No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
In Fairness to Nottebohm: Nationality in an Age of Globalization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 April 2024
Abstract
The Nottebohm judgment from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently come under attack in the context of the European Commission's position on “golden passports” programmes. The judgment has long received intense criticism from a consensus of scholars. This article challenges the conventional wisdom of Nottebohm. The ICJ did not, as critics argue, depart from international law on nationality, nor did it seek to create an international rule based on a “genuine link” requirement. A closer look at the majority's reasoning reveals that the ICJ's conception of nationality as something more than a mere formal classification was prompted by problems that can arise precisely from the phenomenon of globalization, including the instrumentalization of nationality. It further shows that the “substance-over-form” approach adopted by Nottebohm may, or already does, operate in more contemporary contexts.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Asian Society for International Law
References
1 Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Second Phase), Judgment of 6 April 1955, [1955] I.C.J. Rep. 4 [Nottebohm].
2 For a list of countries offering CBI regimes, see Henley & Partners, “Investment Migration Programs 2022: The Definitive Comparison of the Leading Residence and Citizenship Programs”, Ideos Publications, Report, 2022.
3 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions on Investor Citizenship and Residence Schemes, 23 January 2019, COM/2019/12 final [European Commission's Report 2019] at 6.
4 Dimitry Vladimirovich KOCHENOV, “Investor Citizenship and Residence: the EU Commission's Incompetent Case for Blood and Soil” Verfassungsblog (23 January 2019), online: Verfassungsblog https://verfassungsblog.de/investor-citizenship-and-residence-the-eu-commissions-incompetent-case-for-blood-and-soil/. See also, BRINK, Martijn van den, “Revising Citizenship within the European Union: Is a Genuine Link Requirement the Way Forward” (2022) 23(1) German Law Journal 79Google Scholar; Peter J. SPIRO, “Nottebohm and ‘Genuine Link’: Anatomy of a Jurisprudential Illusion”, Investment Migration Working Papers, IMC-RP 2019/1, online: Investment Migration https://investmentmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IMC-RP-2019-1-Peter-Spiro.pdf; Daniel SARMIENTO, “EU Competence and the Attribution of Nationality in Member States”, Investment Migration Working Papers, IMC-RP 2019/2, online: Investment Migration https://investmentmigration.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/IMC-RP-2019-2-Sarmiento.pdf; MACKLIN, Audrey, “Is It Time to Retire Nottebohm?” (2018) 111 American Journal of International Law Abound 492Google Scholar; THWAITES, Rayner, “The Life and Times of the Genuine Link” (2018) 49 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 645CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For early critics, see generally, MAKAROV, A., “Das Urteil des Internationales Gerichtshofs in Fall Nottebohm” (1955–6) 16 Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 407Google Scholar; GRAWITZ, Madeleine, “Cour Internationale de Justice” (1955) Annuaire Francais de Droit International 261Google Scholar; JONES, J. Mervyn, “The Nottebohm Case” (1956) 5 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar; GOLDSCHMIDT, Hans, “Recent Applications of Domestic Nationality Laws by International Tribunals” (1959) 28 Fordham Law Review 689Google Scholar; KUNZ, Josef L., “The Nottebohm Judgment” (1960) 54 American Journal of International Law 536CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 26.
6 Ibid., at 22.
7 WEINGERL, Petra and TRATNIK, Matjaž, “Relevant Links: Investment Migration as an Expression of National Autonomy in Matters of Nationality” in Dimitry KOCHENOV, Vladimirovich and SURAK, Kristin, eds., Citizenship and Residence Sales: Rethinking the Boundaries of Belonging (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023),161Google Scholar; Dimitry Vladimirovich KOCHENOV and Elena BASHESKA, “It's All [A]bout Blood, Baby! The European Commission's Ongoing Attack Against Investment Migration in the Context of EU Law and International Law”, The Centre on Migration, Policy, and Society (COMPAS), University of Oxford, Working Paper No. 161, November 2022; Hans Ulrich Jessurun D'OLIVEIRA, “Golden Passports: European Commission and European Parliament Reports Built on Quicksand”, COMPAS, University of Oxford, Working Paper No. 162, January 2023; SHAW, Jo, “Citizenship for Sale: Could and Should the EU Intervene?” in BAUBÖCK, Rainer, ed., Debating Transformations of National Citizenship (Cham: Springer, 2018)Google Scholar, at 61.
8 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 13.
9 Ibid.
10 CASEY, Christopher A., Nationals Abroad: Globalization, Individual Rights, and the Making of Modern International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 171.
11 Ibid., at 49.
12 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 26.
13 BUYS, Cindy G., “Nottebohm's Nightmare: Have We Exorcized the Ghosts of WWII Detention Programs or Do They Still Haunt Guantanamo?” (2011) 11 Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law 3–4Google Scholar.
14 Casey, supra note 10 at 172.
15 Ayelet SHACHAR, “Citizenship for Sale?” in Ayelet SHACHAR et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 789 at 812.
16 Kunz, supra note 4 at 548.
17 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 26.
18 Report of the International Law Commission of its Fifty-Eighth Session (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006), UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006) [ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection] at 30. The International Law Commission (ILC) explains that:
[A]rticle 3 asserts the principle that it is the State of nationality of the injured person that is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of such a person. The emphasis in this draft article is on the bond of nationality between State and national which entitles the State to exercise diplomatic protection.
See also, Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Lithuania), Judgment of 28 February 1939, [1938] Permanent Court of International Justice, Ser. A/B, No. 76 at para. 65, where the Permanent Court of International Justice held that “it is the bond of nationality between the State and the individual which alone confers upon the State the right of diplomatic protection”.
19 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 25.
20 Ibid., at 31.
21 Ibid., at 6–7.
22 Ibid., at 11.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., at 20–3. Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, 12 April 1930, 179 L.N.T.S. 89 (entered into force 1 July 1937) [1930 Hague Convention], art. 1. See also, L. OPPENHEIM, International Law: A Treatise (London: Longmans, Green, and Co, 1905) at 16–7 and Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion of 7 February 1923, [1923] P.C.I.J. Ser. B No. 4 at 24.
25 Ibid.
26 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 23; 1930 Hague Convention, supra note 24, art. 1.
27 ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, supra note 18.
28 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 17.
29 Ibid., at 20.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., at 23.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid., at 22.
34 Ibid.
35 For a discussion of the customary rule of “real and effective” nationality, more commonly known as the rule of “dominant and effective” nationality, see ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, supra note 18 at 43–7. For an analysis of the origin of the rule and its application in cases preceding Nottebohm, see William L. GRIFFIN, “International Claims of Nationals of Both the Claimant and Respondent States – The Case History of a Myth” (1967) 3(1) International Lawyer 400; and Zvonko R. RODE, “Dual Nationals and the Doctrine of Dominant Nationality” (1959) 53(1) American Journal of International Law 139. More recently, the rule has been applied by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in a number of cases (see Mohsen AGHAHOSSEINI, Claims of Dual Nationals and the Development of Customary International Law [Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff, 2007] at Chapters 2 and 3) and by arbitral tribunals in disputes under investment treaties (see Javier García OLMEDO, “Recalibrating the International Investment Regime through Narrowed Jurisdiction” (2020) 69(2) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 301 at 308–12).
36 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 22.
37 Ibid., at 25–6.
38 Brink, supra note 4 at 79.
39 Spiro, supra note 4 at 34.
40 Robert D. SLOANE, “Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nationality” (2009) 50 Harvard International Law Journal 1 at 14. He cites the dissenting opinion of Judge Read, per Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 40–2:
[A]part from the cases of double nationality, no instance has been cited [by the majority] in which a State has successfully refused to recognize that nationality, lawfully conferred and maintained, did not give rise to a right of diplomatic protection.
See also, Thwaites, supra note 4 at 657–9; Goldschmidt, supra note 4 at 699; Kunz, supra note 4 at 557–660.
41 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 22.
42 Ibid., at 21.
43 Ibid.
44 James CRAWFORD, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 8th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) at 516.
45 Spiro, supra note 4 at 10, citing Kunz, supra note 4 at 566.
46 Macklin, supra note 4 at 494; Thwaites, supra note 4; Aonghus HEATLEY, “Diplomatic Protection of Northern Irish Residents by the Republic of Ireland and the Regulation of Nationality in International Law” in Jean ALLAIN and Siobhán MULLALLY, eds., The Irish Yearbook of International Law, Volume 3, 2008 (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011), at 64; Alfred M. BOLL, Multiple Nationality and International Law (Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff, 2006) 111; Annemarieke VERMEER-KÜNZLI, “Nationality and Diplomatic Protection: A Reappraisal” in Alessandra ANNONI and Serena FORLATI, eds., The Changing Role of Nationality in International Law (London: Routledge, 2013), 76.
47 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 44.
48 First Report on Diplomatic Protection, by Mr John R. Dugard, Special Rapporteur, International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN 4/506 (7 March and 20 April 2000) [First Report on Diplomatic Protection] at para. 117.
49 Ibid.
50 Kay HAILBRONNER, “Nationality in Public International Law and European Law” in Rainer BAUBÖCK et al., eds., Acquisition and Loss of Nationality, Volume 1: Comparative Analyses: Policies and Trends in 15 European States (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), 35 at 60.
51 Ben JURATOWITCH, “The Relationship between Diplomatic Protection and Investment Treaties” (2008) 23(1) ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law Journal 10.
52 M. MCAULIFFE and A. TRIANDAFYLLIDOU, “World Migration Report 2022”, International Organization for Migration, 2021, at 21. This Report indicates that “[t]he current global estimate is that there were around 281 million international migrants in the world in 2020, which equates to 3.6 per cent of the global population”.
53 Huiying ZHANG and Yikang LIU, “Do Foreign Direct Investment and Migration Influence the Sustainable Development of Outward Foreign Direct Investment? From the Perspective of Intellectual Property Rights Protection” (2022) 14(9) Sustainability 5364, citing Xiaohui LIU and Axèle GIROUD, “International Knowledge Flows in the Context of Emerging-Economy MNEs and Increasing Global Mobility” (2016) 25(1) International Business Review 125 at 125-9.
54 Helga LEITNER and Patricia EHRKAMP, “Transnationalism and Migrants’ Imaginings of Citizenship” (2006) 38(9) Environment and Planning A 1615 at 1615. See also, Rainer BAUBÖCK, “How Migration Transforms Citizenship: International, Multinational, and Transnational Perspectives”, Centre for European Integration Research, IWE – Working Paper Series, 24 February 2002.
55 Lorin-Johannes WAGNER, “Nationality as We Know It? – A Note on the Genuine Link” EJIL: Talk! (21 September 2020), online: EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/nationality-as-we-know-it-a-note-on-the-genuine-link/.
56 Christian JOPPKE, “The Inevitable Lightening of Citizenship” (2010) 51(1) European Journal of Social Sciences 9.
57 Wagner, supra note 55.
58 Christian JOPPKE, “The Instrumental Turn of Citizenship” (2019) 45(6) Journal of Ethics and Migration Studies 858 at 858.
59 Peter J. SPIRO, Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 76.
60 Jelena DŽANKIĆ, “Rollback of ‘Golden Passports’ Shows their Elusive Shine” Migration Policy Institute (5 October 2022), online: Migration Policy Institute https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/golden-passports-citizenship-investment-rollback.
61 Sloane, supra note 40 at 33.
62 Yossi HARPAZ, Citizenship 2.0: Dual Nationality as a Global Asset (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2019) at 1.
63 Robert WISNER and Nick GALLUS, “Nationality Requirements in Investor-State Arbitration” (2004) 5 Journal of World Investment and Trade 927 at 927. See also, Javier García OLMEDO, “Claims by Dual Nationals under Investment Treaties: Are Investors Entitled to Sue Their Own States?” (2017) 8(4) Journal of International Dispute Settlement 695.
64 Sloane, supra note 40 at 15.
65 Neha JAIN, “Weaponized Citizenship: Should International Law Restrict Oppressive Nationality Attribution?” EUI Global Citizenship Observatory (6 September 2022), online: EUI Global Citizenship Observatory https://globalcit.eu/weaponized-citizenship-should-international-law-restrict-oppressive-nationality-attribution/.
66 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 11.
67 Ibid., at 26.
68 Ibid., at 24.
69 Sloane, supra note 40 at 1.
70 Anne PETERS, “Extraterritorial Naturalizations: Between the Human Right to Nationality, State Sovereignty, and Fair Principles of Jurisdiction” (2010) 53 German Yearbook of International Law 623 at 676.
71 Gerald FITZMAURICE, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–4: General Principles and Sources of International Law” (1959) 35 British Yearbook of International Law 183 at 209.
72 Alexandre KISS, “Abuse of Rights” (last updated December 2006) in Anne PETERS and Rüdiger WOLFRUM, eds., The Max Planck Encyclopedias of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008–), online: Oxford Public International Law, https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1371. See also, Michael BYERS, “Abuse of Rights: An Old Principle, A New Age” (2002) 47 McGill Law Journal 389; Bin CHENG, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953) at 121; Hersch LAUTERPACHT, The Function of Law in the International Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933) at 298; Robert KOLB, La Bonne Foie en Droit International Publique (Geneva: Graduate Institute Publications, 2000) at 463.
73 Sloane, supra note 40 at 21.
74 Ibid., at 24.
75 First Report on Diplomatic Protection, supra note 48 at para. 108.
76 Samantha BESSON, “Investment Citizenship and Democracy in a Global Age: Towards a Democratic Interpretation of International Nationality”, Law Fribourg International Law Research Papers Series 01/2019, June 2019, at 16.
77 Sloane, supra note 40 at 16.
78 Ian BROWNLIE, “The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law” (1964) 39 British Yearbook of International Law 284 at 285.
79 James CRAWFORD, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law, 9th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019) at 499.
80 Ayelet SHACHAR, “Dangerous Liaisons: Money and Citizenship” in Rainer BAUBÖCK, ed., Debating Transformations of National Citizenship (Cham: Springer, 2018), at 9.
81 For a detailed analysis of the economic requirements of CBI regimes, see Kristin SURAK, “Millionaire Mobility and the Sale of Citizenship” (2021) 47(1) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 166.
82 Shachar, supra note 15 at 794.
83 Theodoros RAKOPOULOS, “The Golden Passport ‘Russian’ Eutopia: Offshore Citizens in a Global Republic” (2022) 30(2) Social Anthropology/Anthropologie Sociale 161 at 162.
84 A SHACHAR, “The Marketization of Citizenship in an Age of Restrictionism” (2018) 32(Special Issue 1) Ethics & International Affairs 3; Kristin SURAK, “Marketizing Sovereign Prerogatives: How to Sell Citizenship” (2021) 62(2) European Journal of Sociology 275.
85 Barbara von RÜTTE, The Human Right to Citizenship: Situating The Right to Citizenship within International and Regional Human Rights Law (Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff, 2022) at 30; Gerard-Rene DE GROOT and Oliver Willen VONK, International Standards on Nationality Law: Texts, Cases, and Materials (Oisterwijk: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2016) at 3; Iseult HONOHAN and Nathalie ROUGIER, “Global Birthright Citizenship Laws: How Inclusive?” (2018) 65 Netherlands International Law Review 337 at 338. According to jus sanguinis (right of blood), the attribution of nationality is based on descent, i.e., at least one of the parents of the prospective national is a citizen of the State. According to jus soli (right of the soil), an individual obtains the citizenship of the country in which they are born. For an analysis of the use of jus soli and jus sanguinis worldwide, see Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT), “Global Birthright Indicators”, published on 8 February 2018, updated on 19 November 2022. See also, Dimitry Vladimirovich KOCHENOV and Kristin SURAK, “Introduction: Learning from Investment Migration” in Dimitry Vladimirovich KOCHENOV and Kristin SURAK, eds., Citizenship and Residence Sales: Rethinking the Boundaries of Belonging (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 1 at 7. They indicate that “98% of citizenships are inherited by blood”.
86 For a detailed analysis of jus sanguinis and jus soli rules in the EU, see Maria M. MENTZELOPOULOU and Costica DUMBRAVA, “Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship in EU Member States: Key Trends and Issues”, European Parliamentary Research Service, Members’ Research Service, PE 625.116, Briefing, July 2018.
87 Christian JOPPKE, Citizenship and Migration (Cambridge; Massachusetts: Polity Press, 2010) at 45. See also, Rainer BAUBÖCK, “Genuine Links and Useful Passports: Evaluating Strategic Uses of Citizenship” (2019) 45(6) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1015 at 1020.
88 For a detailed study of naturalization requirements in the EU, see Ashley MANTHA-HOLLANDS and Jelena DŽANKIĆ, “Ties that Bind and Unbind: Charting the Boundaries of European Union Citizenship” (2022) 49(9) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 2091. They explain how Member States waive or ease ordinary naturalization requirements for nationals of all other Member States and provide for accelerated naturalization for specific categories of foreigners in cases involving family members and individuals with special historical ties to the State awarding citizenship.
89 For a discussion of legal residency requirements in the EU, see Dimitry KOCHENOV and Martijn van den BRINK, “Legal Residence and Physical Presence: The Law and Practice of Naturalization in EU Jurisdictions”, COMPAS, University of Oxford, Working Paper No. 165, August 2023.
90 Dora KOSTAKOPOULOU, “Why Naturalization?” (2003) 4(1) Perspectives on European Politics and Society 85 at 92. See also, Jelena DŽANKIĆ, “The Pros and Cons of Ius Pecuniae: Investor Citizenship in Comparative Perspective”, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, European University Institute, RSCAS Working Papers No. 2012/14, at 1.
91 Brink, supra note 4 at 86.
92 Helen IRVING, Allegiance, Citizenship, and the Law: The Enigma of Belonging (Cheltenham; Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022) at 142.
93 Kristin SURAK, “Investment Migration Globally: The Dynamics of Supply and Demand”, COMPAS, University of Oxford, Working Paper No. 161, November 2022, at 14.
94 Kochenov and Surak, supra note 85 at 3–4.
95 Christian H. KÄLIN, Ius Doni in International Law and EU Law (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2019) at 405.
96 For a comprehensive analysis of CBI schemes in the EU, see Meenakshi FERNANDES et al., “Avenues for EU Action on Citizenship and Residence by Investment Schemes European Added Value Assessment”, European Parliamentary Research Service, European Added Value Unit, PE 694.217, 21 October 2021. This study shows that, by 2019, around 10,000 individuals had acquired citizenship through CBI programmes in the EU and that Russian nationals predominate among CBI participants, accounting for over 45% of all citizenships, followed by Chinese nationals and nationals from the Middle East, accounting for approximately 15% of naturalizations each.
97 For an analysis of Malta's CBI regime, see Sergio CARRERA, “The Price of EU Citizenship: The Maltese Citizenship-for-Sale Affair and the Principle of Sincere Cooperation in Nationality Matters” (2014) 21(3) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 406 at 414. Carrera explains that the residence requirement ultimately constitutes a mere figurative obligation. Surak calls it a “‘light touch’ residence requirement”, for “[t]he one-year obligation could be fulfilled by setting out a plan for developing connections to the island, joining local clubs, and donating to local charities, rather than physically residing on the island for twelve months”. Surak, supra note 93 at 14.
98 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 9.
99 Ibid., at 9 and 23.
100 Amandine SCHERRER and Elodie THIRION, “Citizenship by Investment (CBI) and Residency by Investment (R.B.I.) Schemes in the EU”, European Parliamentary Research Service, Ex-Post Evaluation Unit and European Added Value Unit, PE 627.128, 2 October 2018, at 27. For another report on the side-effects of EU CBI regimes, see Transparency International and Global Witness, “European Getaway: Inside the Murky World of Golden Visas”, Transparency International and Global Witness, 30 October 2018, online: Transparency International https://www.transparency.org/en/publications/golden-visas.
101 Scherrer and Thirion, supra note 100 at 28–9. See also, “Golden Passports: Infringement Procedures Against Cyprus and Malta the Right Move” Transparency International (20 October 2020), online: Transparency International https://www.transparency.org/en/press/golden-passports-infringement-procedures-against-cyprus-and-malta-the-right-move. This publication references the following remark made by Laure Brillaud, Senior Anti-Money Laundering Policy Officer at Transparency International EU: “[t]there is overwhelming evidence” that the Maltese scheme has “been serving corrupt interests, not the common good”.
102 Mark CORRADO and Kim MARSH, “Investment Migration and the Importance of Due Diligence: Examples of Canada, Saint-Kitts and Nevis, and the EU” in Dimitry Vladimirovich KOCHENOV and Kristin SURAK, eds., Citizenship and Residence Sales: Rethinking the Boundaries of Belonging (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023), 485 at 508.
103 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 5.
104 For a detailed analysis of EU citizenship rights, see Manuel KELLERBAUER, “Article 20 TEU” in Manuel KELLERBAUER, Marcus KLAMERT, and Jonathan TOMKIN, eds., The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 192.
105 Konstantinos ARVANITIS, “Sincere Cooperation and the Limits of National Competences in the Field of Residence by Investment (R.B.I.) and Citizenship by Investment (C.B.I)”, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs, European Parliament, Working Document on the Legislative Own-Initiative Report on Citizenship and Residence by Investment Schemes (DT\1240216EN), 1 October 2021, at 2. Several international firms assist individuals in applying for CBI regimes. The global leader in CBI, Henley & Partners, advertises visa-free entry to the EU and Europe's Schengen Area as one of the “key advantages” of Malta's CBI programme. See Henley & Partners, supra note 2 at 145.
106 Christian JOPPKE, “The Rise of Instrumental Citizenship”, in Henley & Partners, supra note 2, 26 at 26.
107 Shachar, supra note 80 at 69.
108 Transparency International and Global Witness, supra note 100 at 12.
109 Irving, supra note 92 at 145.
110 Fernandes et al., supra note 96 at 25–7. See also, Scherrer and Thirion, supra note 100 at 20–2.
111 Fernandes et al., supra note 96 at 26.
112 European Commission, “Investor Citizenship Schemes: European Commission Opens Infringements Against Cyprus and Malta for ‘Selling’ EU Citizenship” European Commission (20 October 2020), online: European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1925.
113 See Reuters, “Cyprus to Revoke Passports of Four Sanctioned Russians-Sources” Reuters (7 April 2022), online: Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/cyprus-revoke-passports-four-sanctioned-russians-sources-2022-04-07/; Prabhu BALAKRISHNAN, “Effective 5 April 2022, Bulgaria Terminates CBI Program” Best Citizenships (30 September 2022), online: Best Citizenships https://best-citizenships.com/2022/09/30/bulgaria-closes-its-golden-passport-program/
114 European Commission, “Investor Citizenship Scheme: Commission Refers MALTA to the Court of Justice” European Commission (29 September 2022), online: European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_5422.
115 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 6.
116 European Commission, supra note 112.
117 Weingerl and Tratnik, supra note 7; Kochenov and Basheska, supra note 7; D'Oliveira, supra note 7; Sarmiento, supra note 4; Shaw, supra note 7.
118 Kochenov and Basheska, supra note 7 at 47.
119 Sarmiento, supra note 4 at 26.
120 D'Oliveira, supra note 7 at 13.
121 Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria (Micheletti), Judgment of the Court of 7 July 1992, Case C-369/90 at para. 10.
122 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 5.
123 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union, 26 October 2012, Official Journal of the European Union C 326/13, art. 5.
124 See European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997, European Treaty Series – No. 166 [ECN], art. 3. This provision uses almost identical terms to those employed in the 1930 Hague Convention, supra note 24, art. 1, confirming that: “[e]ach [Member] State shall determine under its own law who are its nationals”.
125 Dimitry KOCHENOV, “The Essence of EU Citizenship Emerging from the Last Ten Years of Academic Debate: Beyond the Cherry Blossoms and the Moon” (2013) 62(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 97 at 117.
126 Armin von BOGDANDY and Felix ARNDT, “European Citizenship” (last updated January 2011) in Anne PETERS and Rüdiger WOLFRUM, eds., The Max Planck Encyclopedias of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008–), online: Oxford Public International Law https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e615?prd=EPIL.
127 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 26 October 2012, Official Journal of the European Union C 326/47, art. 20.
128 Dimitry KOCHENOV, “Ius Tractum of Many faces: European Citizenship and the Difficult Relationship Between Status and Rights” (2009) 15(2) Columbia Journal of European Law 169.
129 Toni MARZAL, “The Territorial Reach of European Union Law: A Private International Law Enquiry into the European Union's Spatial Identity” (2024) 73(1) International and Comparative Law Quarterly 29 at 50.
130 Janko Rottmann v. Freistaat Bayern (Rottman), Judgment of the Court of 2 March 2010, Case C-135/08 [Rottman] at para. 48. For a discussion of this decision, see G.R. de GROOT and A. SELING, “The Consequences of the Rottmann Judgement on Member State Autonomy – the Court's Avant-gardism in Nationality Matters” in Jo SHAW, ed., “Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law?”, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, European University Institute, RSCAS Working Paper 2011/62, 27.
131 In general, Austrian citizenship law does not permit dual or multiple citizenship. In principle, anyone who voluntarily acquires a foreign citizenship thereby loses Austrian citizenship.
132 Rottman, supra note 130 at para. 51.
133 Ibid.
134 Ibid., at para. 56.
135 MG Tjebbes and Others v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Tjebbes), Judgment of the Court of 12 March 2019, Case C-221/17 [Tjebbes] at para. 33. For a discussion of this decision, see Martijn van den BRINK, “Bold, But Without Justification? Tjebbes” (2019) 4(1) European Papers 409.
136 Tjebbes, supra note 135 at paras. 34 and 37. The Court referred to Article 7(1) and (2) of the ECN, supra note 124, which provides that a State Party may provide for the loss of its nationality, inter alia, in the case of an adult, where there is no genuine link between that State and a national habitually residing abroad and, in the case of a minor, for children whose parents lose the nationality of that State.
137 Tjebbes, supra note 135 at para. 35.
138 Ibid., at para. 40.
139 Ibid., at paras. 44 and 50. The Court referred to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 18 December 2000, Official Journal of the European Communities C 364/1, and held that national courts have “to ensure that the loss of nationality is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter … and specifically the right to respect for family life as stated in Article 7 of the Charter”.
140 Tjebbes, supra note 135 at para. 46.
141 JY v Wiener Landesregierung, Judgment of the Court of 18 January 2022, Case C-118/20 [JY]. For a discussion of this decision, see Ilaria GAMBARDELLA, “JY v Wiener Landesregierung: Adding Another Stone to the Case Law Built Up by the CJEU on Nationality and EU Citizenship” (2022) 7(1) European Papers 399.
142 JY, supra note 141 at para. 15.
143 Ibid., at para. 17. As the Court noted:
The Wiener Landesregierung (Government of the Province of Vienna) justified that decision by stating that JY had committed, since receiving the assurance that she will be granted Austrian nationality, two serious administrative offences (failing to display a vehicle inspection disc and driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol) and that she had committed eight administrative offences between 2007 and 2013, before that assurance was given to her.
144 Ibid., at para. 74.
145 Ibid., at para. 61.
146 Jo SHAW, ed., “Has the European Court of Justice Challenged Member State Sovereignty in Nationality Law?”, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, European University Institute, RSCAS Working Paper 2011/62.
147 Gareth T. DAVIES, “The Entirely Conventional Supremacy of Union Citizenship and Rights” in Shaw, supra note 145, 5 at 9.
148 Kochenov, supra note 125 at 115.
149 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 5.
150 Lorin-Johannes WAGNER, “Member State nationality under EU law – To be or not to be a Union Citizen?” (2021) 28(3) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 304 at 304.
151 Ibid., at 305.
152 European Commission's Report 2019, supra note 3 at 5.
153 Martijn van den BRINK, “A Qualified Defence of the Primacy of Nationality of European Union Citizenship” (2020) 69 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 177 at 199.
154 Ibid., at 200.
155 Ibid.
156 Brink, supra note 4 at 89.
157 Carrera, supra note 97.
158 Brink, supra note 153 at 201.
159 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 23.
160 Christoph SCHREUER, “Nationality of Investors: Legitimate Restrictions vs. Business Interests” (2009) 24(2) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 521 at 525.
161 See Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States, 18 March 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 159 (entered into force 14 October 1996) [ICSID Convention], art. 25(2), which provides that:
National of another Contracting State means:
- (a)
(a) any natural person who had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration as well as on the date on which the request was registered pursuant to paragraph (3) of Article 28 or paragraph (3) of Article 36, but does not include any person who on either date also had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute; and
- (b)
(b) any juridical person which had the nationality of a Contracting State other than the State party to the dispute on the date on which the parties consented to submit such dispute to conciliation or arbitration and any juridical person which had the nationality of the Contracting State party to the dispute on that date and which, because of foreign control, the parties have agreed should be treated as a national of another Contracting State for the purposes of this Convention.
162 A standard definition of “corporate investor” can be found in art. 1(c)(i) of the Agreement Between the Government of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of El Salvador for the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 14 October 1999, Treaty Series No.17 (2001) (entered into force 1 December 2000). The Treaty covers, with respect to the United Kingdom “corporations, firms, and associations incorporated or constituted under the law in force in any part of the United Kingdom”. See also Florian FRANKE, Der Personelle Anwendungsbereich des internationalen Investitionsschutzrechts (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2013). This Study shows that approximately 40% of investment treaties use incorporation in the home State party as the sole test, with no additional requirements.
163 A typical definition of “protected natural person” can be found in art. 1(3) of the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Finland and the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt on the Promotion and Protection of Investments, 3 March 2004 (entered into force 5 February 2005): “[t]he term ‘investor’ means, for either Contracting Party, (a) any natural person who is a national of either Contracting Party in accordance with its laws”.
164 Katia YANNACA-SMALL, “Who Is Entitled to Claim? The Definition of Nationality in Investment Arbitration” in Katia YANNACA-SMALL, ed., Arbitration under International Investment Agreements: A Guide to the Key Issues, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), at 129–60. See also, Wisner and Gallus, supra note 63 at 927. As they explain, “[in] a globalized world economy, most international investment is channelled through complex structures consisting of companies incorporated in different jurisdictions”.
165 For a comprehensive analysis of arbitral decisions on corporate structuring, see Jorun BAUMGARTNER, Treaty Shopping in International Investment Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), chapter 7.
166 Anthony C. SINCLAIR, “The Substance of Nationality Requirements in Investment Treaty Arbitration” (2005) 20(2) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 357 at 358–9.
167 Tidewater Inc and others v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 8 February 2013, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/5 at para. 184.
168 Philip Morris Asia Limited v. The Commonwealth of Australia, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 17 December 2015, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-12 [Philip Morris].
169 Ibid., at para. 152.
170 Investment Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, 26 March 2019 (entered into force 17 January 2020), art. 1(b)(i). This provision defines protected legal persons “in respect of Hong Kong” as “corporations, partnerships, associations, trusts, or other legally recognized entities incorporated or constituted or otherwise duly organized under the law in force in its area”.
171 Philip Morris, supra note 168 at para. 450.
172 Ibid., at paras. 420–5.
173 Pac Rim Cayman LLC v. Republic of El Salvador, Decision on the Respondent's Jurisdictional Objections of 1 June 2012, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/12; Renée Rose Levy and Gremcitel SA v. Republic of Peru, Award of 9 January 2015, ICSID Case No. ARB/11/17; Mobil Corp., Venezuela Holdings, B.V., Mobil Cerro Negro Holding, Ltd., et al. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 10 June 2010, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/27.
174 Philip Morris, supra note 168 at para. 554.
175 Ibid., at para. 554.
176 Ibid., at para. 584.
177 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 11.
178 Emmanuel GAILLARD, “Abuse of Process in International Arbitration” (2017) 32(1) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 17 at 18. For other publications that examine the application of the abuse of rights doctrine in investment arbitration; see, Utku TOPCAN, “Abuse of the Right to Access ICSID Arbitration” (2014) 29(3) ICSID Review – Foreign Investment Law Journal 627; Muthucumaraswamy SORNARAJAH, “Good Faith, Corporate Nationality, and Denial of Benefits” in Andrew MITCHELL, Muthucumaraswamy SORNARAJAH, and Tania VOON, eds., Good Faith and International Economic Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 117; Hervé ASCENSIO, “Abuse of Process in International Investment Arbitration” (2014) 13(4) Chinese Journal of International Law 763; John David BRANSON, “The Abuse of Process Doctrine Extended: A Tool for Right Thinking People in International Arbitration” (2021) 38(2) Journal of International Arbitration 187.
179 Hedley BULL, The Anarchical Society A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Red Globe Press, 1977) at 255.
180 Jan Aart SCHOLTE, “The Geography of Collective Identities in a Globalizing World” (1996) 3(4) Review of International Political Economy 565 at 565. See also, Thomas FRANCK, The Empowered Self: Law and Society in the Age of Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) at 65.
181 Baumgartner, supra note 165 at 12.
182 Notable examples include Marko Mihaljević v. Republic of Croatia, Award of 19 May 2023, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/35 [Mihaljević]; Zaza Okuashvili v. Georgia, Partial Final Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 31 August 2022, SCC Case V 2019/058 [Okuashvili]; and Leopoldo Castillo Bozo v. Republic of Panama, Final Award of 8 November 2022, PCA Case 2019-40.
183 Okuashvili, supra note 182. For an analysis of this award, see Javier García OLMEDO, “ZAZA OKUASHVILI v GEORGIA, Case V 2019/058, Partial Final Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility” (2023) 117(4) American Journal of International Law 681.
184 Okuashvili, supra note 182 at para. 69.
185 Ibid., at para. 269.
186 Ibid., at para. 280.
187 Ibid., at para. 272.
188 Ibid., at para. 282.
189 Mihaljević, supra note 182.
190 ICSID Convention, supra note 161, art. 25(2)(a).
191 Mihaljević, supra note 182 at para. 116.
192 Ibid., at para. 6.
193 Ibid., at para. 53.
194 Ibid., at para. 54.
195 Ibid.
196 Ibid., at para. 137.
197 Ibid., at para. 135.
198 Marko Mihaljević v. Republic of Croatia, Concurring Opinion of Maria Vicien-Milburn of 19 May 2023, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/35 at para. 2, citing Phoenix Action, Ltd. V. Czech Republic, Award of 15 April 2009, ICSID Case No. ARB/06/5 at para. 144.
199 Ibid., at para. 3.
200 Ibid., at para. 5.
201 Ibid., at para. 1.
202 See, generally, Manfred NOWAK and Karolina Miriam JANUSZEWSKI, “Non-State Actors and Human Rights” in Math NOORTMANN et al., eds., Non-State Actors in International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015), 113 at 115-6.
203 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocols Number 11 and Number 14, 4 November 1950, European Treaty Series 5 (entered into force 3 September 1953) [ECHR], art. 34.
204 Antônio Augusto Cançado TRINDADE, The Access of Individuals to International Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) at 28 and footnote 38. See also, Robert MCCORQUODALE, “The Individual and the International Legal System” in Malcolm EVANS, ed., International Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 284 at 294–5.
205 RUBENSTEIN, Kim and ADLER, Daniel, “International Citizenship: The Future of Nationality in a Globalized World” (2000) 7(2) Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 519Google Scholar at 538.
206 ECHR, supra note 203, art. 8.
207 Nottebohm, supra note 1 at 23.
208 Sloane, supra note 40 at 56–8.
209 Beldjoudi v France, Judgment of 26 March 1992, Case No. 55/1990/246/317, Application No. 12083/86 [Beldjoudi].
210 Ibid., at paras. 9 and 40.
211 Ibid., at para. 70.
212 Ibid., at para. 15.
213 Ibid., at para. 61.
214 ECHR, supra note 203, art. 8.
215 Beldjoudi, supra note 209 at para. 74.
216 Ibid., at para. 71.
217 Ibid., at para. 79.
218 Rubenstein and Adler, supra note 205 at 540.
219 Beldjoudi, supra note 208, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pettiti.
220 For a comprehensive analysis of this case law, see THYM, Daniel, “Residence as De Facto Citizenship? Protection of Long-Term Residence Under Article 8 ECHR” in RUBIO-MARÍN, Ruth, ed., Human Rights and Immigration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 106Google Scholar.
221 Slivenko et al. v Latvia, Grand Chamber Decision on Admissibility of 9 October 2003, Application No. 48321/99 at para. 97.
222 Thym, supra note 220 at 130.
223 Stewart v Canada, Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/58D/538/1993 (1996) [Stewart].
224 Ibid., at 4.
225 Ibid.
226 Ibid.
227 Ibid., at 5 and 15. See also, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976), art. 12(4).
228 Stewart, supra note 223 at 15–16.
229 Ibid., at 21.
230 Francesca P. ALBANESE and Lex TAKKENBERG, Palestinian Refugees in International Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020) at 366 and footnote 317.
231 Anne PETERS, “Passportization: Risks for International Law and Stability – Part II” EJIL: Talk! (10 May 2019), online: EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/passportisation-risks-for-international-law-and-stability-part-two/.