Breaking Borders: Citizenship, Identity, and Justice in Synthetic Realities
Authors
MARINA AKSENOVA, Associate Professor of International Criminal Law, IE University Madrid and Director of Art and International Justice Initiative
PETRA PALUSOVA, Specialist for Extended Reality and Synthetic Space, Business Development Manager and Strategist in Advanced Technologies
Introduction
Belonging has always been a defining feature of human existence, gradually evolving from early tribal ensembles for survival to the state systems that formalized identity through citizenship. Where and how individuals belong has always shaped history. For centuries, belonging was tied to tangible expressions like shared language, culture, and territory, but as humanity evolved, it transcended the organic bonds that formed the fixed frameworks defined by the state. Citizenship became both a marker of identity, a gatekeeper for access to rights, privileges, and protections, and a codifier for inclusion (and exclusion).
Globalization and technological advancement created a complexly interconnected world where we observe the workings of territorial and temporal constraints, which prompts us to question traditional citizenship. Transnational communities and global digital economies emerge based on virtual interactions, and stand in complete opposition to the idea that identity and belonging must be rooted in physical geography or historical precedent. Remote workspaces, global social networks, and immersive virtual realities exist in a different type of space – not a physical space, and there, nationality doesn’t play a significant role, if any at all. It is where the inadequacies of traditional citizenship frameworks are being highlighted.
Synthetic space – a virtual environment – offers a transformative lens to reconsider the ontology of belonging and identity. It provides an opportunity to transcend the geographical and historical confines of traditional nationality, and propose a new form of association that finds a common ground in shared values, goals and activities instead of territorial alignment. We would like to explore synthetic space as a possible outlet for questioning the legal structures that define citizenship, and present a new concept of belonging that is shaped by participation and agency rather than birthplace or descent.
1. Historical Foundations of Belonging and Citizenship
Evolution of belonging
The concept of belonging is deeply ingrained in the human experience due to primal survival imperative. Early human communities associated belonging with survival, because only interdependent groups were able to form a shield against external threats and provide shared access to food, shelter, and protection. In those times, belonging was not abstract – it was a matter of life and death, which created deep psychological and emotional roots that formed human behavior.
As human societies gradually expanded and became more complex, the tribal bonds transformed to larger, and more formalized systems of governance. By the time of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the territorial state emerged as a dominant political and legal structure. The treaty ended the Thirty Years' War and established the principles of territorial sovereignty and centralized authority, which laid the groundwork for the nation-state model, where belonging was no longer determined by immediate interpersonal bonds but by one’s association with a defined territory governed by a central authority. During this time the state began to assume the role of arbitrating identity and belonging, by which they were institutionalized through the mechanism of citizenship. At this point, citizenship became a means of organizing society. It defined those who were part of the polity, and those who were not. It served as a legal and social contract outlining rights, responsibilities, and protections in exchange for loyalty and adherence to the state's laws. This arrangement is exclusionary in nature – it was designed to unify a population but at the same time also to establish clear boundaries between insiders and outsiders. Citizenship, therefore, functioned as a double-edged sword: it was a tool for social inclusion within the state and a mechanism for exclusion beyond its borders. (1)
Citizenship as a vehicle for inequality
Citizenship promised equality within a political community, but in practice it became a potent vehicle for global inequality. Because citizenship is fundamentally a territorial construct, it is assigned at birth and is determined by the accident of geography or lineage. And while the result is accidental, it has profound implications for the life trajectory of individuals. The "birthplace lottery" creates enormous disparities in access to resources, opportunities, and protections. (2) For instance, research shows that an individual's country of birth can determine up to two-thirds of their lifetime income, outweighing factors such as personal effort or family wealth. (3)
The disparities embedded in the frameworks of citizenship are not limited to economic opportunities. They extend to fundamental rights like education, healthcare, freedom of movement and many others. A passport, a symbol of national identity, is a powerful indicator of privilege. Citizens of countries with high Human Development Index (HDI) rankings typically enjoy greater access to global mobility and international protections compared to those born in politically unstable or economically disadvantaged regions. Different citizenships grant different rights and carry unequal weights in the global arena. As articulated by Hannah Arendt, citizenship is often framed as the "right to have rights." (4) It functions as a gateway to participating in political processes, accessing legal protections, and benefiting from societal resources, which makes it a tool of gatekeeping. When the rights are tied to national belonging, in such a case citizenship perpetuates a hierarchy of privilege and exclusion. Stateless individuals, for instance, are frequently denied even the most basic human rights, because they lack the legal recognition necessary to claim them. Similarly, refugees and migrants also regularly encounter systemic barriers that are rooted in their lack of formal citizenship status.
These are inequities that are not incidental but structural, and they are deeply embedded in the design of modern citizenship. The historical development of citizenship as a territorial and intergenerational construct is formed in such a way that prioritizes stability and continuity over inclusivity and adaptability. The rigidity is evident, and contrasts with the fluid and interconnected reality that is produced by digital economies. Step by step, citizenship, once a tool for organizing society, is now becoming a relic that perpetuates inequality in times that demands more flexible, adaptable, dynamic and inclusive frameworks.
2. The Philosophical Implications of Synthetic Space
Synthetic space: A new frontier of belonging?
Synthetic space is a virtual environment grounded in informational reality. As opposed to physical, geographically bound space, synthetic space operates on principles of persistence, interactivity, and transcendence of physical constraints. People can connect freely, irrespective of their physical location or national affiliation. In the context of our subject, one of the most transformative aspects of synthetic space is its capacity to transcend geography. On virtual reality (or simply digital collaborative) platforms, people gather in real time in a unified interactive realm that is borderless. Virtual spaces are an alternative to domains for face-to-face encounters, and it has been observed for decades now that they function as effective tools for communication, but also environments where people form relationships and create new forms of identities.
In regard to the persistence of synthetic space: digital interactions and data are continuously maintained, and that creates an alternative to the sense of stability and continuity that are so inherent in traditional forms of belonging. Unlike social media exchanges with a lesser continuous and fleeting impact, virtual environments create a lasting (compound) digital infrastructure where users build projects, sustain relationships, and maintain a sense of place. Interactivity is another defining feature, because synthetic space is dynamic in nature. Users are not passive consumers – their primary reason to be in this space in the first place is to be active and participate, create their experiences, negotiate roles, and contribute to the creation of a collective meaning.
There are many examples of synthetic realms and virtual spaces that have already become sites of belonging in a way that rival, and sometimes surpass, physical communities. Many users mentioned challenges in physical encounters or forming relationships and identities due to physical constraints, in which virtual communities and synthetic space served as an additive or a complementary extension where they were able to exercise social interactions, which significantly increased their quality of life. In any case, they challenge the idea that meaningful human connection must be rooted in physicality, and that the conception of identity and association happens as a result of face-to-face contact only. However, it is important to highlight that we do not suggest exploring synthetic space as a replacement of physicality; instead we see it as a complementary territory that has the potential to become dominant as a consequence of humanity’s evolution.
Identity in synthetic space
Synthetic space offers a unique lens to reimagine identity. Since the identity is no longer tied to nationality or geography, it becomes fluid and the relational construct is shaped by different factors, like the aforementioned participation and interaction. Synthetic identity is dynamic identity, and is capable of evolving in response to context and connection. The traditional models of identity have intergenerational fixations, and synthetic spaces allow for them to be altered. Self-determined communities are another hallmark of synthetic spaces. These communities form around shared interests, values, or goals rather than the accidents of geography or heritage. Members exercise their agency, choose to associate and contribute, which fosters a sense of belonging rooted in mutual recognition and collaboration. We can say that virtual environments encourage horizontal relationships that are based on participation and merit as precedence over hierarchical structures of traditional state systems. The implications of this shift are profound, because at the moment of decoupling identity from nationality, the exclusivity of traditional citizenship will be challenged and open the door to more inclusive forms of belonging.
Philosophical frameworks for synthetic citizenship
Let’s have a look at the possible transformative dimensions of synthetic spaces from a philosophical perspective. Existentialist approaches give us insights in this regard as they emphasize that belonging is a choice rather than a given. For Sartre, identity is not something we inherit but something we construct through our actions and relationships. (5) Synthetic spaces are the perfect embodiment of this principle by offering a realm where identities and affiliations can be shaped. The tension between real and virtual belonging has also been explored through Robert Nozick’s thought experiment, the "Experience Machine." (6) Nozick posits a machine that could provide any experience a person desires, arguing that most people would reject it because they value genuine engagement with the “reality” component. Synthetic space complicates this dichotomy. Nozick’s machine is based on a passive escapism, and synthetic spaces are at core relational and participatory. People come to exercise agency as a choice, a creative outlet or a tool of convenience.
Artificial intelligence (AI) also comes as a co-factor in shaping identity within synthetic spaces. AI tools on platforms moderate the fluidity of the identity creation process by personalizing experiences and supporting interactions. For instance, AI can erase language barriers, help customize virtual spaces, and create avatars that reflect the self. We can see it as a form of a technological mediation that adds new layers to existing identity, doesn’t fundamentally uproot it, but allows it to be more multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and contextually adaptive. In this context, a model of synthetic citizenship would be grounded in choice, participation, and relational authenticity. It would prioritize agency over inheritance, collaboration over exclusion, and fluidity over fixity.
3. Synthetic Spaces and International Law
Traditional legal constructs of citizenship
The constructs of today’s citizenship and nationality find roots in the framework of international law developed after World War II. During this period we saw the consolidation of nation-states as the primary actors in the international legal order, with citizenship formalized as the legal bond between an individual and a state. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) enshrined the right to a nationality in Article 15, which emphasized its centrality to human dignity and access to rights. That makes the post-war conception of citizenship firmly tied to territorial jurisdiction and temporal benchmarks, such as jus soli (citizenship by birthplace) and jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent). (7) Such principles reflect a world divided into discrete geopolitical entities, where the legal rights and protections afforded to an individual are contingent upon their relationship to a specific state. The system brought practicality for the mid-20th century, but is becoming misaligned with the realities of a globalized world run by digital economies. Today, it is no longer convenient to rely on territorial and temporal benchmarks. And because citizenship is not granted to everyone, such as in case of stateless individuals, they fall into legal limbo that excludes them from both some of the protections of international law and the benefits of citizenship. Similarly, people born in economically disadvantaged regions face systemic barriers to mobility and opportunity, because their citizenship binds them to the constraints of their birthplace. The rigidity is particularly problematic in times where we already rely on cross-border interactions and digital (virtual) economies.
Synthetic space as a jurisdictional challenge
As said, synthetic space operates beyond the constraints of physical geography, which presents a fundamental challenge to traditional jurisdictional paradigms. Since virtual environments do not conform to the territorial boundaries that underpin international law, a liminal space is created that generates questions of rights, duties, and obligations. The legal liminality of synthetic spaces is exemplified in the rise of transnational digital communities and global freelancers. Platforms such as Upwork or GitHub make it possible for people to participate in global labor markets, and it is more often than not done without direct ties to a particular state. Here, people navigate a legal vacuum: their work transcends borders, yet they remain subject to the jurisdictional idiosyncrasies of their country of residence or nationality. This is a mismatch that creates significant challenges such as discrepancies in labor protections, taxation, and dispute resolution.
Synthetic spaces also bring up questions of governance and accountability. Who is responsible for ensuring that rights are upheld within these environments? How are obligations distributed among individuals, states, and private corporations that own and manage synthetic space on digital platforms? There is a clear lack of jurisdictional frameworks that risks creating a regulatory void where abuses can occur without recourse. Governance of digital nomadism is a pertinent case study. Many now live and work in multiple countries, spending significant time in virtual environments collaborating with colleagues across continents. Digital nomads are emblematic of a world where territorial boundaries become irrelevant, yet their legal status remains tied to notions of residency and citizenship. And here, we are not talking about contemporary jurisdictions being potentially outdated in the future – for this group, it is already outdated. This is both a practical and philosophical dilemma – the lived experience of belonging does not align with the formal legal identity.
Synthetic citizenship: A conceptual framework
In response to the jurisdictional challenges, the concept of synthetic citizenship would formulate a new framework for belonging grounded in participation and association rather than physical territory. The model would recognize and reflect the reality of horizontal relationships formed within a virtual territory, where individuals connect based on shared activities, values, interests, and goals rather than geographical proximity. To be able to properly understand synthetic citizenship can be a stretch, as it does contain a dimension of artificiality. It reimagines identity and affiliation based on dynamic principles of self-determination. There is no aspect of historicity and inheritance, cultural continuity or a result of state confirmation. It can be voluntarily adopted based on an individual’s activities and participation in a virtual community. However, we find alignment with the principles of digital justice, underpinned by agency and collaboration.
Communities in synthetic space operate through decentralized and non-hierarchical structures. This is why we referred to “horizontality” of the relational aspect, because the structures work as horizontal networks with equitable distribution of rights and responsibilities, and participants engage on equal footing. For example, decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) provide a glimpse into how governance in synthetic spaces could function. DAOs operate on blockchain technology that enables collective decision-making and resource management without the need for a central authority. A decentralized model could demonstrate the potential for synthetic citizenship as an outlet to exercise agency and participation over inherent privilege gained by inheritance. Artificial intelligence (AI) could further assist with some functionalities, such as AI tools for real-time translation, creation of personalized governance frameworks, adaptive dispute resolution mechanisms, and other. But ultimately, synthetic citizenship would represent a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize identity, belonging, and legal affiliation in the first place. We must take the initial step to legally move beyond fixations to geography, because the social realm has already done so.
4. The Future of Belonging and Legal Structures
Challenges and risks
The potential of synthetic spaces is immense, but it also presents challenges, one of which is again exclusion, but this time digital. Synthetic space too has the grounds for exclusion, and perpetuation and replication of inequalities. Because it requires access to technology, digital literacy, reliable internet infrastructure and other crucial aspects, there is a risk of uneven distribution and marginalization. Data governance and privacy also spike interest. Synthetic spaces often operate under the control of private corporations, which raises concerns about the monopolization of virtual environments. Companies like Meta are known to envision dominating the metaverse, and may gain power to bend the rules and shape the norms of synthetic spaces. Even though the “usership” function would be fundamentally equalized, the concentration of control of digital governance constitutes a threat. Further, there is a vast amount of data generated within synthetic spaces that create vulnerabilities for misuse, surveillance, and exploitation. Commercialization of synthetic spaces complicates their potential as egalitarian platforms. Private owners have agendas, usually economic. Virtual land speculations, digital goods markets, and pay-to-play models risk turning synthetic spaces into arenas of economic inequality. In order to create a safe alternative to such a fundamental aspect of human-ness like citizenship, a safe digital governance is a key factor to consider. That brings us to the topic of regulations, which would have to be robust. The issue here is that the same forces that have entrenched disparities in the physical world would be in charge of them, which could undermine the democratic potential of synthetic citizenship. Yet, our stance that the nature of synthetic space is necessary to explore remains.
Legal imagination – rethinking governance in synthetic spaces
Despite the risks, synthetic space already works as a testing ground for emergent future forms of identities, associations and agency exercises. Therefore we think it also constitutes a domain for rethinking international law and legal structures. Humanity is set to eventually overcome territoriality and everything that underpins its adjunct format like citizenship, identity, and governance. We see legal imagination as essential to crafting frameworks that can accommodate the unique characteristics of synthetic space while addressing its complexities. Let’s imagine: one possibility is the creation of universal access to synthetic citizenship. That would ensure that participation in synthetic spaces is not contingent on economic privilege or technological access. International bodies could play a role in establishing global standards for synthetic spaces, along with mandates for inclusivity, transparency, and ethical governance. Universal synthetic citizenship would need to become a standalone format; it could serve as a complement to traditional state-based systems that would offer people an additional layer of identity and belonging that is untethered from physical geography.
The regulatory challenges posed by synthetic spaces also require innovative approaches to governance. Instead of applying existing territorial laws to virtual environments, new normative frameworks could be developed that prioritize horizontal governance, decentralized accountability, and collective decision-making. The new frameworks would need to address critical issues such as data sovereignty, privacy, and the prevention of monopolistic practices for open and equitable access. But at the heart of these efforts is the recognition of synthetic space as both the extension of the physical world but also an entirely new arena of human interaction and association. It would be a chance to recreate legal structures that are more adaptive, and responsive to the needs of a globalized society.
CONCLUSION
The emergence of synthetic space represents a transformative moment in the ongoing evolution of identity, belonging, and citizenship. Virtual environments challenge the territorial and temporal constraints that have traditionally defined human association, and offer a profound opportunity to rethink the very ontology of belonging. When looking at our world today, we observe that connection formations, collaboration and building of communities does not happen as it did in the last centuries. Here, we are not depicting eventual happenings – we are pointing at a real-time occurrence. Social and professional virtual spaces already exist and are established as a norm, it is only rational to consider a shift of yet another dimension, and that is the one of jurisdiction and legal grounds. However, the potential of the synthetic space is not self-fulfilling, and realizing its promise is an interdisciplinary effort, and we must take first steps in this unknown territory.
____________
References
(1) See L. Bosniak, The Citizen and the Alien: Dilemmas of Contemporary Membership (Princeton University Press, 2006)
(2) A. Shachar, The Birthright Lottery: Citizenship and Global Inequality (Harvard University Press, 2009)
(3) B. Milanovic, Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization (Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 2016).
(4) H. Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951; Harcourt Brace & Co., 1979).
(5) J.-P. Sartre, Being and Nothingness: A Phenomenological Essay on Ontology (1956;. H. E. Barnes, Trans.). Methuen. (Original work published 1943).
(6) R. Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Basic Books, 1974).
(7) See UN Report by Mr. Manley O. Hudson, Special Rapporteur, ‘Nationality, including Statelessness’, A/CN.4/50, ILC Yearbook (1952-II).
Further readings
P. Palusova, Evolving into Synthetic Reality: Multiperspective on Simulation and Virtuality
P. Palusova, Synthetic Environments and Reality Simulations
P. Palusova, Engineering Sensory Landscapes in Synthetic Space
M. Aksenova, Global citizenship and the right of access to justice: adapting T.H. Marshall’s ideas to the interconnected world
Title image copyright: Petra Palusova