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
全国城镇生活垃圾处理信息报告、核查和评估办法
住房和城乡建设部
关于印发《全国城镇生活垃圾处理信息报告、核查和评估办法》的通知
建城[2009]26号
各省、自治区建设厅，直辖市市政管委（市容委），新疆生产建设兵团建设局：
为了贯彻落实《国务院关于印发节能减排综合性工作方案的通知》（国发[2007]15号）要求，加强对城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运行的管理与监督，住房和城乡建设部制定了《全国城镇生活垃圾处理信息报告、核查和评估办法》，现印发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。执行中的有关情况请及时与我部城市建设司联系。
附件：全国城镇生活垃圾处理信息报告、核查和评估办法
中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部
二〇〇九年二月二十四日
附件：全国城镇生活垃圾处理信息报告、核查和评估办法
第一条 为加强城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运行的管理与监督，落实节能减排目标要求，根据国家有关法律法规规定和工作要求，制定本办法。
第二条 组织实施全国城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设、运行的信息报告、核查、评估等工作，适用本办法。
本办法所指城镇生活垃圾处理设施（项目），是指设市城市（含区）、县城生活垃圾填埋场、堆肥厂、焚烧处理厂及其他处理方式的处理（场）（以下简称“生活垃圾处理厂”）及生活垃圾中转站。
第三条 住房和城乡建设部负责“全国城镇生活垃圾处理管理信息系统”（以下简称信息系统）的平台建设，负责全国城镇生活垃圾处理项目建设和运营的信息分析、总体评估和通报工作，对各地相关工作进行指导、监督和专项督察。
住房和城乡建设部信息中心负责信息系统的建设、维护和升级，以及上报信息汇总分析和用户服务等工作。
各省、自治区、直辖市住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门负责组织实施本行政区城镇生活垃圾处理的信息报告的督促、核查工作，并利用信息系统对本地区城镇生活垃圾处理情况进行分析和评估。
各城市和县人民政府的住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门负责本地区城镇生活垃圾处理项目建设信息的统计、整理和上报，以及生活垃圾处理运营信息报告的核实和督促工作。
第四条 城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设、运行的信息报告、核查、评估等工作应当坚持全面覆盖、责任明确、上下联动、实事求是的原则，做到信息准确、渠道畅通、报送及时、核查规范、评估科学、调控有力。
第五条 信息系统的主要内容包括：
（一）城镇生活垃圾处理信息。重点报告城镇生活垃圾厂数量、生活垃圾转运站数量、生活垃圾清运量、处理量、处理方式、生活垃圾处理收费和运营投入等情况。
（二）规划、在建项目信息。重点报告规划项目规模、规划投资、进度以及已开工建设项目设计规模、处理方式、建设进度等情况。
（三）已投入运营项目信息。基本信息包括生活垃圾处理厂基本情况、处理方式、生活垃圾处理费标准等。运行信息包括垃圾处理量、渗滤液处理量、运行天数、运行成本等。
第六条 城镇住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门负责城镇生活垃圾处理信息和在建项目信息的报告。城镇生活垃圾处理信息为月报，于每月10日前报送上月的信息，在建项目建设信息为季报，于每季度第一个月10日前报送上季度的信息。
城镇生活垃圾处理设施运营单位负责已投入运行项目信息的报告工作。项目运行信息为月报，于每月10日前报送上个月的信息。
省级住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门应于每月15日前，完成对报送信息的核准工作，并在每年的7月20日和1月20日前，分别完成本地区内的城镇生活垃圾处理半年度和全年度评估上报工作。
城镇生活垃圾处理项目建设和运营信息报告的具体格式、内容，按照《全国城镇生活垃圾处理管理信息系统说明书》执行。
住房和城乡建设部信息中心负责对上报信息进行汇总分析。
第七条 各级住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门和城镇生活垃圾处理项目运营单位应落实责任，明确专人负责信息报告工作。要按照“谁填报，谁负责；谁主管，谁落实”的原则，确保上报信息的及时、全面、准确。
住房和城乡建设部信息中心应做好系统维护，及时解决系统使用中出现的问题，提高系统使用效率。
第八条 各级住房城乡建设（环卫）主管部门要加强对城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运营信息的核查，核实信息的真实性、准确性，对信息中反映的问题及时进行督查，限期整改。
对生活垃圾渗滤液处理进行重点核查。各设市城市和县住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门应建立或委托具有认证资格的监测机构，进行定期检测。
第九条 住房和城乡建设部将根据国家总体部署和工作进展情况，组织实施全国范围的或重点地区的城镇生活垃圾处理专项检查。
省级住房城乡建设（环卫）主管部门应建立核查工作制度，完善核查工作体系，并根据各地工作进展和国家要求组织对本区内的生活垃圾处理设施建设和运营情况进行不定期检查。
第十条 发挥行业协会的作用，组织城镇生活垃圾处理行业的交流和检查，开展运营单位绩效评价工作，建立行业自律和激励机制。
第十一条 在信息报告、核查的基础上，对城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运行情况及时做出全面评估。
评估的内容包括：根据规划，评估城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设进度、资金到位、政策落实等情况；根据国家规范、标准，评估生活垃圾处理设施运行的质量和效益。通过评估，总结经验，发现问题，提出对策。
第十二条 主要评估指标：
（一）城镇生活垃圾处理设施建成率：指已建成的城镇生活垃圾处理项目的数量／本辖区内规划确定的应建项目数量；同时对各地城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设的总体情况进行评估。以省、自治区、直辖市以及城市、县为评估单位。
（二）城镇生活垃圾无害化处理率：城镇生活垃圾处理厂无害化处理的生活垃圾总量占城镇生活垃圾清运量的百分比。以省、自治区、直辖市以及城市、县为评估单位。
（三）城镇生活垃圾处理设施运行情况：城镇生活垃圾无害化处理厂的运行总经费（含固定资产折旧）以垃圾处理厂为评估单位。
（四）城镇生活垃圾处理费收费标准，收费金额占运行经费的比率。以城市、县为评估单位。
第十三条 通过评估，对各省、自治区、直辖市，或重点流域、重点地区的城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运营情况进行排序；对生活垃圾处理设施运行情况做出简要绩效评价；对工作中出现的先进典型进行总结，对存在的共性问题进行分析，并提出整改建议。
第十四条 城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设和运营情况评估结论每半年通报一次。
根据通报，各级地方住房城乡建设（环卫）行政主管部门应当做出分析与说明，并向同级人民政府做出报告。
第十五条 住房和城乡建设部将评估情况及时与国家相关部门沟通，评估结论将作为国家对城镇生活垃圾处理项目支持的依据。对项目建设进度快、质量好、运营效果好的项目，住房和城乡建设部将建议相关部门予以资金和技术支持。
第十六条 存在以下问题的，由上级主管部门予以通报批评，必要时可向责任单位下发整改通知，限期进行整改。
（一）城镇生活垃圾处理设施建设进度慢，城镇生活垃圾无害化处理率低、生活垃圾处理费不能及时足额拨付的市、县。
（二）不按照本办法要求及时、准确报送数据或谎报、瞒报数据的生活垃圾处理运营单位。
第十七条 直接责任单位和相关部门应对整改通知进行专门研究，拿出具体措施和意见，并将整改情况向通知发出单位做出书面汇报。
对问题突出的地区或项目，有关主管部门应当组织进行专项督察。
第十八条 对于整改不力，造成严重影响和后果的，由上一级主管部门会同有关等部门对有关责任单位和责任人实施责任追究。
第十九条 本办法自颁布之日施行。
