民主國家能否撤銷公民的國籍？——回應郭祐輑的〈撤銷公民國籍、居住安全與民主國家〉   全文下載

Are Democratic States Permitted to Denationalize Citizens? In Reply to Prof. Yuchun Kuo’s “Denationalization, Residential Security, and Democracies”

加拿大學者Patti Lenard 在2018 年的《美國政治科學評論》（American Political Science Review）期刊中發表文章反對民主國家擁有撤銷公民國籍的權利，引起國內政治學者郭祐輑的關注，並於本刊撰寫了〈撤銷公民國籍、居住安全與民主國家〉一文做為回應。一方面，郭祐輑直指Lenard 的論證在強調「撤銷國籍」不必然等同「驅逐出境」時，論證上卻又依賴兩者存在必然關聯，因此自我矛盾；另一方面，郭祐輑也指出，Lenard 的主要依據，亦即國家若有撤銷公民國籍的權利，恐有危及公民的居住安全之虞，並非反對撤銷公民國籍的最好理由，因為，撤銷公民的國籍不必然危及公民的居住安全，特別當公民擁有雙重國籍時；甚至，人們對於居住安全的關注反而可做為撤銷某些公民（如恐怖分子）國籍的理由才是。本文意在指出，郭祐輑與Lenard 分別從社群與個人的角度出發來看待此一議題，因此存在立場的根本差異，但Lenard 的論點並不涉及自我矛盾；此外，郭祐輑理解的「居住安全」亦與Leanrd 提出的界定完全不同，因此並未實質地反駁Lenard 的論點，反而有各說各話的狀況。是故，雖然郭祐輑的文章意圖從Lenard 的每一個論點加以提出反駁，但並未成功。

As a reply to Patti Lenard’s well-received article “Democratic Citizenship and Denationalizaiton” published 2018 in American Political Science Review, Yuchun Kuo offers a thorough criticism in in his article “Democratization, Residential Security, and Democracies” published in this journal. According to the latter, Lenard’s argument is flawed primarily for linking “denationalization” and “deportation” to make his case, while at the same time acknowledging that these two are not necessarily connected – hence self-contradiction. On the other hand, Kuo points out that the idea of “residential security” upon which Lenard’s argument is based could not serve as a reason to revoke citizenship, but rather it may constitute a ground for denationalization in general, and in particular with regard to those who have dual nationality. This article argues that although Lenard and Kuo approach this issue from diametrically opposite perspectives, that is, methodologically as well as substantially from individualist and communitarian positions respectively, Lenard’s claim is not flawed as a case of self-contradiction. What is more, they understand “residential security” so different that Kuo seems to be talking at crosspurposes with Lenard. For this reason, Kuo’s reply, although at some points brilliant in its own right, has not successfully refuted Lenard’s argumentation.