![]()
What does it mean to be a Global Citizen in the 21st Century?

Dr O’Byrne opened by stating that he was dedicating the lecture to the memory of Garry Davis (1921-2013), an American army veteran, peace activist and founder of the World Service Authority (WSA). The WSA is an organisation that advocates the concept of the World Citizen. A key part of the organisation’s activities is the issuing of its own passport, the World Passport, which assists those who are fleeing from persecution and hardship in their respective countries. Today, the World Passport is accepted as a de facto approved document in approximately 180 countries. Davis’s view was that the primary cause of war is the nation-state itself. He died last July, aged 91.
Taking account of contemporary developments in theory and politics, Dr O’Byrne revisited his work on global citizenship as contained in his book, The Dimensions of Global Citizenship, published in 2003.
In his talk, Dr O’Byrne outlined the concepts of the origin of World Citizenship – Cosmopolitan, Religious Universalism, Moral Universalism, World Universalism and Globalism. He explained that a view of globalisation from the perspective of the late Garry Davis was an exemplary concept of the subject. Global citizenship is distinct from world citizenship, with the capacity to act being an essential ingredient of the former. Explaining that the idea of world citizenship has been associated with the concept of humanity, Dr O’Byrne said: “World citizenship armed with a language of rights reaches out to humanity”. Dr O’Byrne went on to stress that the real issue is citizenship, saying that what is required is a positive affirmation of one’s citizenship of the world. Expressing unease at the fact that the modern nation-state system speaks of citizenship within the machinery of government, Dr O’Byrne said that as the language continues to be claimed by the nation-state, citizenship becomes a theme of modern liberal understanding.
Deeply concerned at the ‘high-jacking of the language of human rights by the ‘neo-right’’, Dr O’Byrne lamented the increased strengthening of the nation-state today and warned of the need to seriously consider the current government’s proposition to substitute Human Rights legislation with an English Bill of Rights. This act of omitting the language of Human Rights gives governments greater power in this regard, thereby making the issue of rights the ‘plaything of the elite’.



