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
国土资源部关于土地利用总体规划审批和实施管理工作若干问题的通知
国土资源部
国土资源部关于土地利用总体规划审批和实施管理工作若干问题的通知
国土资源部
各省、自治区、直辖市土地（国土）管理局（厅）：
新《土地管理法》颁布以来，各地对土地利用总体规划工作十分重视。目前，绝大多数地方各级规划修编工作已经完成，部分省级和城市土地利用总体规划已经国务院批准实施。但是，工作进展不够平衡，有的地方规划审查报批工作迟缓，有的规划与现行政策、法律法规的要求相比有
差距，实施规划还面临管理制度不够落实、人员不足等问题。这些问题如不能及时解决，将影响到新法的实施和《全国土地利用总体规划纲要》确定的各项目标特别是耕地保护目标的实现。为此，现就有关问题通知如下：
一、抓紧做好地方各级土地利用总体规划审查报批工作
各级土地管理部门要把规划审查报批作为当前土地管理的重点工作，进一步加强领导，加快工作进度。需报国务院审批的省级和城市土地利用总体规划至今尚未正式上报的，务请于8月25日前完成规划上报工作；已经上报的，收到部门审查意见后，要按照部的要求及时落实审查意见
。对未按时上报规划或未按要求及时落实审查意见的，将不予办理所在地区报批的建设用地、土地开发整理等各种土地项目。省级规划已经国务院批准的省（自治区、直辖市），要按照自上而下审批的要求，加紧做好地（市）、县（市）、乡级规划的审查报批工作；省级规划尚未批准的省
（自治区、直辖市），要做好地（市）、县（市）、乡级规划的预审和审批准备工作。
规划审查必须严格按照现行政策和法律、法规的要求进行，保证规划质量。要重点审查以下内容：一是耕地保有量、基本农田保护面积、建设用地规模等主要控制指标是否符合上级规划的要求；二是规划地类基数是否按新《土地管理法》规定采用全国统一时点（1996年10月31
日）的土地利用现状变更调查面积；三是各类用地规划指标与规划图上范围是否一致，县（市）、乡级规划是否把各类用地指标具体落实到地块；四是规划方案是否符合当地实际，并与相关规划充分协调；五是实施规划措施是否体现了用途管制的要求，切实可行；六是规划文本、图件是否
规范，便于实施管理。各地对规划审查中发现的问题要立即纠正。部将于8月下旬或9月初对地方审批的规划组织一次抽查。
二、依法建立和严格执行实施土地利用总体规划的各项管理制度
根据新《土地管理法》规定，土地利用计划制定，建设项目用地预审，农用地转用和建设用地审批，城市和村镇规划建设用地规模审核，土地开发整理，土地执法检查等，都必须依据和符合土地利用总体规划。各级土地管理部门要根据法律、法规规定，尽快建立和严格执行实施规划的
各项管理制度，确保依法批准的土地利用总体规划切实得到实施。
建立实施规划的领导责任制。我部将把土地利用总体规划的编制和执行情况作为考核各省、自治区、直辖市土地管理部门主要领导的一项主要指标。地方各级土地管理部门也要确定相应的考核指标，层层建立实施规划的领导责任制度。
实行规划公告制度。地方各级土地利用总体规划批准后，要有组织地做好规划的宣传、发布工作，特别要重视做好乡镇土地利用总体规划的公告工作。规划公告可采用在报纸上公布、张贴布告和设立公告牌等方式。有条件的地方可采用设立公告牌的方式，以便起到长期宣传和警示的作
用。
建立建设项目用地预审制度。建设项目可行性研究论证阶段，必须报土地管理部门预审。凡不符合土地利用总体规划未通过用地预审的建设项目，其用地申请不予受理。
建立经常性的规划监督检查制度。要采用全面监测与典型地区跟踪调查相结合，对规划实施情况进行经常性的监督检查。跟踪调查单位可以与规划实施示范区相结合，推动规划实施示范区建设，发挥示范区的典型示范作用。各省、自治区、直辖市可确定1～2个市或县作为部的规划实
施跟踪调查单位，于9月底前报部规划司。
三、加快规划管理的基础业务建设
及时做好规划的建档备案工作。各级土地利用总体规划批准后，要及时将经批准的规划文本和规划图件、说明以及附件（包括专题研究报告及基础资料、图件、工作报告等）归档管理。经国务院批准的省级和城市土地利用总体规划，按修改意见修改后，将规划文本15套、规划图件1
套报部备案；其他地（市）、县（市）级规划，将经批准的规划文本2套、规划图件1套报部备案。乡级规划备案办法由各省、自治区、直辖市自定。
各级土地管理部门要把土地利用规划管理信息系统建设作为土地信息系统建设的重点，尽快启动。我部将选择部分规划和信息管理工作基础较好，具有代表性的市或县作为规划管理信息系统建设示范单位，在技术上给予重点指导。
各地要根据新《土地管理法》及其配套条例、规章，结合当地实际，制订和完善土地利用规划管理的地方配套法规和规章，使规划管理各项工作有章可循。
四、加强规划管理队伍建设，保障规划管理各项工作的开展
土地利用总体规划是土地利用管理的依据，实施规划贯穿于土地利用管理工作的始终。各级土地管理部门在机构改革中，应加强规划管理职能，稳定并加强规划管理机构和人员。基层土地管理部门在人员编制少的情况下，也要明确规划管理职能，确保规划工作有机构管，有专人办。要
防止编制规划与实施规划脱节，规划管理机构要具体承担或参与涉及规划的审查、检查和验收工作。要加强对各级土地规划管理人员的业务培训，提高人员素质，以适应新形势下加强规划管理工作的要求。
1999年8月10日
