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. Gabčikovo-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. Duško Tadić, 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

.

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

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

t is

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

.

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

is 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.

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

righ

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.

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.

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-à-

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

-à-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.

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