state - office of legal affairslegal.un.org/avl/studymaterials/rcil-laac/2016/book3_4.pdf · united...
TRANSCRIPT
-
STATE RESPONSIBILITY
MR. SANTIAGO VILLALPANDO
Legal instruments and documents
1. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001
For text, see The Work of the International Law Commission, 8th ed., vol. II, pp. 401-
413
2. Draft articles on diplomatic protection, with commentaries (Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-eighth session (1 May-9 June and 3 July-11 August 2006),
A/61/10, p. 23)
3. Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, United Nations Legislative Series, 2012 (ST/LEG/SER.B/25) (publication distributed)
4. United Nations General Assembly resolutions 56/83 of 12 December 2001, 59/35 of 2 December 2004, 62/61 and 62/67 of 6 December 2007, 65/19 and 65/27 of 6 December
2010, and 68/104 and 68/113 of 16 December 2013
Case law
5. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1970, p. 3
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
6. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
7. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
8. Gabikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 7
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
9. Prosecutor v. Duko Tadi, ICTY Appeals Chamber, 15 July 1999 (Judgment)
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts
10. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 136
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
11. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Report 2007, p. 43
For relevant excerpts, see Materials on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts
-
12. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 582
-
Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection (with commentaries),
2006
Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2006, vol. II, Part
Two, p. 23
-
A/6
1/1
0
Un
ited
Nati
on
s
Rep
ort
of
the
Inte
rna
tion
al
La
w C
om
mis
sio
n
Fif
ty-e
igh
th s
essi
on
(1 M
ay
-9 J
un
e a
nd
3 J
uly
-11 A
ug
ust
20
06
)
Gen
era
l A
ssem
bly
O
ffic
ial
Rec
ord
s S
ixty
-fir
st s
essi
on
Su
pp
lem
ent
No
. 1
0 (
A/6
1/1
0)
Note
S
ym
bols
of
Unit
ed N
atio
ns
docu
men
ts a
re c
om
po
sed
of
cap
ital
let
ters
co
mb
ined
wit
h
figure
s.
Men
tion o
f su
ch a
sym
bol
indic
ates
a r
efer
ence
to a
Unit
ed N
atio
ns
docu
men
t.
T
he
word
Yea
rbook
foll
ow
ed b
y s
usp
ensi
on
po
ints
an
d t
he
yea
r (e
.g. Y
earb
oo
k ... 1
97
1)
indic
ates
a r
efer
ence
to t
he
Yea
rbo
ok
of
the
Inte
rna
tio
na
l L
aw
Co
mm
issi
on.
A
types
et v
ersi
on o
f th
e re
po
rt o
f th
e C
om
mis
sio
n w
ill
be
incl
ud
ed i
n P
art
Tw
o o
f
volu
me
II o
f th
e Y
earb
ook
of
the
Inte
rna
tio
na
l L
aw
Co
mm
issi
on
20
06
.
52
-
22
2. T
ext
of
the
dra
ft a
rtic
les
wit
h c
om
men
tari
es t
her
eto
50.
The
text
of
the
draf
t art
icle
s w
ith c
omm
enta
ries
ther
eto
adop
ted
by th
e C
omm
issi
on a
t its
fift
y-ei
ghth
ses
sion
are
rep
rodu
ced
belo
w.
DIP
LO
MA
TIC
PR
OT
EC
TIO
N
(1)
The
dra
ftin
g of
art
icle
s on
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
was
ori
gina
lly
seen
as
belo
ngin
g to
the
stud
y on
Sta
te R
espo
nsib
ility
. In
deed
the
firs
t Rap
port
eur
on S
tate
Res
pons
ibil
ity,
Mr.
F.V
. Gar
cia
Am
ador
, inc
lude
d a
num
ber
of d
raft
art
icle
s on
this
sub
ject
in h
is r
epor
ts
pres
ente
d fr
om 1
956
to 1
961.
16 T
he s
ubse
quen
t cod
ific
atio
n of
Sta
te R
espo
nsib
ilit
y pa
id li
ttle
atte
ntio
n to
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
and
the
fina
l dra
ft a
rtic
les
on th
is s
ubje
ct e
xpre
ssly
sta
te th
at
the
two
topi
cs c
entr
al to
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
- na
tiona
lity
of c
laim
s an
d th
e ex
haus
tion
of lo
cal
rem
edie
s -
wou
ld b
e de
alt w
ith m
ore
exte
nsiv
ely
by th
e C
omm
issi
on in
a s
epar
ate
unde
rtak
ing.
17
Nev
erth
eles
s, th
ere
is a
clo
se c
onne
ctio
n be
twee
n th
e ar
ticl
es o
n R
espo
nsib
ility
of
Stat
es f
or
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
s an
d th
e pr
esen
t dra
ft a
rtic
les.
Man
y of
the
prin
cipl
es c
onta
ined
in
the
artic
les
on R
espo
nsib
ility
of
Stat
es f
or in
tern
atio
nall
y w
rong
ful a
cts
are
rele
vant
to
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n an
d ar
e th
eref
ore
not r
epea
ted
in th
e pr
esen
t dra
ft a
rtic
les.
Thi
s ap
plie
s in
part
icul
ar to
the
prov
isio
ns d
eali
ng w
ith
the
lega
l con
sequ
ence
s of
an
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l
act.
A S
tate
res
pons
ible
for
inju
ring
a f
orei
gn n
atio
nal i
s ob
liged
to c
ease
the
wro
ngfu
l con
duct
and
to m
ake
full
rep
arat
ion
for
the
inju
ry c
ause
d by
the
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
. T
his
repa
ratio
n m
ay ta
ke th
e fo
rm o
f re
stit
utio
n, c
ompe
nsat
ion
or s
atis
fact
ion,
eit
her
sing
ly o
r in
com
bina
tion.
All
thes
e m
atte
rs a
re d
ealt
with
in th
e ar
ticle
s on
Res
pons
ibil
ity
of S
tate
s fo
r
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
s. 1
8
(2)
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
belo
ngs
to th
e su
bjec
t of
Tre
atm
ent o
f A
lien
s.
No
atte
mpt
is
mad
e, h
owev
er, t
o de
al w
ith
the
prim
ary
rule
s on
this
sub
ject
- th
at is
, the
rul
es g
over
ning
the
16
Yea
rbo
ok
19
56, v
ol. I
I, p
p.17
3-23
1, Y
ea
rbo
ok
1
95
7, v
ol. I
I, p
p. 1
04--
30, Y
ea
rbo
ok
19
58, v
ol. I
I,
pp. 4
7-73
, Yea
rbo
ok
1
95
9, v
ol. I
I, p
p.1-
36, Y
ea
rboo
k
19
60
, vol
. II,
pp.
41-
68, a
nd Y
ea
rbo
ok
19
61, v
ol. I
I,
pp. 1
-54.
1
7Ib
id., O
ffic
ial
Rec
ord
s o
f th
e G
enera
l A
ssem
bly
Fif
ty-s
ixth
Ses
sio
n,
Su
pp
lem
ent
No
. 1
0 (
A/5
6/10
), p
ara.
77,
co
mm
enta
ry o
n ar
ticl
e44
, foo
tnot
es 7
22 a
nd 7
26.
18 A
rtic
les
28, 3
0, 3
1, 3
4-37
. M
uch
of th
e co
mm
enta
ry o
n co
mpe
nsat
ion
(art
.36)
is d
evot
ed to
a c
onsi
dera
tion
of
the
prin
cipl
es a
ppli
cabl
e to
cla
ims
conc
erni
ng d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n.
23
trea
tmen
t of
the
pers
on a
nd p
rope
rty
of a
liens
, bre
ach
of w
hich
giv
es r
ise
to r
espo
nsib
ility
to th
e
Stat
e of
nat
iona
lity
of th
e in
jure
d pe
rson
. In
stea
d th
e pr
esen
t dra
ft a
rtic
les
are
conf
ined
to
seco
ndar
y ru
les
only
- th
at is
, the
rul
es th
at r
elat
e to
the
cond
ition
s th
at m
ust b
e m
et f
or th
e
brin
ging
of
a cl
aim
for
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion.
By
and
larg
e th
is m
eans
rul
es g
over
ning
the
adm
issi
bilit
y of
cla
ims.
Art
icle
44
of th
e ar
ticle
s on
Res
pons
ibili
ty o
f St
ates
for
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
s pr
ovid
es:
T
he r
espo
nsib
ility
of
a St
ate
may
not
be
invo
ked
if:
(
a)
The
cla
im is
not
bro
ught
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
any
appl
icab
le r
ule
rela
ting
to
the
nati
onal
ity
of c
laim
s;
(
b)
The
cla
im is
one
to w
hich
the
rule
of
exha
ustio
n of
loca
l rem
edie
s ap
plie
s
and
any
avai
labl
e an
d ef
fect
ive
loca
l rem
edy
has
not b
een
exha
uste
d.
The
pre
sent
dra
ft a
rtic
les
give
con
tent
to th
is p
rovi
sion
by
elab
orat
ing
on th
e ru
les
rela
ting
to th
e
natio
nalit
y of
cla
ims
and
the
exha
ustio
n of
loca
l rem
edie
s.
(3)
The
pre
sent
dra
ft a
rtic
les
do n
ot d
eal w
ith
the
prot
ectio
n of
an
agen
t by
an in
tern
atio
nal
orga
niza
tion,
gen
eral
ly d
escr
ibed
as
fun
ctio
nal p
rote
ctio
n.
Alth
ough
ther
e ar
e si
mila
ritie
s
betw
een
func
tiona
l pro
tect
ion
and
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n, th
ere
are
also
impo
rtan
t dif
fere
nces
.
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
is tr
adit
iona
lly
a m
echa
nism
des
igne
d to
sec
ure
repa
ratio
n fo
r in
jury
to th
e
nati
onal
of
a St
ate
prem
ised
larg
ely
on th
e pr
inci
ple
that
an
inju
ry to
a n
atio
nal i
s an
inju
ry to
the
Stat
e its
elf.
Fun
ctio
nal p
rote
ctio
n, o
n th
e ot
her
hand
, is
an in
stitu
tion
for
prom
otin
g th
e ef
fici
ent
func
tioni
ng o
f an
inte
rnat
iona
l org
aniz
atio
n by
ens
urin
g re
spec
t for
its
agen
ts a
nd th
eir
inde
pend
ence
. D
iffe
renc
es o
f th
is k
ind
have
led
the
Com
mis
sion
to c
oncl
ude
that
pro
tect
ion
of
an a
gent
by
an in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ion
does
not
bel
ong
in a
set
of
draf
t art
icle
s on
dip
lom
atic
prot
ectio
n. T
he q
uest
ion
whe
ther
a S
tate
may
exe
rcis
e di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion
in r
espe
ct o
f a
natio
nal w
ho is
an
agen
t of
an in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ion
was
ans
wer
ed b
y th
e In
tern
atio
nal
Cou
rt o
f Ju
stic
e in
the
Rep
ara
tio
n f
or
Inju
ries
cas
e:
In s
uch
a ca
se, t
here
is n
o ru
le o
f la
w
whi
ch a
ssig
ns p
rior
ity
to th
e on
e or
to th
e ot
her,
or
whi
ch c
ompe
ls e
ithe
r th
e S
tate
or
the
53
-
24Org
aniz
atio
n to
ref
rain
fro
m b
ring
ing
an in
tern
atio
nal c
laim
. T
he C
ourt
see
s no
rea
son
why
the
part
ies
conc
erne
d sh
ould
not
fin
d so
lutio
ns in
spir
ed b
y go
odw
ill a
nd c
omm
on s
ense
.
19
PA
RT
ON
E
GE
NE
RA
L P
RO
VIS
ION
S
Art
icle
1
Def
init
ion
an
d s
cop
e
Fo
r th
e pu
rpos
es o
f th
e pr
esen
t dra
ft a
rtic
les,
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
cons
ists
of
the
invo
cati
on b
y a
Stat
e, th
roug
h di
plom
atic
act
ion
or o
ther
mea
ns o
f pe
acef
ul s
ettl
emen
t, of
th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of a
noth
er S
tate
for
an
inju
ry c
ause
d by
an
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
of
that
Sta
te to
a n
atur
al o
r le
gal p
erso
n th
at is
a n
atio
nal o
f th
e fo
rmer
Sta
te w
ith
a vi
ew
to th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of s
uch
resp
onsi
bilit
y.
Co
mm
enta
ry
(1)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
mak
es n
o at
tem
pt to
pro
vide
a c
ompl
ete
and
com
preh
ensi
ve d
efin
ition
of
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n. I
nste
ad it
des
crib
es th
e sa
lient
fea
ture
s of
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
in th
e
sens
e in
whi
ch th
e te
rm is
use
d in
the
pres
ent d
raft
art
icle
s.
(2)
Und
er in
tern
atio
nal l
aw, a
Sta
te is
res
pons
ible
for
inju
ry to
an
alie
n ca
used
by
its
wro
ngfu
l act
or
omis
sion
. D
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n is
the
proc
edur
e em
ploy
ed b
y th
e St
ate
of
natio
nalit
y of
the
inju
red
pers
ons
to s
ecur
e pr
otec
tion
of th
at p
erso
n an
d to
obt
ain
repa
ratio
n fo
r
the
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
infl
icte
d. T
he p
rese
nt d
raft
art
icle
s ar
e co
ncer
ned
only
wit
h th
e
rule
s go
vern
ing
the
circ
umst
ance
s in
whi
ch d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n m
ay b
e ex
erci
sed
and
the
cond
itio
ns th
at m
ust b
e m
et b
efor
e it
may
be
exer
cise
d. T
hey
do n
ot s
eek
to d
efin
e or
des
crib
e
the
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
s th
at g
ive
rise
to th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e S
tate
for
inju
ry to
an
alie
n. T
he d
raft
art
icle
s, li
ke th
ose
on th
e R
espo
nsib
ility
of
Stat
es f
or in
tern
atio
nall
y w
rong
ful
acts
,20 m
aint
ain
the
dist
inct
ion
betw
een
prim
ary
and
seco
ndar
y ru
les
and
deal
onl
y w
ith th
e
latt
er.
19 R
epar
atio
n fo
r In
juri
es s
uffe
red
in th
e S
ervi
ce o
f th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
, I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
94
9,
p. 1
74 a
t pp.
185
-186
. 2
0 S
ee O
ffic
ial
Reco
rds
of
the G
en
era
l A
ssem
bly
, F
ifty
-six
th S
ess
ion
, S
up
ple
men
t N
o. 1
0 (
A/5
6/10
), p
ara.
77,
ge
nera
l com
men
tary
, par
as. (
1) to
(3)
.
25
(3)
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
has
trad
itio
nall
y be
en s
een
as a
n ex
clus
ive
Sta
te r
ight
in th
e se
nse
that
a S
tate
exe
rcis
es d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n in
its
own
righ
t bec
ause
an
inju
ry to
a n
atio
nal i
s
deem
ed to
be
an in
jury
to th
e S
tate
itse
lf.
Thi
s ap
proa
ch h
as it
s ro
ots,
fir
st in
a s
tate
men
t by
the
Swis
s ju
rist
Em
mer
ich
de V
atte
l in
1758
that
w
hoev
er il
l-tr
eats
a c
itize
n in
dire
ctly
inju
res
the
Stat
e, w
hich
mus
t pro
tect
that
cit
izen
,2
1 a
nd, s
econ
dly
in a
dic
tum
of
the
Perm
anen
t Cou
rt o
f
Inte
rnat
iona
l Jus
tice
in 1
924
in th
e M
avr
om
ma
tis
Pa
lest
ine
Co
nce
ssio
ns
case
that
by
taki
ng u
p
the
case
of
one
of it
s su
bjec
ts a
nd b
y re
sort
ing
to d
iplo
mat
ic a
ctio
n or
inte
rnat
iona
l jud
icia
l
proc
eedi
ngs
on h
is b
ehal
f, a
Sta
te is
in r
eali
ty a
sser
ting
its
own
righ
t, th
e ri
ght t
o en
sure
, in
the
pers
on o
f its
sub
ject
s, r
espe
ct f
or th
e ru
les
of in
tern
atio
nal l
aw.
22 O
bvio
usly
it is
a f
ictio
n -
and
an e
xagg
erat
ion2
3 -
to s
ay th
at a
n in
jury
to a
nat
iona
l is
an in
jury
to th
e S
tate
itse
lf.
Man
y of
the
rule
s of
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
cont
radi
ct th
e co
rrec
tnes
s of
this
fic
tion,
not
ably
the
rule
of
cont
inuo
us n
atio
nalit
y w
hich
req
uire
s a
Stat
e to
pro
ve th
at th
e in
jure
d na
tiona
l rem
aine
d its
nati
onal
aft
er th
e in
jury
itse
lf a
nd u
p to
the
date
of
the
pres
enta
tion
of
the
clai
m.
A S
tate
doe
s
not
in r
ealit
y -
to q
uote
Ma
vro
mm
ati
s -
asse
rt it
s ow
n ri
ght o
nly.
In
rea
lity
it a
lso
asse
rts
the
righ
t of
its
inju
red
nati
onal
.
(4)
In th
e ea
rly
year
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
the
indi
vidu
al h
ad n
o pl
ace,
no
righ
ts in
the
inte
rnat
iona
l leg
al o
rder
. C
onse
quen
tly
if a
nat
iona
l inj
ured
abr
oad
was
to b
e pr
otec
ted
this
coul
d be
don
e on
ly b
y m
eans
of
a fi
ctio
n -
that
an
inju
ry to
the
natio
nal w
as a
n in
jury
to th
e St
ate
itsel
f. T
his
fict
ion
was
, how
ever
, no
mor
e th
an a
mea
ns to
an
end,
the
end
bein
g th
e pr
otec
tion
of th
e ri
ghts
of
an in
jure
d na
tiona
l. T
oday
the
situ
atio
n ha
s ch
ange
d dr
amat
ical
ly.
The
indi
vidu
al is
the
subj
ect o
f m
any
prim
ary
rule
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, bot
h un
der
cust
om a
nd
trea
ty, w
hich
pro
tect
him
at h
ome,
aga
inst
his
ow
n G
over
nmen
t, an
d ab
road
, aga
inst
for
eign
21 E
. de
Vat
tel,
Th
e L
aw
of
Na
tio
ns
or
the P
rin
cip
les
of
Na
tura
l L
aw
Ap
pli
ed
to
th
e C
on
du
ct
an
d t
o t
he A
ffa
irs
of
Na
tio
ns
an
d S
overe
ign
s, v
ol. I
II (
1758
, Eng
lish
tran
slat
ion
by C
.G. F
enw
ick,
Car
negi
e In
stitu
tion,
W
ashi
ngto
n 19
16),
cha
p. V
I, p
. 136
. 2
2M
avr
om
ma
tis
Pa
lest
ine
Co
nce
ssio
ns
(Gre
ece v
. U
.K.)
P.C
.I.J
. R
epo
rts,
192
4, S
erie
s A
, No.
2, p
. 12.
Thi
s di
ctum
w
as r
epea
ted
by th
e P
erm
anen
t Cou
rt o
f In
tern
atio
nal J
ustic
e in
the
Pa
nevezy
s S
ald
uti
skis
Ra
ilw
ay c
ase
(Est
on
ia v
.
Lit
hu
an
ia)
P.C
.I.J
. R
epo
rts,
193
9, S
erie
s A
/B, N
o. 7
6, p
. 16.
2
3 J
.L. B
rier
ly, T
he L
aw
of
Na
tio
ns:
A
n I
ntr
od
ucti
on
to
th
e In
tern
ati
on
al
La
w o
f P
ea
ce, 6
th e
dit
ion
(O
xfor
d:
Cla
rend
on P
ress
, 196
3), S
ir H
. Wal
dock
(ed
), p
p. 2
76-7
.
54
-
26Gov
ernm
ents
. T
his
has
been
rec
ogni
zed
by th
e In
tern
atio
nal C
ourt
of
Just
ice
in th
e L
a G
rand
24
and
Ave
na c
ases
.25 T
his
prot
ecti
on is
not
lim
ited
to p
erso
nal r
ight
s. B
ilat
eral
inve
stm
ent t
reat
ies
conf
er r
ight
s an
d pr
otec
tion
on
both
lega
l and
nat
ural
per
sons
in r
espe
ct o
f th
eir
prop
erty
rig
hts.
The
indi
vidu
al h
as r
ight
s un
der
inte
rnat
iona
l law
but
rem
edie
s ar
e fe
w.
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
cond
ucte
d by
a S
tate
at i
nter
-Sta
te le
vel r
emai
ns a
n im
port
ant r
emed
y fo
r th
e pr
otec
tion
of
pers
ons
who
se h
uman
rig
hts
have
bee
n vi
olat
ed a
broa
d.
(5)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
is f
orm
ulat
ed in
suc
h a
way
as
to le
ave
open
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
Stat
e
exer
cisi
ng d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n do
es s
o in
its
own
righ
t or
that
of
its n
atio
nal -
or
both
. It
vie
ws
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n th
roug
h th
e pr
ism
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity
and
emph
asiz
es th
at it
is a
proc
edur
e fo
r se
curi
ng th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e St
ate
for
inju
ry to
the
natio
nal f
low
ing
from
an
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
.
(6)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
del
iber
atel
y fo
llow
s th
e la
ngua
ge o
f th
e ar
ticle
s on
Res
pons
ibili
ty o
f St
ates
for
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
s.2
6 I
t des
crib
es d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n as
the
invo
catio
n of
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
a S
tate
that
has
com
mitt
ed a
n in
tern
atio
nall
y w
rong
ful a
ct in
res
pect
of
a
natio
nal o
f an
othe
r St
ate,
by
the
Stat
e of
whi
ch th
at p
erso
n is
a n
atio
nal,
with
a v
iew
to
impl
emen
ting
resp
onsi
bilit
y. A
s a
clai
m b
roug
ht w
ithin
the
cont
ext o
f St
ate
resp
onsi
bilit
y it
is
an in
ter-
Stat
e cl
aim
, alt
houg
h it
may
res
ult i
n th
e as
sert
ion
of r
ight
s en
joye
d by
the
inju
red
natio
nal u
nder
inte
rnat
iona
l law
.
(7)
As
draf
t art
icle
1 is
def
init
iona
l by
natu
re it
doe
s no
t cov
er e
xcep
tions
. T
hus
no m
entio
n
is m
ade
of s
tate
less
per
sons
and
ref
ugee
s re
ferr
ed to
in d
raft
art
icle
8 in
this
pro
visi
on.
Dra
ft
artic
le 3
doe
s, h
owev
er, m
ake
it cl
ear
that
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
may
be
exer
cise
d in
res
pect
of
such
per
sons
.
(8)
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
mus
t be
exer
cise
d by
law
ful a
nd p
eace
ful m
eans
. Se
vera
l jud
icia
l
deci
sion
s dr
aw a
dis
tinc
tion
bet
wee
n d
iplo
mat
ic a
ctio
n a
nd
judi
cial
pro
ceed
ings
w
hen
24
La
Gra
nd
cas
e (G
erm
an
y v
. U
nit
ed
Sta
tes
of
Am
eri
ca
)I.
C.J
. R
ep
ort
s2
001
, p. 4
66 a
t par
as. 7
6-77
. 2
5C
ase
co
ncern
ing
Aven
a a
nd
Oth
er
Mexic
an
Na
tio
na
ls (
Mexic
o v
. U
nit
ed
Sta
tes
of
Am
eri
ca)
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s, 2
004,
p.
12
at p
ara.
40.
2
6 S
ee C
hapt
er 1
of
Par
t Thr
ee ti
tled
In
voca
tion
of
the
Res
pons
ibil
ity
of a
Sta
te
(art
icle
s. 4
2-48
). P
art T
hree
itse
lf
is ti
tled
The
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Res
pons
ibili
ty o
f a
Stat
e.
27
desc
ribi
ng th
e ac
tion
that
may
be
take
n by
a S
tate
whe
n it
reso
rts
to d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n.2
7
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
ret
ains
this
dis
tinct
ion
but g
oes
furt
her
by s
ubsu
min
g ju
dici
al p
roce
edin
gs u
nder
oth
er m
eans
of
peac
eful
set
tlem
ent
. D
iplo
mat
ic a
ctio
n c
over
s al
l the
law
ful p
roce
dure
s
empl
oyed
by
a S
tate
to in
form
ano
ther
Sta
te o
f its
vie
ws
and
conc
erns
, inc
ludi
ng p
rote
st, r
eque
st
for
an in
quir
y or
for
neg
otia
tions
aim
ed a
t the
set
tlem
ent o
f di
sput
es.
Oth
er m
eans
of
peac
eful
settl
emen
t e
mbr
aces
all
form
s of
law
ful d
ispu
te s
ettle
men
t, fr
om n
egot
iati
on, m
edia
tion
and
conc
ilia
tion
to a
rbit
ral a
nd ju
dici
al d
ispu
te s
ettl
emen
t. T
he u
se o
f fo
rce,
pro
hibi
ted
by
Art
icle
2, p
arag
raph
4, o
f th
e C
hart
er o
f th
e U
nite
d N
atio
ns, i
s no
t a p
erm
issi
ble
met
hod
for
the
enfo
rcem
ent o
f th
e ri
ght o
f di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion.
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
does
not
incl
ude
dem
arch
es o
r ot
her
dipl
omat
ic a
ctio
n th
at d
o no
t inv
olve
the
invo
catio
n of
the
lega
l
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
ano
ther
Sta
te, s
uch
as in
form
al r
eque
sts
for
corr
ectiv
e ac
tion
.
(9)
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
may
be
exer
cise
d th
roug
h di
plom
atic
act
ion
or o
ther
mea
ns o
f
peac
eful
set
tlem
ent.
It d
iffe
rs f
rom
con
sula
r as
sist
ance
in th
at it
is c
ondu
cted
by
the
repr
esen
tati
ves
of th
e St
ate
acti
ng in
the
inte
rest
of
the
Stat
e in
term
s of
a r
ule
of g
ener
al
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, whe
reas
con
sula
r as
sist
ance
is, i
n m
ost i
nsta
nces
, car
ried
out
by
cons
ular
offi
cers
, who
rep
rese
nt th
e in
tere
sts
of th
e in
divi
dual
, act
ing
in te
rms
of th
e V
ienn
a C
onve
ntio
n
on C
onsu
lar
Rel
atio
ns.
Dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
is e
ssen
tiall
y re
med
ial a
nd is
des
igne
d to
rem
edy
an in
tern
atio
nall
y w
rong
ful a
ct th
at h
as b
een
com
mit
ted;
whi
le c
onsu
lar
assi
stan
ce is
larg
ely
prev
enti
ve a
nd m
ainl
y ai
ms
at p
reve
ntin
g th
e na
tion
al f
rom
bei
ng s
ubje
cted
to a
n in
tern
atio
nall
y
wro
ngfu
l act
.
(10)
A
ltho
ugh
it is
in th
eory
pos
sibl
e to
dis
tingu
ish
betw
een
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n an
d
cons
ular
ass
ista
nce,
in p
ract
ice
this
task
is d
iffi
cult
. T
his
is il
lust
rate
d by
the
requ
irem
ent o
f
the
exha
ustio
n of
loca
l rem
edie
s. C
lear
ly th
ere
is n
o ne
ed to
exh
aust
loca
l rem
edie
s in
the
case
of c
onsu
lar
assi
stan
ce a
s th
is a
ssis
tanc
e ta
kes
plac
e be
fore
the
com
mis
sion
of
an in
tern
atio
nall
y
wro
ngfu
l act
. L
ogic
ally
, as
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n ar
ises
onl
y af
ter
the
com
mis
sion
of
an
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
, it w
ould
see
m th
at lo
cal r
emed
ies
mus
t alw
ays
be e
xhau
sted
,
subj
ect t
o th
e ex
cept
ions
des
crib
ed in
dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
5.
27
Ma
vro
mm
ati
s P
ale
stin
e C
on
cess
ion
s, o
p.
cit
., P
anevez
y!-
Sa
ldu
tisk
i s R
ail
wa
y c
ase,
op
. cit
., p.
4 at
p.1
6;
No
tteb
oh
m c
ase
(Lie
ch
ten
stein
v.
Gu
ate
ma
la),
Sec
ond
Pha
se J
udgm
ent,
I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
95
5, p
. 4 a
t p.2
4.
55
-
28(11)
In
thes
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
draf
t art
icle
1 m
akes
no
atte
mpt
to d
isti
ngui
sh b
etw
een
dipl
omat
ic
prot
ectio
n an
d co
nsul
ar a
ssis
tanc
e. T
he d
raft
art
icle
s pr
escr
ibe
cond
itio
ns f
or th
e ex
erci
se o
f
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n w
hich
are
not
app
lica
ble
to c
onsu
lar
assi
stan
ce.
Thi
s m
eans
that
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
eac
h ca
se m
ust b
e co
nsid
ered
in o
rder
to d
ecid
e w
heth
er it
invo
lves
dip
lom
atic
prot
ectio
n or
con
sula
r as
sist
ance
.
(12)
D
raft
art
icle
1 m
akes
cle
ar th
e po
int,
alre
ady
rais
ed in
the
gene
ral c
omm
enta
ry,2
8 th
at th
e
pres
ent d
raft
art
icle
s de
al o
nly
wit
h th
e ex
erci
se o
f di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion
by a
Sta
te a
nd n
ot w
ith
the
prot
ectio
n af
ford
ed to
its
agen
t by
an in
tern
atio
nal o
rgan
izat
ion.
29
(13)
D
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n m
ainl
y co
vers
the
prot
ectio
n of
nat
iona
ls n
ot e
ngag
ed in
off
icia
l
inte
rnat
iona
l bus
ines
s on
beh
alf
of th
e S
tate
. T
hese
off
icia
ls a
re p
rote
cted
by
othe
r ru
les
of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
and
inst
rum
ents
suc
h as
the
Vie
nna
Con
vent
ion
on D
iplo
mat
ic R
elat
ions
of 1
9613
0 a
nd th
e V
ienn
a C
onve
ntio
n on
Con
sula
r R
elat
ions
of
1963
.31 W
here
, how
ever
,
dipl
omat
s or
con
suls
are
inju
red
in r
espe
ct o
f ac
tivi
ties
out
side
thei
r fu
ncti
ons
they
are
cov
ered
by th
e ru
les
rela
ting
to d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n, a
s, f
or in
stan
ce, i
n th
e ca
se o
f th
e ex
prop
riat
ion
with
out c
ompe
nsat
ion
of p
rope
rty
priv
atel
y ow
ned
by a
dip
lom
atic
off
icia
l in
the
coun
try
to
whi
ch h
e or
she
is a
ccre
dite
d.
(14)
In
mos
t cir
cum
stan
ces
it is
the
link
of n
atio
nali
ty b
etw
een
the
Stat
e an
d th
e in
jure
d
pers
on th
at g
ives
ris
e to
the
exer
cise
of
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n, a
mat
ter
that
is d
ealt
with
in d
raft
arti
cles
4 a
nd 9
. T
he te
rm
nati
onal
in
this
art
icle
cov
ers
both
nat
ural
and
lega
l per
sons
. L
ater
in th
e dr
aft a
rtic
les
a di
stin
ctio
n is
dra
wn
betw
een
the
rule
s go
vern
ing
natu
ral a
nd le
gal p
erso
ns,
and,
whe
re n
eces
sary
, the
two
conc
epts
are
trea
ted
sepa
rate
ly.
Art
icle
2
Rig
ht
to e
xer
cise
dip
lom
ati
c p
rote
ctio
n
A
Sta
te h
as th
e ri
ght t
o ex
erci
se d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n in
acc
orda
nce
wit
h th
e pr
esen
t dra
ft a
rtic
les.
28 S
ee g
ener
al c
omm
enta
ry, p
ara.
(3)
. 2
9R
epa
rati
on f
or
Inju
ries
,I.C
.J.
Rep
ort
s1
949
, p. 1
74.
30 U
nite
d N
atio
ns, T
rea
ty S
eri
es,
vol
. 500
, p. 9
5.
31 U
nite
d N
atio
ns, T
rea
ty S
eri
es,
vol
. 596
, p. 2
61.
29
Co
mm
enta
ry
(1)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 2
is f
ound
ed o
n th
e no
tion
that
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
invo
lves
an
invo
catio
n -
at th
e St
ate
leve
l - b
y a
Stat
e of
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
ano
ther
Sta
te f
or a
n in
jury
caus
ed b
y an
inte
rnat
iona
lly
wro
ngfu
l act
of
that
Sta
te to
a n
atio
nal o
f th
e fo
rmer
Sta
te.
It
reco
gniz
es th
at it
is th
e S
tate
that
init
iate
s an
d ex
erci
ses
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n; th
at it
is th
e en
tity
in w
hich
the
righ
t to
brin
g a
clai
m v
ests
. It
is w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
ques
tion
of
who
se r
ight
s
the
Sta
te s
eeks
to a
sser
t in
the
proc
ess,
that
is it
s ow
n ri
ght o
r th
e ri
ghts
of
the
inju
red
natio
nal o
n
who
se b
ehal
f it
acts
. L
ike
artic
le 1
32 it
is n
eutr
al o
n th
is s
ubje
ct.
(2)
A S
tate
has
the
rig h
t to
exer
cise
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
on b
ehal
f of
a n
atio
nal.
It i
s un
der
no d
uty
or o
blig
atio
n to
do
so.
The
inte
rnal
law
of
a S
tate
may
obl
ige
a S
tate
to e
xten
d
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n to
a n
atio
nal,
but i
nter
natio
nal l
aw im
pose
s no
suc
h ob
ligat
ion.
The
posi
tion
was
cle
arly
sta
ted
by th
e In
tern
atio
nal C
ourt
of
Just
ice
in th
e B
arc
elo
na
Tra
ctio
n c
ase:
w
ithi
n th
e li
mit
s pr
escr
ibed
by
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, a S
tate
may
exe
rcis
e di
plom
atic
prot
ecti
on b
y w
hate
ver
mea
ns a
nd to
wha
teve
r ex
tent
it th
inks
fit
, for
it is
its
own
righ
t
that
the
Stat
e is
ass
ertin
g. S
houl
d th
e na
tura
l or
lega
l per
son
on w
hose
beh
alf
it is
act
ing
cons
ider
that
thei
r ri
ghts
are
not
ade
quat
ely
prot
ecte
d, th
ey h
ave
no r
emed
y in
inte
rnat
iona
l law
. A
ll th
ey c
an d
o is
res
ort t
o m
unic
ipal
law
, if
mea
ns a
re a
vail
able
, wit
h
a vi
ew to
fur
ther
ing
thei
r ca
use
or o
btai
ning
red
ress
T
he S
tate
mus
t be
view
ed a
s th
e
sole
judg
e to
dec
ide
whe
ther
its
prot
ecti
on w
ill b
e gr
ante
d, to
wha
t ext
ent i
t is
gran
ted,
and
whe
n it
will
cea
se.
It r
etai
ns in
this
res
pect
a d
iscr
etio
nary
pow
er th
e ex
erci
se o
f
whi
ch m
ay b
e de
term
ined
by
cons
ider
atio
ns o
f a
poli
tica
l or
othe
r na
ture
, unr
elat
ed to
the
part
icul
ar c
ase
.33
(3)
Tod
ay th
ere
is s
uppo
rt in
dom
estic
legi
slat
ion3
4 a
nd ju
dici
al d
ecis
ions
35 f
or th
e vi
ew th
at
ther
e is
som
e ob
ligat
ion,
how
ever
lim
ited,
eith
er u
nder
nat
iona
l law
or
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, on
the
32 S
ee c
omm
enta
ry to
art
icle
1, p
aras
. (3)
to (
5).
33
Ca
se c
on
cern
ing
th
e B
arc
elo
na
Tra
cti
on
Lig
ht
an
d P
ow
er
Co
mp
an
y L
imit
ed
(B
elg
ium
v.
Sp
ain
), S
econ
d P
ha
se,
Ju
dg
men
t, I
.C.J
. R
ep
ort
s 1
97
0, p
. 4 a
t p. 4
4.
34 S
ee th
e Fi
rst R
epor
t of
the
Spe
cial
Rap
port
eur
on D
iplo
mat
ic P
rote
ctio
n, d
ocum
ent A
/CN
.4/5
06, p
aras
. 80-
87.
35
Ru
do
lf H
ess
cas
e, I
LR
vol
. 90,
p. 3
87; A
bb
asi
v. S
ecre
tary
of
Sta
te f
or
Fo
reig
n a
nd C
om
mo
nw
ea
lth
Aff
air
s [2
003]
EW
CA
Civ
. 159
8; K
au
nda
v.
Pre
sid
en
t o
f th
e R
ep
ub
lic o
f S
ou
th A
fric
a 2
005
(4)
Sout
h A
fric
an L
aw
Rep
orts
235
(C
C),
IL
M v
ol. 4
4 (2
005)
, p. 1
73.
56
-
30Stat
e to
pro
tect
its
natio
nals
abr
oad
whe
n th
ey h
ave
been
sub
ject
ed to
ser
ious
vio
latio
n of
thei
r
hum
an r
ight
s. C
onse
quen
tly,
dra
ft a
rtic
le 1
9 de
clar
es th
at a
Sta
te e
ntit
led
to e
xerc
ise
dipl
omat
ic
prot
ectio
n s
houl
d
giv
e du
e co
nsid
erat
ion
to th
e po
ssib
ilit
y of
exe
rcis
ing
dipl
omat
ic
prot
ectio
n, e
spec
iall
y w
hen
a si
gnif
ican
t inj
ury
has
occu
rred
(e
mph
asis
add
ed).
The
disc
retio
nary
rig
ht o
f a
Stat
e to
exe
rcis
e di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion
shou
ld th
eref
ore
be r
ead
with
dra
ft
artic
le 1
9 w
hich
rec
omm
ends
to S
tate
s th
at th
ey s
houl
d ex
erci
se th
at r
ight
in a
ppro
pria
te c
ases
.
(4)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 2
dea
ls w
ith th
e ri
ght o
f th
e St
ate
to e
xerc
ise
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n. I
t mak
es
no a
ttem
pt to
des
crib
e th
e co
rres
pond
ing
oblig
atio
n on
the
resp
onde
nt S
tate
to c
onsi
der
the
asse
rtio
n of
dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
by a
Sta
te in
acc
orda
nce
wit
h th
e pr
esen
t art
icle
s. T
his
is,
how
ever
, to
be im
plie
d.
PA
RT
TW
O
NA
TIO
NA
LIT
Y
CH
AP
TE
R I
GE
NE
RA
L P
RIN
CIP
LE
S
Art
icle
3
Pro
tect
ion
by t
he
Sta
te o
f n
ati
on
ali
ty
1.
The
Sta
te e
ntit
led
to e
xerc
ise
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n is
the
Stat
e of
nat
iona
lity
.
2.
Not
with
stan
ding
par
agra
ph 1
, dip
lom
atic
pro
tect
ion
may
be
exer
cise
d by
a S
tate
in
res
pect
of
a pe
rson
that
is n
ot it
s na
tion
al in
acc
orda
nce
with
dra
ft a
rtic
le 8
.
Co
mm
enta
ry
(1)
Whe
reas
dra
ft a
rtic
le 2
aff
irm
s th
e di
scre
tion
ary
righ
t of
the
Sta
te to
exe
rcis
e di
plom
atic
prot
ectio
n, d
raft
art
icle
3 a
sser
ts th
e pr
inci
ple
that
it is
the
Stat
e of
nat
iona
lity
of th
e in
jure
d
pers
on th
at is
ent
itle
d, b
ut n
ot o
blig
ed, t
o ex
erci
se d
iplo
mat
ic p
rote
ctio
n on
beh
alf
of s
uch
a
pers
on.
The
em
phas
is in
this
dra
ft a
rtic
le is
on
the
bond
of
natio
nalit
y be
twee
n St
ate
and
natio
nal w
hich
ent
itles
the
Stat
e to
exe
rcis
e di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion.
Thi
s bo
nd d
iffe
rs in
the
case
s
of n
atur
al p
erso
ns a
nd le
gal p
erso
ns.
Con
sequ
entl
y se
para
te c
hapt
ers
are
devo
ted
to th
ese
diff
eren
t typ
es o
f pe
rson
s.
31
(2)
Para
grap
h 2
refe
rs to
the
exce
ptio
n co
ntai
ned
in d
raft
art
icle
8 w
hich
pro
vide
s fo
r
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n in
the
case
of
stat
eles
s pe
rson
s an
d re
fuge
es.
CH
AP
TE
R I
I
NA
TU
RA
L P
ER
SO
NS
Art
icle
4
Sta
te o
f n
ati
on
ali
ty o
f a
na
tura
l p
erso
n
Fo
r th
e pu
rpos
es o
f th
e di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion
of a
nat
ural
per
son,
a S
tate
of
natio
nalit
y m
eans
a S
tate
who
se n
atio
nalit
y th
at p
erso
n ha
s ac
quir
ed, i
n ac
cord
ance
with
th
e la
w o
f th
at S
tate
, by
birt
h, d
esce
nt, n
atur
aliz
atio
n,su
cces
sion
of
Stat
es, o
r in
any
ot
her
man
ner,
not
inco
nsis
tent
wit
h in
tern
atio
nal l
aw.
Co
mm
enta
ry
(1)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
def
ines
the
Sta
te o
f na
tiona
lity
for
the
purp
oses
of
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n of
natu
ral p
erso
ns.
Thi
s de
fini
tion
is p
rem
ised
on
two
prin
cipl
es:
firs
t, th
at it
is f
or th
e St
ate
of
nati
onal
ity
to d
eter
min
e, in
acc
orda
nce
wit
h it
s m
unic
ipal
law
, who
is to
qua
lify
for
its
natio
nalit
y; s
econ
dly,
that
ther
e ar
e lim
its im
pose
d by
inte
rnat
iona
l law
on
the
gran
t of
natio
nalit
y. D
raft
art
icle
4 a
lso
prov
ides
a n
on-e
xhau
stiv
e lis
t of
conn
ectin
g fa
ctor
s th
at u
sual
ly
cons
titut
e go
od g
roun
ds f
or th
e gr
ant o
f na
tiona
lity.
(2)
The
pri
ncip
le th
at it
is f
or e
ach
Sta
te to
dec
ide
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith
its
law
who
are
its n
atio
nals
is b
acke
d by
bot
h ju
dici
al d
ecis
ions
and
trea
ties.
In
1923
, the
Perm
anen
t Cou
rt o
f In
tern
atio
nal J
usti
ce s
tate
d in
the
Na
tio
na
lity
Dec
rees
in
Tu
nis
an
d M
oro
cco
case
that
: in
the
pres
ent s
tate
of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, que
stio
ns o
f na
tiona
lity
are
in
pri
ncip
le
with
in th
e re
serv
ed d
omai
n.3
6
Thi
s pr
inci
ple
was
con
firm
ed b
y ar
ticle
1 o
f th
e 19
30 H
ague
Con
vent
ion
on C
erta
in Q
uest
ions
Rel
atin
g to
the
Con
flic
t of
Nat
iona
lity
Law
s:
36
Na
tio
na
lity
Dec
rees
iss
ued
in
Tu
nis
an
d M
oro
cco
(F
ren
ch
Zo
ne),
ad
vis
ory
op
inio
n.
P.C
.I.J
. R
epo
rts,
Seri
es
B,
No.
4, 1
923,
at p
. 24.
57
-
32 I
t is
for
each
Sta
te to
det
erm
ine
unde
r its
ow
n la
w w
ho a
re it
s na
tiona
ls.
37
Mor
e re
cent
ly it
has
bee
n en
dors
ed b
y th
e 19
97 E
urop
ean
Con
vent
ion
on N
atio
nalit
y.3
8
(3)
The
con
nect
ing
fact
ors
for
the
conf
erm
ent o
f na
tion
alit
y li
sted
in d
raft
art
icle
4 a
re
illus
trat
ive
and
not e
xhau
stiv
e. N
ever
thel
ess
they
incl
ude
the
conn
ecti
ng f
acto
rs m
ost c
omm
only
empl
oyed
by
Stat
es f
or th
e gr
ant o
f na
tiona
lity:
bir
th (
jus
soli
), d
esce
nt (
jus
san
gu
inis
) an
d
natu
raliz
atio
n. M
arri
age
to a
nat
iona
l is
not i
nclu
ded
in th
is li
st a
s in
mos
t cir
cum
stan
ces
mar
riag
e pe
r se
is in
suff
icie
nt f
or th
e gr
ant o
f na
tion
alit
y: i
t req
uire
s in
add
ition
a p
erio
d of
resi
denc
e, f
ollo
win
g w
hich
nat
iona
lity
is c
onfe
rred
by
natu
raliz
atio
n. W
here
mar
riag
e to
a
natio
nal a
utom
atic
ally
res
ults
in th
e ac
quis
ition
by
a sp
ouse
of
the
natio
nalit
y of
the
othe
r sp
ouse
prob
lem
s m
ay a
rise
in r
espe
ct o
f th
e co
nsis
tenc
y of
suc
h an
acq
uisi
tion
of n
atio
nalit
y w
ith
inte
rnat
iona
l law
.39 N
atio
nali
ty m
ay a
lso
be a
cqui
red
as a
res
ult o
f th
e su
cces
sion
of
Sta
tes.
40
(4)
The
con
nect
ing
fact
ors
list
ed in
dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
are
thos
e m
ost f
requ
entl
y us
ed b
y St
ates
to
esta
blis
h na
tiona
lity.
In
som
e co
untr
ies,
whe
re th
ere
are
no c
lear
bir
th r
ecor
ds, i
t may
be
diff
icul
t to
prov
e na
tiona
lity.
In
such
cas
es r
esid
ence
cou
ld p
rovi
de p
roof
of
natio
nalit
y al
thou
gh
it m
ay n
ot c
onst
itut
e a
basi
s fo
r na
tion
alit
y it
self
. A
Sta
te m
ay, h
owev
er, c
onfe
r na
tion
alit
y on
such
per
sons
by
mea
ns o
f na
tura
lizat
ion.
(5)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
doe
s no
t req
uire
a S
tate
to p
rove
an
effe
ctiv
e or
gen
uine
link
bet
wee
n its
elf
and
its n
atio
nal,
alon
g th
e lin
es s
ugge
sted
in th
e N
ott
ebohm
cas
e,4
1 a
s an
add
itio
nal f
acto
r fo
r th
e
37 L
eagu
e of
Nat
ions
, Tre
aty
Seri
es,
vol
. 179
, p. 8
9.
38 U
nite
d N
atio
ns, T
rea
ty S
eri
es,
vol
. 213
5, p
. 213
, art
icle
3.
39 S
ee, e
.g.,
arti
cle
9 (1
) of
the
Con
vent
ion
on th
e E
lim
inat
ion
of A
ll F
orm
s of
Dis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst W
omen
, U
nite
d N
atio
ns, T
rea
ty S
eri
es,
vol
. 124
9, p
. 13,
and
art
icle
1 o
f th
e C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Nat
iona
lity
of M
arri
ed
Wom
en, i
bid
., vo
l. 30
9, p
. 65,
whi
ch p
rohi
bit t
he a
cqui
siti
on o
f na
tion
alit
y in
suc
h ci
rcum
stan
ces.
See
par
a. (
6)
belo
w.
40 S
ee D
raft
Art
icle
s on
Nat
iona
lity
of
Nat
ural
Per
sons
in R
elat
ion
to th
e S
ucce
ssio
n of
Sta
tes,
Yea
rbo
ok
199
9,
vol.
II (
Par
t Tw
o), p
ara.
47.
41 I
n th
e N
ott
eb
oh
m c
ase
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Cou
rt o
f Ju
stic
e st
ated
: A
ccor
ding
to th
e pr
acti
ce o
f S
tate
s, to
arb
itra
l an
d ju
dici
al d
ecis
ions
and
to th
e op
inio
n of
wri
ters
, nat
iona
lity
is th
e le
gal b
ond
havi
ng a
s its
bas
is a
soc
ial f
act o
f at
tach
men
t, a
genu
ine
conn
ecti
on o
f ex
iste
nce,
inte
rest
s an
d se
ntim
ents
, tog
ethe
r w
ith
the
exis
tenc
e of
rec
ipro
cal
righ
ts a
nd d
utie
s. I
t may
be
said
to c
onst
itut
e th
e ju
ridi
cal e
xpre
ssio
n of
the
fact
that
the
indi
vidu
al u
pon
who
m it
is
conf
erre
d, e
ithe
r di
rect
ly b
y th
e la
w o
r as
the
resu
lt o
f an
act
of
the
auth
orit
ies,
is in
fac
t mor
e cl
osel
y co
nnec
ted
wit
h th
e po
pula
tion
of th
e St
ate
conf
erri
ng n
atio
nalit
y th
an w
ith
that
of
any
othe
r St
ate.
Con
ferr
ed b
y a
Sta
te, i
t onl
y en
title
s th
at S
tate
to e
xerc
ise
prot
ectio
n vi
s--
vis
anot
her
Stat
e, if
it c
onst
itut
es a
tran
slat
ion
into
juri
dica
l ter
ms
of
the
indi
vidu
als
con
nect
ion
whi
ch h
as m
ade
him
its
nati
onal
, o
p.
cit
. at p
. 23.
33
exer
cise
of
dipl
omat
ic p
rote
ctio
n, e
ven
whe
re th
e na
tiona
l pos
sess
es o
nly
one
natio
nalit
y.
Des
pite
div
erge
nt v
iew
s as
to th
e in
terp
reta
tion
of th
e ca
se, t
he C
omm
issi
on to
ok th
e vi
ew th
at
ther
e w
ere
cert
ain
fact
ors
that
ser
ved
to li
mit
No
tteb
oh
m to
the
fact
s of
the
case
in q
uest
ion,
part
icul
arly
the
fact
that
the
ties
betw
een
Mr.
Not
tebo
hm a
nd L
iech
tens
tein
(th
e A
pplic
ant S
tate
)
wer
e e
xtre
mel
y te
nuou
s4
2 c
ompa
red
with
the
clos
e tie
s be
twee
n M
r. N
otte
bohm
and
Gua
tem
ala
(the
Res
pond
ent S
tate
) fo
r a
peri
od o
f ov
er 3
4 ye
ars,
whi
ch le
d th
e In
tern
atio
nal
Cou
rt o
f Ju
stic
e to
rep
eate
dly
asse
rt th
at L
iech
tens
tein
was
no
t ent
itle
d to
ext
end
its
prot
ecti
on
to N
otte
bohm
vis
--v
is G
uate
mal
a.4
3 T
his
sugg
ests
that
the
Cou
rt d
id n
ot in
tend
to e
xpou
nd a
gene
ral r
ule4
4 a
ppli
cabl
e to
all
Sta
tes
but o
nly
a re
lati
ve r
ule
acco
rdin
g to
whi
ch a
Sta
te in
Lie
chte
nste
ins
pos
ition
was
req
uire
d to
sho
w a
gen
uine
link
bet
wee
n its
elf
and
Mr.
Not
tebo
hm
in o
rder
to p
erm
it it
to c
laim
on
his
beha
lf a
gain
st G
uate
mal
a w
ith w
hom
he
had
extr
emel
y cl
ose
ties.
Mor
eove
r, it
is n
eces
sary
to b
em
indf
ul o
f th
e fa
ct th
at if
the
genu
ine
link
req
uire
men
t
prop
osed
by
Nott
ebohm
was
str
ictl
y ap
plie
d it
wou
ld e
xclu
de m
illi
ons
of p
erso
ns f
rom
the
bene
fit o
f di
plom
atic
pro
tect
ion
as in
toda
ys
wor
ld o
f ec
onom
ic g
loba
lizat
ion
and
mig
rati
on
ther
e ar
e m
illi
ons
of p
erso
ns w
ho h
ave
mov
ed a
way
fro
m th
eir
Stat
e of
nat
iona
lity
and
mad
e
thei
r li
ves
in S
tate
s w
hose
nat
iona
lity
they
nev
er a
cqui
re o
r ha
ve a
cqui
red
natio
nalit
y by
bir
th
or d
esce
nt f
rom
Sta
tes
with
whi
ch th
ey h
ave
a te
nuou
s co
nnec
tion.
(6)
The
fin
al p
hras
e in
dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
str
esse
s th
at th
e ac
quis
ition
of
natio
nalit
y m
ust n
ot b
e
inco
nsis
tent
with
inte
rnat
iona
l law
. A
lthou
gh a
Sta
te h
as th
e ri
ght t
o de
cide
who
are
its
natio
nals
, thi
s ri
ght i
s no
t abs
olut
e. A
rtic
le 1
of
the
1930
Hag
ue C
onve
ntio
n on
Cer
tain
Que
stio
ns R
elat
ing
to th
e C
onfl
ict o
f N
atio
nali
ty L
aws
conf
irm
ed th
is b
y qu
alif
ying
the
prov
isio
n th
at
it is
for
eac
h S
tate
to d
eter
min
e un
der
its
own
law
who
are
its
nati
onal
s w
ith
the
prov
iso
[t]
his
law
sha
ll be
rec
ogni
zed
by o
ther
Sta
tes
inso
far
as it
is c
onsi
sten
t wit
h
inte
rnat
iona
l con
vent
ions
, int
erna
tiona
l cus
tom
and
the
prin
cipl
es o
f la
w g
ener
ally
rec
ogni
zed
with
reg
ard
to n
atio
nalit
y.4
5 T
oday
, con
vent
ions
, par
ticul
arly
in th
e fi
eld
of h
uman
rig
hts,
42
Ibid
., p.
25.
4
3Ib
id.,
p. 2
6.
44 T
his
inte
rpre
tati
on w
as p
lace
d on
the
No
tteb
oh
m c
ase
by th
e It
alia
n-U
nite
d St
ates
Con
cili
atio
n C
omm
issi
on in
th
e F
leg
en
heim
er
case
, IL
R v
ol. 2
5 (1
958)
, p. 1
48.
45 S
ee a
lso
artic
le 3
(2)
of
the
1997
Eur
opea
n C
onve
ntio
n on
Nat
iona
lity.
58
-
34requ
ire
Stat
es to
com
ply
wit
h in
tern
atio
nal s
tand
ards
in th
e gr
anti
ng o
f na
tion
alit
y.4
6 F
or
exam
ple,
art
icle
9, p
arag
raph
1, o
f th
e C
onve
ntio
n on
the
Elim
inat
ion
of A
ll Fo
rms
of
Dis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst W
omen
pro
vide
s th
at:
Sta
tes
part
ies
shal
l gra
nt w
omen
equ
al r
ight
s to
men
to a
cqui
re, c
hang
e or
ret
ain
thei
r
natio
nalit
y. T
hey
shal
l ens
ure
in p
arti
cula
r th
at n
eith
er m
arri
age
to a
n al
ien
nor
chan
ge
of n
atio
nali
ty b
y th
e hu
sban
d du
ring
mar
riag
e sh
all a
utom
atic
ally
cha
nge
the
nati
onal
ity
of th
e w
ife,
ren
der
her
stat
eles
s or
for
ce u
pon
her
the
natio
nalit
y of
the
husb
and.
47
(7)
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
rec
ogni
zes
that
a S
tate
aga
inst
whi
ch a
cla
im is
mad
e on
beh
alf
of a
n
inju
red
fore
ign
nati
onal
may
cha
llen
ge th
e na
tiona
lity
of s
uch
a pe
rson
whe
re h
is o
r he
r
natio
nalit
y ha
s be
en a
cqui
red
cont
rary
to in
tern
atio
nal l
aw.
Dra
ft a
rtic
le 4
req
uire
s th
at
natio
nalit
y sh
ould
be
acqu
ired
in a
man
ner
not
inco
nsis
tent
with
inte
rnat
iona
l law
. T
he d
oubl
e
nega
tive
emph
asiz
es th
e fa
ct th
at th
e bu
rden
of
prov
ing
that
nat
iona
lity
has
been
acq
uire
d in
viol
atio
n of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
is u
pon
the
Stat
e ch
alle
ngin
g th
e na
tiona
lity
of th
e in
jure
d pe
rson
.
Tha
t the
bur
den
of p
roof
fal
ls u
pon
the
Stat
e ch
alle
ngin
g na
tiona
lity
follo
ws
from
the
reco
gniti
on
that
the
Stat
e co
nfer
ring
nat
iona
lity
mus
t be
give
n a
mar
gin
of a
ppre
ciat
ion
in d
ecid
ing
upon
the
conf
erm
ent o
f na
tiona
lity4
8 a
nd th
at th
ere
is a
pre
sum
ptio
n in
fav
our
of th
e va
lidit
y of
a
Sta
tes
con
ferm
ent o
f na
tion
alit
y.4
9
(8)
Whe
re a
per
son
acqu
ires
nat
iona
lity
invo
lunt
aril
y in
a m
anne
r in
cons
iste
nt w
ith
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, as
whe
re a
wom
an a
utom
atic
ally
acq
uire
s th
e na
tiona
lity
of h
er h
usba
nd o
n
mar
riag
e, th
at p
erso
n sh
ould
in p
rinc
iple
be
allo
wed
to b
e pr
otec
ted
dipl
omat
ical
ly b
y he
r or
his
46 T
his
was
str
esse
d by
the
Inte
r-A
mer
ican
Cou
rt o
f H
uman
Rig
hts
in it
s ad
viso
ry o
pini
on o
n P
rop
ose
d
Am
end
men
ts t
o t
he
Na
tura
liza
tio
n P
rovis
ion
s o
f th
e P
oli
tica
l C
on
stit
uti
on
of
Co
sta
Ric
a, A
dvis
ory
Opi
nion
O