Reviews on the principle of effective nationality
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
北京市动员组织公民献血条例(废止)
北京市人大常委会
北京市动员组织公民献血条例
北京市人民代表大会常务委员会
《北京市动员组织公民献血条例》已由北京市第十一届人民代表大会常务委员会第四次会议于1998年7月31日通过，现予公布，自1998年10月1日起施行。
第一条 为了保证本市医疗临床用血的需要和安全，保障献血者和用血者身体健康，发扬人道主义精神，促进社会主义物质文明和精神文明建设，做好动员和组织公民献血工作，根据《中华人民共和国献血法》，结合本市实际情况，制定本条例。
第二条 本条例适用于本市行政区域内的国家机关、社会团体、企业事业单位和其他组织（以下简称单位）以及个人。
第三条 本市实行无偿献血制度。
本市提倡18周岁至55周岁的健康公民自愿献血；鼓励国家工作人员、现役军人和高等学校在校学生率先献血。
公民应当积极参与无偿献血工作。
第四条 市和区、县人民政府领导本行政区域内的献血工作，统一规划并负责组织、协调有关部门共同做好献血工作，保障献血工作经费，其职责是：
（一）制定并下达本行政区域内的献血工作计划；
（二）对下级政府和派出机构领导献血工作实行目标管理，并进行监督考核；
（三）广泛宣传献血的意义，普及献血的科学知识，开展预防和控制经血液途径传播的疾病的教育；
（四）对在献血工作中取得显著成绩的单位和个人，给予表彰和奖励。
市和区、县献血办公室负责本行政区域内动员和组织公民献血的日常工作。
第五条 乡、镇人民政府和街道办事处应当根据区、县人民政府下达的献血工作计划，动员、组织所属单位和本辖区内私营企业、个体工商户以及无工作单位的适龄公民参加献血。
村民委员会、居民委员会应当积极配合乡、镇人民政府和街道办事处做好本居住区内适龄公民献血的动员和组织工作。
第六条 市和区、县卫生行政部门负责监督管理本行政区域内的献血工作，其职责是：
（一）对各单位完成献血工作计划的情况进行监督；
（二）负责采血、供血、用血的管理工作，保证血液质量；
（三）负责血液调剂工作；
（四）预防和控制经血液途径传播的疾病；
（五）执行本条例规定的处罚。
前款第（三）项血液调剂费用的筹集办法，由市卫生行政部门制定。
第七条 各单位应当动员和组织本单位适龄公民参加献血，完成市或者区、县人民政府下达的献血工作计划。
各单位的法定代表人负责本单位献血工作计划的组织和落实，并将献血工作计划的完成情况作为任期目标考核的重要内容。
第八条 各级红十字会应当依法参与、推动献血工作，对积极参加献血和在献血工作中作出显著成绩的单位和个人，给予表彰和奖励。
第九条 广播、电视、报刊等新闻媒介应当采取多种形式，开展献血的社会公益性宣传，普及献血法律、法规和血液科学知识。
各级各类学校应当开展血液科学知识的教育。
第十条 各单位应当动员和组织健康适龄的国家工作人员每5年献血一次。
高等学校应当动员和组织符合献血条件的学生在校期间献血一次。
第十一条 对献血者，发给国务院卫生行政部门制作的无偿献血证书，有关单位可以给予适当补贴。
第十二条 参加本市无偿献血的公民临床需要用血时，免交血液的采集、储存、分离、检验等费用；参加本市无偿献血公民的配偶和直系亲属临床需要用血时，免交或者减交血液的采集、储存、分离、检验等费用。具体实施办法由市人民政府制定。
第十三条 禁止任何单位和个人非法组织他人出卖血液。
禁止任何单位和个人雇佣他人冒名顶替献血。
禁止伪造、涂改、出租或者转让无偿献血证书。
第十四条 市人民政府对有下列情形之一的，给予表彰和奖励：
（一）公民无偿献血累计2000毫升以上的；
（二）单位连续五年以上超额20％完成献血工作计划的；
（三）在无偿献血宣传、动员和组织工作中取得显著成绩的。
第十五条 对未完成献血工作计划的单位，责令其限期完成献血工作计划；逾期仍未完成的，予以通报批评，当年不得评为文明单位。
对单位雇佣他人冒名顶替献血的，视为未完成献血工作计划，按前款规定予以处理。
第十六条 对非法组织他人出卖血液的，由市和区、县卫生行政部门予以取缔，没收违法所得，可以并处10万元以下的罚款；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
第十七条 本条例具体应用中的问题，由市卫生行政部门负责解释。
第十八条 本条例自1998年10月1日起施行。1992年2月14日市九届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十二次会议通过的《北京市公民义务献血条例》、1992年12月16日市人民政府批准、1993年2月1日市卫生局发布的《北京市公民义务献血组织管理工作办法》
、《北京市公民医疗用血管理办法》、《北京市医疗采血供血管理办法》、《北京市个体血源管理办法》以及1992年12月16日市人民政府批准、1993年2月1日市卫生局发布、1997年12月31日市人民政府修改的《北京市违反公民义务献血法规、规章处罚办法》同时废
止。
1998年7月31日
