¹ “… the old order was completely overthrown. Soviet jurisprudence may be said to date from November 1917 ⃜ An entirely new system of civil, criminal, and other codes, based on [the] principle of the supremacy or dictatorship of the proletariat, came into being.” (W. R. Batsell, Soviet Rule in Russia, 1929, p. 75.)

² For a general description of the status of these republics during this transition period, see W. R. Batsell,op. cit.(1929), Chs. III, X; B. M. Maxwell, The Soviet State (1934), pp.22–26.

³ For an analysis of the legislation adopted by the various Republics both before and after the establishment of the Union, see, in general, T. A., Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law (1935), pp. 80–422.Google Scholar

⁴ This aspect of Bolshevik doctrine has been described aptly in a recent lecture by Professor Alfred Zimmern: “For some time after the war the territory we call Russia was governed by men who did not consider that they were in charge of the destinies of a state, or independent political body, but of a local branch of the world-wide organization of a particular social class.” (“The Great Powers in the League of Nations,” Problems of Peace, Ninth Series, 1935, pp. 54, 61.)

⁵ Constitution of the R.S.F.S.R. of May 11, 1925, as modified May 18, 1929, and March 4, 1931, Sec. 87, (b), 131 British and Foreign State Papers, pp. 883, 899.

⁶ Batsell, op. cit., pp. 80–85.

⁷ op. cit., p. 89.

⁸ The Ukrainian Constitution was adopted in final form on March 14, 1919, and later amended:

“30. Recognizing the solidarity of all nations, the UkSSR grants all political rights of the Ukrainian laboring citizens to the foreigners living within and laboring on the territory of the Ukrainian republic provided that they belong to the workers’ class or to peasantry and do not use hired labor.

“31. The UkSSR grants the right of asylum to all foreigners who are persecuted for their religious convictions, as well as for political offenses against the governments defending the interests of the bourgeois classes.” (Batsell, op. cit., p. 400.)

The Trans-Caucasian Constitution as first approved on Dec. 13, 1922, contained no provisions relating to citizenship. After the formation of the Union it was amended by the addition of the following provision:

“6. Citizenship in the ZSFSR is established for persons residing on the territory of the ZSFSR. Citizens of the ZSFSR, as well as citizens of the republics entering into the formation of the ZSFSR, are at the same time citizens of the Union [that is of the USSR].” (Batsell, op. cit., p. 413.)

The Constitution of the Khorezm People’s Soviet Republic, adopted in July, 1922, which later became inapplicable upon the territorial redistribution in Central Asia in 1925:

“20. Recognizing the solidarity of the laboring masses of all nations, the KhSNR grants political rights of Khorezm citizens to all foreigners earning their living on the territory of the Khorezm republic by labor.

“21. The KhSNR grants the right of asylum to all foreigners persecuted for political or religious offences in countries where there is no soviet power.” (Batsell, op. cit., p. 448.)

The Georgian Constitution, ratified by the All-Georgian Central Executive Committee, July 5, 1926:

“8⃜ Deriving from the solidarity of the workers of all nations and countries, the SSRG extends all political rights also to foreigners living on her territory and belonging to the working class, as well as to the peasants not using hired labor.” (Batsell, op. cit., p. 426.)

⁹ For text in English see British Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 2 (1927), Cmd. 2852; also in 121 Br. & For. St. Papers, p. 1154.

¹⁰ For main provisions see infra pp. 626–627.

¹¹ English text in translation available in files of the Department of State.

¹² 120 Br. & For. State Papers, pp. 889, 892; Batsell, op. cit., pp. 304, 308.

¹³ Ibid.

¹⁴ For English text see 122 Br. & For, St. Papers, p. 1088; for French text see 52 Journaldu Droit International (1925), p. 548.

¹⁵ “ English text in translation available in files of the Department of State; for French text seeRev. de Droit Int. Price (1931), p. 158.

¹⁶ English text in translation available in the files of the Department of State.

¹⁷ See infra, p. 622.

¹⁸ For English text see Br. Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 14 (1931), Cmd. 3907; for French text see Rev. de Droit Int. Prive (1932), p. 161.

¹⁹ For further discussion, see infra, p. 625.

²⁰ For English text see 122 Br. & For. St. Papers, p. 1106; for French text see Journal du Droit Int. (1927), p.527.

²¹ For main provisions, see infra p. 627.

²² See note 12.

²³ note 18.

²⁴ Law of April 22, 1931, Art. 2.

²⁵ Ibid., Art. 5.

²⁶ Ibid., Art. 2.

²⁷ Trachtenberg, B., “La Nouvelle Loi Sovietique sur la Nationalite U.R.R.S. Reglement du Droit de Cite du 22 April 1931 .” Rev. de Droit Int. Price(1932),p.158.Trachtenbergsays:Google Scholar

“The reform in question has not, it seems, been realized in a complete manner; it would seem logical that the application of the law (in that which concerns the acquisition and the loss of nationality) should be confided exclusively to the authorities of the constituent republics, from the moment that the nationality of these republics is made primary and confers automatically on the interested party Union nationality.

“However, according to the law, the authorities of the Union and those of the Federal Republics can act concurrently (save the right of control attributed for certain questions to the organ of the Federal government), and thus the former can confer or withdraw the nationality of the Federal republics. The law is moreover silent on the subject of the legislation of the Federal Republics⃜ It may be added that in one case, the right of renunciation of nationality by a citizen of the ’U.S.S.R. residing abroad—the bureau of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. is alone competent; the reasons for this privilege are not, however, clear, for, in an analogous case—the naturalization of foreigners residing abroad—the Federal authorities and those of the Federal republics have the same powers. On the other hand the People’s Commissariats of the Federal republics which, under the law of 1930, participated in the elaboration of the instructions concerning the application of the law are now deprived of this right which only appertains to the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs in accord with the Political Administration of the state.” [Art. 18.1]

²⁸ “(7) A person is regarded as a citizen of the U.S.S.R. by right of birth whose parents, or one of them, were citizens of the U.S.S.R. at the moment of his birth.” (Law of April 22, 1931.) The earlier law of Oct. 29, 1924, made the nationality of children only one of whose parents was Russian dependent upon the place of residence of the parents at the time of the child’s birth :

“Art. 4. Persons of whom, at the moment of their birth, one parent was a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are deemed to be citizens of the constituent republics, and thereby of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, provided that either of the parents was at that moment in the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

“The citizenship of a person, one of whose parents was a citizen of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the moment of the birth of that person, but both of whose parents were residing at that moment outside the territory of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is determined by agreement between the parents. In anycase, such person, when he comes of age, may acquire citizenship of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics by asimplified form of procedure.” (See note 14.)

²⁹ “All children born in the Russian Empire or abroad of a Russian subject are Russians by birth.” (Ernest Lehr, La Nationalite, p. 169, citing Art. 12,Ukase of March 6, 1864.)

³⁰ Citing Niboyet, Manuel, Sec. 651.

³¹ Trachtenberg, B., “La Legislation Sovietigue sur la Naticmalite,” Rev. de Droit Int. Prive (1981), pp. 150,153 Google Scholar.

³² There are exceptions to this rule, however, as pointed out by Trachtenberg in commenting on Art. 3 of the law of June 13, 1930:

“One cannot, in fact, imagine a Russian, deprived of his nationality, and finding himself for any reason whatsoever, on the territory of the U.S.S.R., recovering it by this fact and the measures taken toward him thus annulled. Moreover Article 5 of the new law [June 13, 1930, see Article 15 of the Decree of April 22, 1931] provides expressly that ’persons who have lost the nationality of the U.S.S.R. or who have been deprived of this nationality can only be restored to the nationality of the U.S.S.R. by decision of the bureau of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R.’ It follows that Article 3 has no bearing on persons who have already possessed the nationality of the U.S.S.R. and have lost it for any reason whatever.” (Rev. de Droit Int. Prive (1931), p. 151.)

³³ Articles 12, 13, 16.

³⁴ Art. 12.

³⁵ Art. 16.

³⁶ ”The frequent reference to naturalization in a ’simplified manner’ calls for a brief consideration. There is no explanation to be found in the Soviet law of just what this simplified manner implies. Is the process of naturalization simplified for the person acquiring Soviet citizenship, or is it simplified for the Soviet Government in that the number of instances through which the naturalization process has to go is reduced? A comparison of the various laws on the subject reveals that the power of naturalization is vested with different authorities, the seat of final authority depending on the social standing of the person, his whereabouts and the basis upon which the naturalization is sought.

“The simplest process of naturalization provided for in Soviet law is that for foreigners residing in the U.S.S.R. as manual laborers, using no hired help, and for those seeking refuge from political persecution: such persons are admitted to Soviet citizenship by the regional or district executive committees. All other foreigners who are not entitled to the ’simplified manner’ in virtue of their birth, marriage, or otherwise, residing in the U.S.S.R., and desiring to become Soviet citizens, are naturalized by the Central ExecutiveCommittees of the Soviet Republics in which they reside⃜Since there are no data to show that the actionsof the person to be naturalized differ in these various cases, the conclusion is justified that the simplification of naturalization must be understood as affecting the Soviet governmental machinery and not the individual.” (Taracouzio, op. cit., pp. 86–87.)

³⁷ Art. 9.

³⁸ Durward, V .Sandifer, “A Comparative Study of Laws Relating to Nationality at Birth and to Loss of Nationality,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 29 (1935), pp. 248, 269.Google Scholar

³⁹ Arts. 13, 16.

⁴⁰ It should be observed, however, with reference to these provisions for the naturalization of foreigners abroad, that a Circular of Dec. 8, 1921, No. 26, of the People’s Commissary for

Foreign Affairs of the R.S.F.S.R. concerning the admission of foreigners to Soviet citizenship provided:

“7. When foreigners residing abroad are admitted to citizenship the provisions of Articles 3 to 5 are applicable with the following exceptions:

“(a) If by his national laws, the foreigner acquiring Russian citizenship does not lose his former allegiance, he must attach to his application a certificate from his Government that the latter has no objections to his becoming a Russian citizen.

“In issuing Soviet passports to foreigners admitted to Russian citizenship, the Soviet Representative Plenipotentiary is guided by the laws of the state where the foreigner resides.” (Taracouzio, op. cit., p. 378.)

Apparently no similar provision has been adopted by the U.S.S.R.

⁴¹ Sec. 3(a), Act of Sept. 22, 1922 (42 Stat. 1021), as amended by Acts of March 3, 1931 (46 Stat. 1511), and May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797). Sec. 3 of the latter Act provides:

“A citizen of the United States may upon marriage to a foreigner make a formal renunciation of his or her United States citizenship before a court having jurisdiction over naturalization of aliens, but no citizen may make such renunciation in time of war, and if war shall be declared within one year after such renunciation then such renunciation shall be void.”

Under Sec. 3 of the Act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1228), American women lost their citizenship by marrying aliens, even though they continued to reside in the United States. See MacKenzie v. Hare, 239 U. S. 299.

⁴² Brazil: Decree No. 904, Nov. 12, 1902, Art. 6, text in Flournoy and Hudson, A Collection of Nationality Laws (1929), p. 50; Persia: Civil Code, Book II, On Nationality (as adopted Feb. 16, 1935), Art. 980, enclosure with despatch No. 537, Aug. 10, 1935, from the American Legation, Teheran. The German law of July 22, 1913, contains the following provision :

“Section 15. The appointment to the imperial service of a foreigner who has his official residence in a federal state counts as naturalization in that state, except in so far as a reservation is made in the instrument of appointment.

“If the appointee has his official residence abroad and receives a salary from the imperial treasury, he must be naturalized by the federal state in which he makes application therefor; if he receives no salary from the imperial treasury, he may be naturalized with the consent of the Imperial Chancellor.”

The Greek law of Sept. 10, 1925, contained a provision (repealed by a law of Oct. 15, 1927) providing that in exceptional cases a foreigner might be naturalized without residence in Greece, and that the declaration and the oath required of a foreigner might be made before a Greek consular officer at the place of the foreigner’s residence.

⁴³ Taracouzio calls attention in this connection to the provision contained in the Criminal Codes of the various constituent Republics, modeled after that in the Criminal Code of the R.S.F.S.R. of 1924, establishing as one of the methods of “social protection” the declaration of a person as “an enemy of the toiling masses.” Loss of citizenship of the Union Republic and hence of the Union, and compulsory banishment from Soviet territory are, he states, the automatic consequences of sucha declaration. (Op. cit., p. 121.)

⁴⁴ Law of April 22, 1931, Art. 15.

⁴⁵ Ibid., Art. 9.

⁴⁶ Ibid., Art. 10.

⁴⁷ Ibid., Art. 11.

⁴⁸ Ibid., Art. 8.

⁴⁹ Ibid., Art. 16.

⁵⁰ Raoul Dufour, “La Naticmo.lit4 Dana l’U.R.S.S.,” Rev. Gen. de Droit Int. Public (1930), pp. 511, 516. Taracouzio says in this respect: “The adherence to the communist principle of

the social and political equality of every individual, irrespective of sex, made it impossible for them [the Soviet authorities] to sanction the old principle entailing a discrimination against women.” (Op.cit., pp. 90–91.)

⁵¹ Law of April 22, 1981, Art. 14.

⁵² Ibid., Art. 17.

⁵³ /bid., Art. 15.

⁵⁴ Ibid., Art. 14.

⁵⁵ See note 9.

⁵⁶ To enable these former Russian citizens to exercise their rights,the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. has issued the following three announcements:

I. Re Former Russian Subjects

“…the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the United States hereby announces that former Russian subjects living uninterruptedly in the United States, who left Russia previous to November 7,1917, and persons who have gone abroad from the Soviet Republics with the permission of the Soviet Government previousto June 1, 1922, but who have not registered as citizens of the U.S.S.R.…may present to the Embassy or the Consulates of the U.S.S.R. in the United States, regular application for recognition as citizens of the U.S.S.R.

“The period for … such application is established as six months; that is, until December 15, 1934.

“In case application is not made within this period, the above-mentioned persons will lose the right to present application for retention of citizenship of the U.S.S.R.”

II. Re Former Soldiers of the White Armies and Prisoners of War

“… the Embassy … hereby announces that former common soldiers of the White Armies and rank-and-file participants of armed revolts against the Soviet Government, may present to the Embassy or the Consulates … regular application to be recognized as amnestied.

“At the same time, notice is given that former Russian prisoners of the World War and of the civil warof 1917−1920 may present application … for their registration as prisoners of war.

“The period for the presentation … is established as six months, that is, until December 15, 1934.”

III. Re Citizens of the U.S.S.R. Residing in the United States

“…the Embassy … hereby announces that citizens of the U.S.S.R. residing in the United States must register at the Embassy or at one of the Consulates of the U.S.S.R. in the United States within the following periods:

“Citizens sent abroad on commissions by state institutions, cooperative and social organizations—within two weeks, private citizens within three months from date of present announcement.” (Washington Post, June 17, 1934, p. B–5.)

⁵⁷ See note 11.

⁵⁸ See note 20.

⁵⁹ English text in translation available in the files of the Department of State.

⁶⁰ Arts. 14, 16.

⁶¹ See note 55.

⁶² See notes 11, 56.

⁶³ A State is not prohibited by international law from punishing its nationals who have been naturalized abroad and returned to their native country for acts committed in violation of its laws before their departure. In general, the United States protests punishment of its naturalized citizensfor the act of emigration, and a number of our naturalization treaties contain a provision prohibiting punishment in such cases. See treaty of May 26, 1868, Bavaria and the United States, Protocol to Art. II, Malloy, Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, et cetera, between the United States and Other Powers, I, 62; treaty of May 26, 1869, United States and Sweden and Norway, Protocol to Art. II, id., II, 1760; ConventionofOct. 15, 1907, Art. IV, United States and Peru, id., II, 1449. Provision similar to that in convention with Peru is contained in those with El Salvador, Brazil, Honduras, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.See also treaty of Nov. 23, 1923, United States and Bulgaria, Art. II, Treaty Series No. 684; treaty of July 16,1928, United States and Czechoslovakia, Art. II, Treaty Series No. 804.

⁶⁴ These conclusions may be compared with the summary given by Taracouzio to his chapter on nationality and citizenship:

“Despite the communist belief that ’the proletariat has no country of its own until it seizes political power and takes the means of production out of the hands of the exploiters,’ and despite the theoretical insistence of Marx upon the disindividualization of man by making him an integral unit of a class, for practical purposes the Soviets lay primary emphasis not upon the class affiliation of a person, but upon his political allegiance, even attaching Soviet citizenship to former subjects of the Russian Empire, not only those belonging to the proletarian class, but also Russians who neither by birth nor political convictions are affiliated therewith. Even assuming that this inconsistency of attitude is only temporary, it serves as another illustration of the difference between the theoretical effect of abstract Marxian dogmas and their actual significance inpractical application as regards the current principles of international Law.”(Op. cit., p.122.)