Page 117 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

and Nottebohm are the short sojourns already referred to and the pres- eliminating one nationality. When, however, both na-
ence in Vaduz of one of his brothers: but his brother's presence is refer- tionalities remain, other solutions have been reached. The
.red to in his application for naturalization only as a reference to his good first is that of "dominant nationality," initially invoked in
conduct. Furthermore other members of his family have asserted Not-
tebohm's desire to spend his old age in Guatemala. the claim of James Louis Drurnrnond. During the
These facts clearly establish, on the one hand, the absence of any Napoleonic wars, France seized the property of British
bond of attachment between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein and, on the subjects located in France. The Treaty of Paris of 1814
other hand, the existence of a long-standing and close connection be- clearly provided for the settlement of British claims arising
tween hi and Guatemala, a link which his naturalization in no way out of such seizure. Though Drumrnond was both a
weakened. That naturalization was not based on any real prior connec-
tion with Liechtenstein, nor did it in any way alter the manner of life of French and a British national, he resided in France. He
the person upon whom it was conferred in exceptional circumstances of put forward a claim, however, on the basis of his British
speed and accommodation. In both respects, it was lacking in the gen- nationality. It was refused by the British Council in the
uineness requisite to an act of such importance, if it is to be entitled to following language:
be respected by a State in the position of Guatemala. It was granted Drummond was technically a British subject but in substance, a
without regard to the concept of nationality adopted in international rela- French subject, domiciled in France, with all the attributes of French
tions. character. . . . The act of violence that was done toward him was done by
Naturalization was asked for not so much for the purpose of obtainii
a legal recognition of Nottebohrn's membership in fact in the population the French Government in the exercise of its municipal authority over
its own subjects. 43
of Liechtenstein, as it was to enable him to substitute for his status as a
national of a beligerent State that of a national of a neutral State, with c. Still another solution is to deny the right of one state
the sole aim of thus corning within the protection of Liechtenstein but to espouse a claim of its dual national against a state which
not of becoming wedded to its traditions, its interests, its way of life or of also claims the claimant as its citizen. This rule is termed
assuming the obligations-other than fiscal obligations-and exercising
the rights pertaining to the status thus acquired. the "doctrine of nonresponsibility of states for claims of
Guatemala is under no obligation to recognize a nationality granted in dual nationals." It was first invoked by the Arnerican-
such circumstances. Liechtenstein cons,equently is not entitled to ex- British Claims Commission in 1871 in the Claim of the
tend its protection to Nottebohm vis-a-vis Guatemala and its claim Executors of R.S.C.A. Alexander 44 and repeated as a
must, for this reason, be held to be inadmissible. . . .
For these reasons, the court, by eleven votes to three, holds that the rule of international law by the British-Mexican Claims
claim submitted by the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein Commission in 193 1.
is inadmissible. d. It is an accepted rule of international law that such a
[Dissenting opinions of Judges Klaestad and Read, and of Judge ad person (a dual-national) cannot make one of the countries
hoc Guggenheim, are omitted.] to which he owes allegiance a defendant before an interna-
6-7. Dual Nationality. a. As noted throughout this tional tribunal. 45 On June 10, 1955, the Italian-United
chapter, the determination of who are nationals of a par- States Conciliation Commission, established by article 83
ticular state and who are not is generally the prerogative of of the Peace Treaty with Italy, decided the claim of U.S.ex
the state concerned. Within certain limits international law re1 Florence Strungsky Merge v. Italian Republic. 46 The
does not attempt to impose criteria which htes must claimant was a national of both the U.S.A. and Italy. In
follow in determining who its nationals are. With this this decision, the Commission based its ruling on what are
power left to the various states, it is not unusual that two considered to be the two most important international
states may claim the same individual, since he has fulfied principles associated with the concept of dual nationality.
the requirements of each. 41 This dual nationality has been
UNITED STATES EX REL. MERGE v. ITALIAN REPUBLIC
encountered quite frequently among nationals of the
Italian-United States Conciliation Commission, 1955
United States. It arose primarily from the fact that many 3 Collection of Decisions No. 55
immigrants assumed U.S. nationality and also remained 14 U.N. Rep. Int'l Arbitral Awards 236
nationals of their homelands after coming to the United me claimant had acquired United States nationality upon her birth in
States. Their children, under the principle of jus sanguinis, New York in 1909. At the age of 24, she mked an Italian national in
were considered as nationals of their father's native coun- Rome and thereby acquired, according to Italian law, Italian nationality
as well. She lived in Italy with her husband until 1937, at which time she
try and nationals of the local state under jus soli.
accompanied her husband to Japan, where the latter had been sent as a
b. Conflicts arising from dual nationality have occurred translator and interpreter for the Italian Embassy in Tokyo. The United
when the dual national returned to the country of origin. States Consulate General there registered the claimant, at her request,
On occasion he has either been unable to leave or has as a United States national. The claimant remained with her husband in
been liable to military service. In order to protect its Japan until 1946, at which time she returned to the United States for a
citizens who are also nationals of other states. the United period of nine months on a passport issued to her by the United States
consulate in Yokohama. She then returned to Italy to rejoin her hus-
States, beginning in 1868, entered into bilateral agree-
ments with many European and Latin American states 42. III G. Hackworth, Digest of International Law 377 (1942).
which permitted the immigrant to voluntarily renounce 43. 2 Knapp, P.C. Rep. 295, 12 Eng. Rep. 492.
44. 3 J, Moore, International Arbitration 2529 (1898).
his nationality upon becoming an American citizen. 42
45. Oldenbourg and Honey cases before the British-Mexican
Such treaties solve the problem of dual nationality by
Claims Commission under the convention of 1926 cited in Rode, supra,
41. See generally, Rode, Dual Nationals and the Doctrine of Domi- note 41 at 141.
nate Nationali& 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 139 (1959). 46. Reported in 50 Am. J. Int'l L. 150-57 (1956).