{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022576878162709226, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.237864077669903, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Idea of Global Citizenship - A Sympathetic Assessment

The idea of global or world citizenship has a long history. It was particularly popular amongst the Stoics of the Greaco-Roman world whose afrmation of themselves as “cosmo-polites” or citizens of the universe was opposed to the specically and contingently political identity as members of human political orders, whether that of the city-state or the Roman Empire. Then, as in the period of the Enlightenment, global citizenship was seen primarily as an afrmation of ethical community. But as Heater well demonstrates, the idea has had other interpretations. At times, and certainly earlier last century, the idea of world citizenship was associated with the idea of world government and with the claim that only under conditions of a world state would world citizenship have real practical force and meaning. However, in recent years, prompted by the increasing recognition that global problems of poverty, environmental degradation, human rights abuses and widespread international and intranational violence, require individuals to exercise global responsibility and to do so through effective institutions, the idea of world citizenship has increasingly been invoked by some in their attempts to exercise global responsibility and to encourage others to do so as well. World citizenship has come to be decoupled from world government. Those who advocate it may be content to empty it of its political connotations (so “citizen” has little conceptual work to do and merely stands for “moral agent”); but, more interestingly, they may seek to retain important elements of “citizenship” in their account of it. The account given will be broadly “institutional”, covering political institutions, legal institutions, economic institutions, and more generally the elements of culture and social reality which are picked out by sociologists as relating to established community. What these institutional features are, which of them has priority in a defensible account, will be matters for further enquiry. Although I make suggestions about the particular form that institutions may take, the key issue before us is whether some form of “institutional” conception can be given which meets various kinds of criticism to the effect that there are no relevant institutional factors. Attractive as this idea of world citizenship is to some, it has seemed to others as an illegitimate extension (or dilution) of the idea of citizenship. World citizenship on this view does not exist in the modern world because the