the marketplace) and vertically (international organizations,
subnational political authorities, and secession movements).
• Because the benefits and costs of globalization are unevently distributed across
states and populations, life chances for individual citizens are heavily fetermined
by the particular states they are from #x2013; and how these states measure up
in safeguarding basic rights and ensuring the provision of basic needs.
• States set the agendas and also drive the terms of cooperation that govern the
world's leading international organizations, from the United Nations to the World
Trade Organization. States also craft and uphold the common standards that
emerge from these institutions.
• Globalization places states into direct competition.
• As noted by Alison Brysk and Gershon Shafir (2004: 209), the current progression
of globalization and the existing makeup of governing institutions have left us with
a 'citizenship gap' in which "the globalization of migration, production, regulation,
and conflict construct rights without sufficient institutions to enforce them,
identities without membership and participation for some at the expense of
others"'.
• Alison Brysk born in March 8 1960 she is an American political scientist who holds
the Mellichamp Chair in Global Governance, Global and International Studies, at
the University of California, Santa Barbara, specializing in international Human
Rights.
• Gershon Shafir received his B.A.s in Economics, Political Science, and Sociology
from Tel Aviv University, his M.A. from the University of California, Los Angeles,
and his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley. He is currently the
Director of the UCSD Human Rights Minor. His co-authored Being Israeli: The
Dynamics of Multiple Citizenships, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, which
won the Middle Eastern Studies Association’s Albert Hourani Award for best book
on the Middle East in 2002.