1. R v Secretary of State for the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ex parte Bancoult, Divisional Court, Case No. CO/3775/98, 3 Nov 2000; see also judgment granting leave to apply for judicial review, 3 Mar 1999 (LEXIS ENGGEN Lib.).

2. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

3. Citing this (quoting Richard Plender, International Migration Law 133 (2nd edn 1988)) as a holding of Van Duyn v Home Office [1974] ECR 1337.

4. But see Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1989, c. 4, repealed by Terrorism Act 2000, c. 11, s.2(1); and compare East African Asians v UK, ECHR Apps. 4403–19/70 et al., 10 & 18 Oct 1970, YB, 13, 1970, p. 928, Report of 14 Dec 1973, DR, 78-A, 1994, p. 5; App 4626/70, 6 Mar 1978, DR, 78-A, p. 5.

5. Weis, Paul, Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (2d edn, 1979), p. 3Google Scholar. Other major postwar texts on the international aspects of nationality include Haro F. van Panhuys, The Role of Nationality in International Law (1959); Nissim Bar-Yaacov, Dual Nationality (1961); Donner, Ruth, The Regulation of Nationality in International Law (2d edn 1994)Google Scholar; Michel J. Verwilghen, ‘Conflits de nationalités, plurinationalité et apatridie’, (1999) 277 Rec. des cours 9 (includes an extensive bibliography). Domestic aspects of nationality law, denaturalisation and decolonisation issues are treated in treatises including Laurie Fransman, British Nationality Law (1998); Pâquerette Thuilier, Guide pratique de la nationalité française (2d edn, 1997); Ann Dummett & Andrew Nicol, Subjects, Citizens, Aliens and Others: Nationality and Immigration Law (1990); Paul Lagarde, La nationalité française (3d edn, 1997); Gordon, Charles et al. , Immigration Law and Procedure, (looseleaf, 2000)Google Scholar. Fœlix, in 1834, was the first to write in terms of nation and nationality and participation in (belonging to) the nation as a collective: Traité du droit international privé ou du conflit des lois de différents nations en matière de droit privé, (3rd edn 1856), vol. 1, § 1Google Scholar. Weiss, Pillet and Niboyet replaced ‘nation’ by ‘State’. United Kingdom practice of that era is discussed in Sir Francis Piggott, Nationality: Including Naturalisation and English law on the High Seas and Beyond the Realm (1906).

6. Id., p. 13; similarly José Francisco Rezek, ‘Le droit international de la nationalité’, (1986 III) 198 Rec. des cours 333, 341.

7. Erik Jayme, ‘Identité culturelle et intégration: le droit international privé postmoderne’, (1995) 251 Rec. des cours 9.

8. Liechtenstein v Guatemala (2nd phase), ICJ, p. 4. (1955).

9. GA Res. 217A (III), 10 Dec 1948.

10. New York, adopted by General Assembly 19 Dec 1966, entered into force 23 Mar 1976, 999 UNTS 171, No. 14668 (1976), Art 24 (right of every child to a nationality).

11. Helsinki, 1 Aug 1975.

12. Art 7(1).

13. Strasbourg, 6 Nov 1997, ETS No. 166, art 4(a).

14. Amendments to the provisions on naturalisation of the Constitution of Costa Rica, advisory opinion, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 19 Jan 1984, No. OC-4/84, 5 Human Rights LJ 161 (1984), 79 ILR 282; Johannes M.M. Chan, ‘The Right to a Nationality as a Human Right’ (1991) 12 Human Rights LJ 1. Thus also, Optional Protocol, § 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. A discussion of United States application of the ICCPR (in the context of a criminal prosecution) appears in United States v Duarte-Acero 208 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2000).

15. ie, deference to a politically independent forum: Akar v Attorney-General of Sierra Leone [1970] AC 853 (PC, Sierra Leone), art 8(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, while assuring integrity of the family does so in terms of residence and has nothing to say of nationality.

16. Loizidou v Turkey, ECHR, 1998-IV No. 81, p. 1807.

17. Such as Pub. L. 87–195, pt. 1, Sec. 231, as added and amended, 22 USC §§ 2191–2200 (1999); Export and Investment Guarantees Act, 1991 (c. 67); Swiss federal law of 20 Mar 1970 on investment guarantees, R.O. 1970 1130; Council Directive 98/29/EC of 7 May 1998 on harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export credit insurance, OJEC, 19 May 1998, L 148, p. 22 (EU legislation).

18. Algiers Accords, 19 Jan 1981 (1981) 20 ILM 224; Dames & Moore v Regan 453 US 654 (1981); Abrahim-Youri v United States 139 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Esphahanian v Bank Tejarat (1983-I) 2 Iran-US C1. Trib. Rep. 157, 72 ILR 478; Golpira v Iran (1983-I) 2 Iran-US C1. Trib. Rep. 178, 72 ILR 493; Iran v US (1984) 5 Iran-US C1. Trib. Rep. 251, 75 ILR 175; Pierre Klein, ‘La protection diplomatique des doubles nationaux: réconsidération des fondements de la règle de non-responsabilité’, (1988) 21 Rev. b. de dr. int. 184.

19. Notwithstanding abstention on the point by the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: explanatory memorandum to Protocol No. 7, Council of Europe Doc. H(84)5, 12; Johnston v Ireland, 18 Dec 1986 Series A, No. 112 (rejecting claim that absence of provision for divorce in Irish law constituted a violation of Article 8 or Article 12 of the Convention). The application of personal law to impede divorce, otherwise available under local law, of an UK/Irish dual-national prior to implementation of Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996 (Irel.), Roch v Glynn, Cass. (1st Ch.), 29 Sept 1994, (1994) Pas. 778, (1994) Rev. trim. dr. fam. 517, obs. Fallon.

20. L. I. de Winter, ‘Nationality or Domicile? The Present State of Affairs’, (1969 III) 128 Rec. des Cours 347.

21. Aeneas MacDonald (1747) 18 St. Tr. 858 sets forth the perpetual allegiance rule as then part of the common law; compare Ottoman nationality code of 19 Jan 1869. Some States, even today, make no provision for relinquishment of nationality.

22. Rudolph Peters & Gert J.J. de Vries, ‘Apostasy in Islam’,(1968) 17 Die Welt des Islams 1; Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, ‘The Islamic Law of Apostasy and its Modern Applicability’, (1986) 16 Religion 197 (conviction and execution in the Sudan of Mahmoud Muhammad Taha); David F. Forte, ‘Apostasy and Blasphemy in Pakistan’, (1994) 10 Conn. J. Int'l. L. 27; Donna E. Arzt, ‘Religious Human Rights in Muslim States of the Middle East and North Africa’, (1996) 10 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 139; but compare Minister for Home Affairs v Jamaluddin bin Othman [1990] L.R.C. (Const.) 380 (professing Christianity in Malaysia held not a violation of Internal Security Act, 1960). As to Western systems, see below n. 155.

23. Conversion to Christianity by a Muslim did not change civil status in Proc. gén. v Denis & Turki, Alger, Ch. correct., 5 Nov 1903, (1904) 20 Rev. algérienne 15, note Larcher; and see Emile Larcher, ‘Des effets juridiques du changement de religion en Algérie’, (1908) 35 Clunet 375; François Luchaire, ‘Le champ d'application des statuts personnels en Algérie et dans les territoires d'outre-mer’, (1955) 9 Rev. jur. et pol. de l'Union française 1; Henry Solus, Traité de la condition des indigènes en droit privé (1927). The rule is the same in Indian law: Kartik v David, A.I.R. 1964 Patna 201 (member of Orson tribe converted to Christianity); Abraham v Abraham (1863) 9 Moo. Ind. App. 199, 242–44, 19 Eng. Rep. 716, 732 (PC, India). Min. pub. v Danési, Alger (1st. Ch.), 4 Jan 1879, 1879 Bull, judic. d'Algérie 29 (marriage of French woman to Algerian Muslim, performed by Cadi, declared invalid). Compare Tewfik v Elias, Trib. mixte d'Egypte, CA (3d Ch.) 18 Dec 1923, Gaz. trib. mixtes, XIV, p. 171 (Islamic prohibition of abjuration of faith held of no legal validity in Egypt).

24. Odell v Caron, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 19 Mar 1991, No. 461; 23 Jan 1990, (1991 II) JCP ¶ 21637; 20 Mar 1985, (1986 II) JCP ¶ 20630, (1986) 75 Rev. crit. 66; Case No. 282, 15 June 1982, Case No. 564; CAAix (1st Ch.) 9 Mar 1982, (1982) 72 Rev. crit. 282 (incorporation to avoid forced heirship); Pearsh v Thayer, Cass. civ. 1st Ch., 4 Dec 1990, Judgment No. 1539, Case No. 89–11.352 (Juridisque Lamy) (French real estate); Courtois v de Ganay, C.A. Paris, 1st Ch., 10 Jan 1970, (1971) 60 Rev. crit. 518, (1973) 100 Clunet 207 (American inter vivos trust); Arpels v Arpels, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 4 May 1994, Bull. civ., No. 161, p. 119 (avoiding disinheritance under American will); Cf. Zieseniss v Zieseniss, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 20 Feb 1996, 1996 Dalloz Sirey Jur. 390; Bull. Civ. No. 93, Pt. I, p. 63; Federal Trade Commn. v Affordable Media LLC 179 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) (asset protection trust) and In re Lawrence 238 BR 498 (Bankr. S.D.Fla. 1999) (offshore trusts).

25. New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law § 3–5.1(h). See Barbara C. Spudis, ‘Avoiding Civil Law Forced Heirship by Stipulating That New York Law Governs’, (1980) 20 Va. J. Int'l L. 887; Eugene F. Scoles, ‘Conflict of Laws and Nonbarrable Interests in Administration of Decedents' Estates’, (1955) 8 U. Fla. L. Rev. 151; John H. Langbein, ‘The Nonprobate Revolution and the Future of the Law of Succession’, (1984) 97 Harv. L. Rev. 1108.

26. For list of particular restrictions on acquisition of land in OECD member countries see Reservations to OECD Code of Liberalisation of Capital Movements (Jan 1997); see also James R. Mason, Jr, ‘“Psst, Hey Buddy, Wanna Buy a Country?”, An Economic and Political Policy Analysis of Federal and State Laws Governing Foreign Ownership of United States Real Estate’, (1994) 27 Vand. J. Transnat'l L. 453; Protocol No. 1 Relative to the Treaty of Union on the Subject of the Acquisition of Land in Denmark; Swiss Loi Friedrich on the acquisition of immovables by certain foreigners and nonresidents, 16 Dec RO 1984, p. 1148.

27. See, eg, Dorr v United States 195 US 138 (1904) (Philippines) (Congress is not bound by any but ‘fundamental’ Constitutional rights in legislating for territories and possessions); but compare Reid v Covert 354 US 1 (1957).

28. European Convention on Nationality, above n. 13, art 4(b).

29. Excluding many Muslim States: Belkeziz, Abdelouahed, La nationalité dans les Etats arabes, Paris, La porte étroite, 1963Google Scholar; Paul Ghali, Les nationalités détachées de l'Empire Ottoman à la suite de la Guerre (1934).

30. Michael H. v Gerald D. 491 US 110 (1989); Gomez v Perez 409 US 535 (1973); Levy v Louisiana 391 US 68 (1968); H.H. Clark, ‘Children and the Constitution’, 1992 U Ill L Rev 1; Robert E. Lee, ‘The Changing American Law Relating to Illegitimate Children’, (1975) 11 Wake Forest L. Rev. 415; Legitimacy Act, 1976 (Eng.); Law Commission, Working Paper No. 74, Family Law: Illegitimacy (1979); Marckx v Belgium, 13 June 1979, Ser. A, No. 31; Vermeire v Belgium, 29 Nov 1991, Ser. A, No. 214-C. Legitimacy under the law of the child's domicile determines transmissibility of British nationality, including children born in the United Kingdom, BNA 1981, s. 3(6)(c); US nationality may be acquired by the foreign-born offspring of an unmarried US-national father who has resided in the US for a qualifying period, 8 USC § 1401(g) (1996).

31. Pasquale Mancini, Stanislao, Delia nazionalità come fondamento des diritto della genti (Turin, 1853);Google Scholar Henri Batiffol & Paul Lagarde, Traité de droit international privé §§ 230–231 (8th edn 1993).

32. Abrogation by Greek Law No. 2623 of 24 June 1998, art 9(14) of art 19, Law No. 3370 of 1955 and a general trend in Europe and elsewhere towards a tolerance of plural nationality, most recently in Germany: BGB1. I S. 1062, 15 July 1999. On the history of expatriation in the US, see James, Alan G., ‘Expatriation in the United States: Precept and Practice Today and Yesterday’, (1990) 27 San Diego L. Rev. 853.Google Scholar

33. British nationality was always different: Piggott, Francis T., ‘Ligeance of the King’, 83 Nineteenth Century and After 729 (1915)Google Scholar; Dummett. & Nicol, above n. 5.

34. For an example of expedient acquisition of Russian nationality for purposes of divorce and quick remarriage, see Duchêne, François, Jean Monnet: The First Statesman of Interdependence (1995), pp. 54–56Google Scholar; but cf. Princesse de Bauffremont v Prince de Bauffremont, Cass. (Ch. civ.) 18 Mar 1878, (1878 I) Sirey 193, obs. Labbé (fraude à la loi); Gunzburg v Schrey, Trib. civ. Seine, 14 May 1962, (1963) 90 Clunet 110, aff'd, CA Paris, 18 June 1964, (1964) 91 Clunet 810, note Bredin; Mountbatten v Mountbatten [1959] P. 43.

35. In re Estate of Jones 192 Iowa 78, 182 N.W. 227 (1921) (English/Welsh and Iowa law).

36. Leslie, R.D., ‘Unrecognised Governments in the Conflict of Laws: Lord Denning's Contribution’, (1981) 14 CILSA 165.Google Scholar

37. Avoiding here the issue of the economic dependence (upon subsidies or revenues dependent upon tax haven status) of micro-States, and the political dependence by way of forbearance from larger and patron States. See Jorri Duursma, Fragmentation and the International Relations of Micro-States: Self-determination and Statehood (1996).

38. O'Connell, D. P., ‘The Status of Formosa and the Chinese Recognition Problem’, (1956) 50 Am. J.Int'l L. 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Zaim M. Necatigil, The Cyprus Question and the Turkish Position in International Law, (2d edn 1998).

40. Israel-PLO Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza (Oslo II), Washington, 28 Sept 1995, especially Annex III (Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs) and Annex IV (Protocol Concerning Legal Affairs), (1997) 36 ILM 551.

41. It appears that, by default, to the degree that any enforceable private law exists in Kosovo it continues to be that of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Kosovars remain nationals of Yugoslavia, although the Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo, 23 Feb 1999, is vague about both matters. UNMIK undertook provision of postal services and issuance of travel documents. UNMIK press briefing, 13 Mar 2000.

42. Jan Nemitz, Christoph, ‘The Legal Status of the Republika Srpska’, (1997) 43 WGO Osteuropa Recht 89Google Scholar; Grant, Thomas D., ‘Territorial Status, Recognition, and Statehood: Some Aspects of the Genocide Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia)’, (1997) 33 Stan. J. Int'l L. 305Google Scholar; ICJ, Case concerning application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), 11 July 1996, Dissenting op. of Judge ad hoc Kreca.

43. Claus Neukirch, Der Status Transnistriens aus politischer und völkerrechtlicher Sicht, Kiev, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (1998).

44. Horta v Commonwealth of Australia (1994) 181 CLR 183, (1994) 68 ALJR 620, (1994) 123 ALR. 1 FC 94/031.

45. Unrecognised for customs purposes in In re G.H, Lewis & Sons, Inc. 6 Cust.Ct. 528 (3rd Div. 1941).

46. At an earlier stage of the breakup of Somalia: Somalia v Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) S.A. [1993] QB 54.

47. Persons attributed to ethnic groups native to the homelands were excluded from South African nationality by the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act 1970 (later the National States Citizenship Act).

48. Nyamakazi v President of Bophuthatswana (1994) (1) BCLR 92 (B) (Sup.Ct. Bophuthatswana Gen. Div. 1991); S. v Banda (1989) (4) SA 519 (B); Achievers Investments, Inc. v Karalekas 675 A.2d 946 (DC CA 1996); DuToit v Strategic Minerals Corp. 136 FRD 82 (D.Del. 1991); DuToit v Strategic Minerals Corp. 735 F.Supp. 169 (E.D.Pa. 1990).

49. Witkin, Merrie Faye, ‘Transkei: An Analysis of the Practice of Recognition—Political or Legal?’, (1977) 18 Harv. Int'l. LJ 605.Google Scholar

50. Gur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. [1987] QB 599 (CA).

51. In re Duchy of Sealand, case 9K2565/77, Admin. Court of Cologne, 3 May 1978, DVB1. 1978, p. 510, Fontes Iuris Gentium, Ser. A, sect. II, Tom. 8, 1976–80, p. 312, 80 ILR 683 (German rule forbidding renunciation of German nationality that would lead to statelessness); and see, generally, Menefee, Samuel Pyeatt, ‘“Republics of the Reefs:” Nation-Building on the Continental Shelf and in the World's Oceans’, (1994) 25 Cat W. Int. LJ 81.Google Scholar

52. As to World Service Authority, see 9 FAM 41.104 N4 (not acceptable as passports for US visa issuing purposes); Davis v District Director 481 F. Supp. 1178 (D.D.C. 1979) (Garry Davis, WSA promoter, renounced his US nationality).

53. Oppenheimer, F. E., ‘Governments and Authorities in Exile’, (1942) 36 Am. J. Int'l L. 568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Gordon, Ruth E., ‘Some Legal Problems with Trusteeship’, (1995) 28 Corn. Int'l LJ 301Google Scholar (synthesising a theory of State disintegration in the context of a modern theory of trusteeship for such States).

55. This situation may create particular anomalies: a country that has expelled certain of its inhabitants may have consular posts abroad that continue to treat, and to document, the expellees as nationals. This goes to the effectiveness of the government's purported revocation of nationality (where that has occurred) and the apparent authority of the consular officer.

56. Most notably concerning Japanese residents affiliated with the Chosen Soren: Joe Verhoeven, ‘Relations internationales de droit privé en l'absence de reconnaissance d'un Etat, d'un gouvernement ou d'une situation’, (1985-III) 192 Rec. des cours 9, 145–48; Her v Akama, Tokyo Dist. Court, 11 Oct 1968, Hanrejiho No. 531, p. 3, (1972) 16 Japanese Ann. Int'l L. 136, holding a violation of fundamental rights Japanese refusal of re-entry visas to certain North Korean nationals seeking to travel to Pyongyang. The court also rejected a passport regulation inhibiting travel of nationals of unrecognised States. Her v Takeji Kobayashi, Sup. Ct., 16 Oct 1970, 24 Hanreijiho 1512, No. 11, (1972) 16 Japanese Ann. Int'l L. 77; Tsutomu Nishioka, ‘Chosen Soren Today and Its Future’, Gendai Koria [Modern Korea] No. 363 (July-Aug 1996).

57. As the judgment in Micheletti v Delegatión del Gobierno en Catabria [1992] ECR I-4239 demonstrated, commitment to a regional rights compact based on nationality may limit State autonomy in the matter of foreign nationality. Whether a Member State can revoke the nationality of one of its nationals exercising freedom of movement rights seems to have been narrowly avoided by administrative capitulation, followed by abrogation of the underlying nationality law provision, in the Ramadanoglou case (Greek National Committee of the International Helsinki Federation, press release, 12 June 1996).

58. Antolok v United States 873 F.2d 369 (DC Cir. 1989) (discussion of status in connection with tort claim arising from nuclear testing).

59. British jurists were not so certain of the status of inhabitants of British mandates, trust territories and condominiums: they were not aliens; J. Mervyn Jones, British Nationality Law and Practice (1947).

60. Notably by the Jay Treaty, TS 105, 8 Stat. 116 (1794) (freedom of circulation of native peoples).

61. Thus Hong Kong, Macau, Channel Islands.

62. Argentine territory for purposes of the Argentine nationality law, below n. 182.

63. Article 7, Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956, 1986, 1994; Nationality Bill 1999.

64. Israeli Law of Return 1950 and Israeli Nationality Law 1952.

65. Germany, with certain limitations, especially prior to the reforms brought into force on 1 Jan 2000 (BGB1. I S. 1062, 30.06.93): Basic Law, art 116(l)–(2); see Salmon, Jean J.A., ‘L'impact de la détermination de la nationalité allemande en R.F.A. sur les conventions consulates passées avec les Etats tiers’, (1980) 15 Rev. belge dr. int. 187, 195Google Scholar; cf. Abrogation Law No. 1 of the American Military Government of 18 Sept 1944, Official Gazette of the Control Council for Germany, No. 1, 29 Oct 1945, p. 6, annulling the Reich Citizenship Law of 15 Sept 1935, RGB1. I/1146. The Civil Code of Iran, § 976(2) provides that a person is Iranian if his father is Iranian without, seemingly, any limit to the number of generations through which nationality may be transmitted. The Greek Nationality Code, Decree-law No. 3370 of 20/23 Sept 1955, modif. by Law 1438/1984, § 14, has a multi-generational ethnic bias, Dimitrios Soldatos, Lexiarchikes Praxeis: Ithageneia, Demotologia (1998).

66. e.g., Treaty of Andrusovo (Andrussow), 30 Jan 1667, 9 Consol. TS 399 establishing a Polish-Muscovite condominium over Zaporozhia (until 1686); Egyptian-British Condominium Agreement of 19 Jan 1899 over Sudan, 187 Consol. TS 155; Anglo-French convention of 16 Nov 1887, 170 Consol. TS 51, establishing Joint Naval Commission, and protocol of 27 Feb 1906, 200 Consol. TS 328, establishing condominium over New Hebrides (Vanuatu) (for subsequent arrangements, see (1979) 106 Rev. crit. 694. Such arrangements were admittedly colonial in nature.

67. An annexed declaration defines the affected persons: ‘The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term “the people of Northern Ireland”’ in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.’ For the Irish government interpretation of the impact of this clause upon the nationality of persons born in Northern Ireland and the rights accruing to individuals, see Dáil Debates Official Report, 13 April 2000, statement of Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr O'Donoghue).

68. See Shutter, Sue, JCWI Immigration, Nationality & Refugee Law Handbook, London at 119 (1997 edn)Google Scholar (Home Office allowance of European Community rights to situations involving foreign spouses of Irish-British dual nationals).

69. ie, those born in the province with at least one parent possessing British nationality, or Irish nationality and ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; or being an EU citizen, Commonwealth citizen or alien settled in the UK.

70. Belfast Agreement, 10 Apr 1998, Cmd. 3883, Annex 2. In fact, ‘nationality’ self-identification (via choice between Irish and British passports) has long correlated with religion. Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom where registers of births (and hence birth certificates) do not record the (self-declared) nationality of parents.

71. Consular agreements negotiated by the United States in 1972 with Poland, Romania and Hungary and in 1974 with Bulgaria assure the right of consular protection for persons of local origin on temporary visit even if they might be regarded by both States as their nationals. Unlike the Belfast Agreement, these concern only transient visitors. Digest US Prac., 1973 at 72; 925 UNTS 31 No. 13187 (1974); 890 UNTS 109, No. 12744 (1973); 902 UNTS 177, No. 12897 (1973); 998 UNTS 99 No. 14628 (1976). For US Dept. of State comment on US-Soviet nationality conflicts, see (1979) 73 Am. J. Int'l L. 678.Google Scholar

72. Communication from Information Division, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 13 Jan 1997.

73. Abu-Zineh v Federal Laboratories, Inc. 975 F. Supp. 774 (W.D. Pa. 1994).

74. Mousa v INS 223 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2000); Shio v INS 1997 US App. LEXIS 34859.

75. See review of the authorities in Eugene Cotran, ed., The Arab-Israeli Accords: Legal Perspectives (1996).

76. Takkenberg, Lex, The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law (1998), at 178–83, 330–31, 343, 346.Google Scholar

77. Joe Verhoeven, La reconnaissance Internationale dans la pratique contemporaine (1975); L. Thomas Galloway, Recognising Foreign Governments: The Practice of the United States (1978); James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (1979); John Dugard, Recognition and the United Nations (1987); M.J. Peterson, Recognition of Governments: Legal Doctrine and State Practice, 1815–1995 (1997); G.H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law (1940), vol. 1, pp. 161–392; M.M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law (1963), vol. 1, pp. 221–598.

78. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law (1947), pp. 38–66; Chen, Tichiang, The International Law of Recognition: With Special Reference to Practice in Great Britain and the United States (1951), at 150–52.

79. Kelsen, Hans, ‘Recognition in International Law; Theoretical Observations’, (1941) 35 Am. J. Int'l L. 605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80. 9 FAM 41.113 N3.1.

81. See, e.g., 9 FAM 41.104, 41.113 (1993) (US); visas issued to holders of TRNC passports are affixed to consulate-provided Form OF 232. Notwithstanding the statement that ‘The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not considered a “competent authority;” therefore any document issued by that entity cannot be deemed valid for passport purposes’ its passports are in fact accepted as proof of identity for travel purposes. Information as to United States practice confirmed in telephone conversation with consular assistant, North Cyprus branch consular office, US Embassy Nicosia, 24 Mar 2000; United Kingdom practice is described in Caglar v Billingham (Inspector of Taxes) [1996] STC (SCD) 150, [1996] 1 LRC 526 and in written answers, Hansard, Lords, 15 Jan 1998, col. WA205, HL162; Commons, 15 Jan 1998, col. 277.

82. According to Republic of Cyprus consular authorities, residents of the North occasionally apply for passports from the Republic to facilitate travel, and they may do so provided that proof of eligibility (generally through registration of relevant births and marriages with the appropriate civil authorities or a Cypriot consular office or in the ordinary way with the Nicosia authorities prior to 1974) is provided.

83. Form OF-232. Communication from Consular Section, US Embassy Djibouti, 18 July 2000, confirming also that the Republic of Somaliland does not issue passports. The (Arab) destination countries of many travellers from Hargeisa reportedly would not honour Somaliland travel documents.

84. 9 FAM Part IV, Appendix C, Somalia, Somali Democratic Republic. ‘The Department has determined that Somalian passports are no longer valid for visa-issuance purposes. Most immigrant visa beneficiaries will not require a passport. Somali nonimmigrant visa beneficiaries will require a passport waiver.’ Amnesty International's Annual Report 2000 confirms: ‘Somalia has no functioning government … The Somaliland Republic in the northwest, which proclaimed its independence in 1991, continued to seek international recognition. It enjoyed relative stability and a functioning administration.’

85. Takkenberg, Lex, The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law (1998), pp. 128–30, 144–45, 157–58.Google Scholar

86. Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Annex III, Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs, § 7: ‘Israel recognises the validity of the Palestinian passports/travel documents issued by the Palestinian side to Palestinian residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the Gaza-Jericho Agreement and this Agreement.’ On the special international status of Palestinians, see Hathaway, James C., The Law of Refugee Status (1991) at 205–08.Google Scholar

87. UNMIK Regulation on Travel Documents, 30 Mar 2000, Press Release UNMIK/PR/215 (‘The travel document does not confer nationality upon its holder, nor does it affect in any way the holder's nationality’).

88. Bollack v Société Générale 263 A.D. 601, 33 NYS2d 986 (1st Dept.1942) (revocation of nationality and confiscation of assets; contrary to public policy); Stefan Talmon, Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (1998) at 202–06; In re Amand [1942] 1 KB 445 (conscription of Netherlands subject resident in England); Re De Bruijn (1942) IDLR. 249, 10 Ann. Dig. 116 (similarly, in Canada).

89. Pub. L. 96–8, 10 Apr 1979, 93 Stat. 14, 22 US Sec. 3301–16, notably: ‘Sec. 4. (a) The absence of diplomatic relations or recognition shall not affect the application of the laws of the United States with respect to Taiwan, and the laws of the United States shall apply with respect to Taiwan in the manner that the laws of the United States applied with respect to Taiwan prior to January 1, 1979.’

90. Burnet v Chicago Portrait Co. 285 US 1 (1932) (New South Wales as a ‘foreign country’).

91. United States v The Recorder 27 F.Cas. 718 (SDNY 1847) (British vessel carrying goods between the British East Indies and the Port of New York; dominions and colonies assimilated to parent State).

92. Windert Watch Co., Inc. v Remex Electronics Ltd. 468 F.Supp. 1242 (SDNY 1979; Matimak Trading Co. Ltd. v Khalily 936 F. Supp. 151 (SDNY 1996), aff d, Matimak Trading Co. Ltd. v Khalily 118 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1997) (Hong Kong; sovereignty required for alienage jurisdiction); accord, Koehler v Bank of Bermuda (New York) Ltd. 209 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2000) Amended 229 F.3d 424, en banc reconsideration denied, with a dissent noting that ‘[b]oth the Executive Branch and the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have asked that we reconsider the reasoning we employed in Matimak’ 229 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2000) (Bermuda corporation). Cf. Murarka v Bachrack Bros. 215 F.2d 547 (2d Cir. 1954) (India on the eve of independence); Klauser v Levy 83 F.Supp. 599 (ED Va. 1949) held that a national of the Palestine Mandate was not a ‘citizen or subject of a foreign state’. These, and the cases refusing jurisdiction to stateless persons (viz. Kantor v Wellesley Galleries, Ltd. 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983)) would seem to turn on unfortunate legal drafting, although the availability of an alternative US state forum diminishes the prejudice.

93. United States ex rel. Tom We Shung v Murff 176 F.Supp. 253 (SDNY 1959) (deportation to China via Hong Kong); Delany v Moraitis 136 F.2d 129 (4th Cir. 1943) (Greek Government in Exile); Ng Kam Fook v Esperdy 320 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1963) (China or Taiwan as ‘country’ of deportation); Rogers v Cheng Fu Sheng 108 US App. DC 115, 280 F.2d 663 (DC Cir. 1960) (Formosa); United States ex rel. Leong Choy Moon v Shaughnessy 218 F.2nd 316 (2d Cir. 1954) (China); United States ex rel. Mensevich v Tod 264 US 134 (1924) (occupied Poland as a ‘country’ of deportation); United States ex rel. Wiczynski v Shaughnessy 185 F.2d 347 (2d Cir. 1950) (Danzig); Caranica v Nagle 28 F.2d 955 (9th Cir. 1928) (Macedonia: Turkey and Greece).

94. Robert A. Vitas, The United States and Lithuania (1990) discusses the recognition issue with respect to Lithuania.

95. Examples are certain descendants of Irish nationals, persons born in Northern Ireland of non-Irish parents, persons born in the United Kingdom of alien parents and thereafter physically present in the United Kingdom for the first ten years of life and Jewish persons who migrate to Israel. In other instances a nationality may be extant but not be administratively recognised until a demarche is made.

96. In re Allan, No. V85/505 AAT; No. 2970 (Immigr. App. Trib. Canberra 1986) (acquisition of Irish nationality by registration constitutes a voluntary act leading to the loss of Australian nationality under the law as then in force); Sykes v Cleary (1992) 176 CLR 77 and Sue v Hill (1999) 199 CLR 462 (right to run for public office).

97. Doe d. Thomas v Acklam (1824) 2 B. & C. 779, 107 Eng. Rep. 572; St. Op. Atty. & Sol. Gen. on the Status of a Citizen of the United States born before the Peace of 1783, and residing in Canada, 13 Nov 1824, repr. in W. Forsyth (ed.), Cases and Opinions on Constitutional Law, 1869, p. 324. Cf. discussion, (1817) 6 Hall's Am. LJ 30.

98. 3 Sept 1783, 3 Jenkinson 410, 48 Consol. TS 487; 13 Geo. 3, c. 31 (ratification).

99. Ivor Stanbrook, British Nationality: The New Law (1982), p. 77.

100. Commonwealth Immigration Acts, 1962 (10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 21) and 1968 (c. 9); Immigration Acts 1971, c. 77 and 1988, c. 14.

101. British Nationality Act 1981, c. 61.

102. Cobb v United States 191 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1951) and Burna v United States 240 F.2d 720 (4th Cir. 1957) (occupied Okinawa as ‘foreign country’ for purposes of Federal Tort Claims Act); Rose v McNamara 375 F.2d 924 (DC Cir. 1967) (Okinawa, income taxes); Brunell v United States 77 F.Supp. 68 (SDNY 1948) (Saipan, Federal Tort Claims Act).

103. Oppenheimer, F.E., ‘Governments and Authorities in Exile’, (1942) 36 Am. J. Int'l L. 568CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Engers, J.F., ‘Passports Issued by Governments in Exile’, (1971) 65 Am. J. Int'l L. 571.Google Scholar

104. Gherari, Habib, ‘Quelques observations sur les Etats éphémères’, (1994) 40 AFDI 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105. Compare Martini v Creyssac, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 25 June 1974, (1975 II) Dalloz 189; Martini v Martini, CA Paris, 10 June 1972,(1973 II) Dalloz 296, conclusions Advocate General Cabannes (Jewish refugees from Syria); Casperus v Casperus, Israeli Sup. Ct. sitting as Ct. App., 28 Oct 1954, 21 ILR 181 (nationality of testator, German refugee in Palestine); Panayotti v Paitchadze (Russian refugee), Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 1 Dec 1969, Bull. Civ., No. 371, p. 296 (marital regime); In re James (an Insolvent) [1977] 1 Ch. 41 (bankruptcy; misappropriation of funds; Rhodesian insolvency proceeding).

106. Adams v Adams [1971] P. 188, 52 ILR 45 (Rhodesian divorce; incompetence of judicial authority of renegade colony); effect attenuated by Orders in Council, SI 1970/1540 and SI 1972/1718, both repealed by the Zimbabwe Act 1979, s. 6(3), Sched. 3. Situations of doubtful or fraudulently claimed nationality can also have anomalous results for an innocent party: Huang v Huang (1956) 2 Japan. Ann. Int'l L. 149 (Kyoto Dist. Ct.) (Japanese nationality and personal law lost upon marriage notwithstanding misrepresentation of spouse); compare Rogers v Patokoski, 271 F.2d 858 (1959) (petitioner unaware of his US nationality); similarly, Petition of Acchione 213 F.2d 845 (3d Cir. 1954) (petitioner born in Italy to naturalised American father).

107. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No. 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL); Gur Corporation v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. [1987] QB 599 (CA). Cf., with respect to federal alienage jurisdiction, 28 USC § 1603(a) (1999) (a ‘foreign state … includes a political subdivision of a foreign state, or an agency or an instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).’)

108. Wong v Tenneco, Inc. 39 Cal.3d 126, 216 Cal. Rptr. 412, 702 P.2d 570 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1985).

109. Representation of the People Act, 1983, c. 2 (Engl.); L.E. Aylsworth, ‘The Passing of Alien Suffrage’, 25 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 114 (1931); Tiao, Paul, ‘Non-Citizen Suffrage: An Argument Based on the Voting Rights Act and Related Law’, (1993) 25 Colum. Hum Rts. L. Rev. 111.Google Scholar

110. Micheletti v Delegation del Gobierno en Catabria [1992] ECR I-4239, comment, Hans Ulrich Jessurun d'Oliveira, (1993) 30 Com. Market L. Rev. 623.

111. Cook v Tait 265 US 47 (1924).

112. Luttermersk v Préfet de la Seine, Paris (1st Ch.), 20 Mar 1925, 3 Ann. Dig. 277, (1926) 53 Clunet 94, note J.P.; Kramer v Attorney-General [1923] AC 528; In re Chamberlain's Settlement [1921] 2 Ch. 533; Prince d'Arenberg v Ministère public, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 25 Mar 1926, (1926 I) Pas. 317; Salvesen v Adm'r of Austrian Property [1927] AC 641.

113. Alexander's Executors v US, Am. & Br. Cl. Comm., Case No. 45, Hale's Rep. No. 16, 3 Moore Arbitrations 2529 (1898); Nemeth v Etat Belge, Cons. d'Etat (3rd Ch.), 26 June 1973, No. 15,941, R.A.ACE., 1973.539, 77 ILR 384; Menon v Esperdy, 413 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1969), 54 ILR 248; R. v Goldfarb (1936) 52 Times L. Rep. 254, 8 Ann. Dig. 304. As to doubtful cases: Koszta case, Note, Secretary of State of the United States Marcy to Mr. Hülsemann, Chargé d'affaires of Austria, 29 Aug 1853, II Ex. Doc. 1, 33 Cong. 1 sess. 25; repr. at 3 Moore, Digest 830, § 490; comment, Westlake, John, International Law (1910), vol. 1, p. 200Google Scholar and Sir Alex Cockburn, Nationality (1869), at pp. 117–24; Perdicaris case, 3 Moore, Digest 807 (1906), where it is supposed that Perdicaris was a citizen, but cf. Barbara W. Tuchman, ‘Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead’ in Tuchman, Practising History (1983), pp. 104–17.

114. Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), 189 UNTS 137, No. 2545 (1954); Protocol, 31 Jan 1967, 606 UNTS 267, No. 8791 (1967), Art 1(A)(2); Conclusion 15(XXX) of the Executive Committee of the High Commissioner's Programme, para. (h)(iii)-(iv), UN Doc. HCR/IP/2/Eng./REV. 1986 (1979); Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), 10 Dec 1948, Art 14(1); Jong Kim Koe v Minister for Immigration [1997] 306 F.C.A.; Lay Kon Tji v Minister for Immigration [1998] 1380 FCA; Ryszard Piotrowicz, ‘Refugee Status and Multiple Nationality in the Indonesian Archipelago: Is there a Timor Gap?’, (1996) 8 Int'l J. Refugee L. 319; Ryszard Piotrowicz, ‘Dual Nationality and Refugee Status’, (1997) 71 Australian LJ 590; Peter Nygh, ‘Multiple Nationality and the Refugee Convention: The Position of the East Timorese’, Conference Paper, Northern Territory University, Retreating From the Refugee Convention, 7–10 Feb 1997.

115. Dan Izenberg, ‘Court: Murder Suspect Can't Be Extradited’, Jerusalem Post, 26 Feb1999 (Sheinbein case; Israeli law has since been modified).

116. Joyce v Director of Public Prosecutions [1946] AC 347; Kawakita v United States 343 US 717 (1952); In re Mittermaier, Cass. ital., 2 May 1946, Foro italiano 69.1944–46.II.137, 13 Ann. Dig. 69.

117. 50 US App. § 2410a (1996) (COCOM); Trading With the Enemy Act, 1917, 40 Stat. 411, 50 App. US § 1 (1996); Arms Export Control Act, 82 Stat. 1320, 22 US § 2751 (1996); Nguen Quoc Dinh, Droit international public, (5th edn 1994), § 584.

118. Reel v Holder [1981] 1 WLR 1226 (CA), aff'g [1979] 1 WLR 1252 (Taiwan).

119. Principally relevant to States and their instrumentalities: Liberia v Bickford 787 F.Supp. 397 (interim government); National Petrochemical Co. of Iran v The MT Stolt Sheaf 860 F2d 551 (2d Cir. 1988); Somalia v Woodhouse Drake & Carey (Suisse) S.A. [1993] QB 54 (interim government); Federal Republic of Germany v Elicofon 358 F.Supp. 747 (EDNY 1970) (standing to sue of East German entity); Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus v Goldberg and Feldman Fine Arts, Inc. 917 F.2d 278 (7th Cir. 1990) (standing of recognised sovereign to claim property purloined from church in North Cyprus); Re Polly Peck International plc (in administration) (No 2) [1998] 3 All E.R. 812 (C.A.) (addressing complaint of misappropriation of assets, involving companies incorporated under the laws of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus).

120. Trinh Dinh Cuong v Le Thi Hong Mai, Trib. civ. Liège (3rd Ch.), 30 Oct 1981, unreported (applicability of South Vietnamese personal law after fall of Saigon); Panayotti v Paitchadze (Russian refugee), Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 1 Dec 1969, 1969 Bull. Civ. 296, No. 371 (Russian law); Szechter (orse. Karsov) v Szechter [1971] P. 286 (law of former country, Poland, applied in determination of validity of political refugees’ marriage under duress).

121. X v Public Prosecutor, Ct. App., The Hague, 1952, NJ, 1953, No. 344, 19 ILR 226.

122. The King v Superintendent of Chiswick Police Station, ex parte Sacksteder [1918] 1 KB 578 (deportation, under arrangement with French government, of French national liable for military conscription); Pitsillides v Cyprus [1973] 3 CLR 15, 83 ILR 197 (Cyprus Sup. Ct.); Bicknell v Brosnan [1953] 2 QB 77 (Div. Ct.) (National Service Act, 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6, c. 64)); Murray v Parkes [1942] 2 KB 123 (National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939 (2 & 3 Geo. 6, c. 81)).

123. Blackmer v United States 284 US 421, 437 (1932) (fines imposed on a US citizen resident in France for disobeying a subpoena to testify in a criminal case); Albert Gouffre de Lapradelle, Affaire Henry M. Blackmer extradition (1929).

124. Abu-Zeineh v Federal Laboratories, Inc. 975 F. Supp. 774 (WDPa 1994) and other cases cited in Biancheria, Christine, ‘Restoring the Right to Have Rights: Statelessness and Alienage Jurisdiction in Light of Abu-Zeineh v Federal Laboratories, Inc.’ (1996) 11 Am. U.J. Int'l L. & Pol'y 195Google Scholar; Hutchens, Walter C., ‘Alienage Jurisdiction and the Problem of Stateless Corporations: What is a Foreign State for Purposes of 28 US § 1332(A)(2)?’, (1998) 76 Wash. ULQ 1067.Google Scholar

125. Laband, Paul, Gandilhon, C. & Larnaud, F., Le droit public de l'Empire allemand (1901), vol. 2, pp. 693–96.Google Scholar

126. Declaration of the Ministry of Justice and of the Rapporteur of the Commission; Ann. Ch., pp. 405, 407; Pand, b., ‘Beige’ (1921–33); Les Novelles Corpus Juris Belgici, ‘Droit colonial’ vol. I, p. 181 (1936).

127. McCandless v United States ex rel. Diabo 25 F.2d 71 (3d Cir. 1928).

128. Elk v Wilkins 112 US 94 (1884); Citizenship Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 253, 8 US § 501 (repealed 27 June 1952).

129. Law of 15 May 1922 on the acquisition and loss of Belgian nationality, § 1; Code civil congolais, Livre des personnes, tit. I, § 1 (‘La nationalité congolaise s'acquiert: par la naissance sur le territoire de l'Etat de parents congolais …’); Léon Petillon, ‘Des habitants et leurs droits’, § 18, Les Novelles, Droit Colonial (1931), vol. I, pp. 185–86.

130. Markwald v Attorney-General [1920] 1 Ch. 348, 1 Ann. Dig. 203 (naturalisation in Australia); Gelez, Cass. crim. 14 Feb 1890, Clunet, 17.1890.116 (French emigrant naturalised in Australia).

131. Barber v Gonzales 347 US 637 (1954); provision for acquisition of French civil status by indigenous natives was variable, according to territory, Henry Solus, Traité de la condition des indigènes en droit privé (1927).

132. eg, Decree of 29 July 1887, JORF, 25 Aug 1887; decree of 3 Oct 1910, JORF, 8 Oct 1910 (Tunisia); decree of 29 Apr 1920, JORF, 2 May 1920 (Morocco). Natives of a protectorate could be considered nationals of the protecting State for some purposes, National Bank of Egypt v Austro-Hungarian Bank, Anglo-Austrian Mixed Trib., 13 July 1923, Rec., III (1924), p. 236, 2 Ann. Dig. 23.

133. Decree of 7 Nov 1930, JORF, 13 Nov 1930 (Togo and Cameroon).

134. There existed, in colonial law, an inherent preference for the ‘better’ status and, implicitly, better religion: Larbi Fekar (époux) v Ondedieu, Alger (2nd Ch.), 13 Feb 1903, (1904) Rev. alg. 141 (Marriage of Spanish woman, convert to Islam, to Algerian Muslim afforded French nationality and civil status to the woman and her offspring); La nationalité française, textes et documents (1985), at p. 201; this may be compared to the concept, in certain Islamic legal regimes, of the ‘better religion’: Abu-Sahlieh, L'impact de la religion sur l'ordre juridique, cas de l'Egypte, non-musulmans en pays d'Islam (1979), p. 256; similarly, Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (1964), pp. 131–32; Tewfik v Elias, Trib. mixte d'Egypte, CA (3rd Ch.) 18 Dec 1923, Gaz. trib. mixtes, XIV, p. 171 (Succession of a Coptic Christian converted to Islam in order to marry a second wife; after having repudiated her he sought to reconvert to Christianity).

135. International Textbook Co. v Pigg 217 US 91, 106, 107 (1910); 8 US § 1428 (1999); 8 US § 1430(a) (1999). But see Mary Welsh, 1936, 3 Hackworth, Digest 326 (Salvation Army not a recognised American religious organisation; British-born staff member deemed denaturalised following extended residence in Britain); Order of Department of State, 13 May 1908, rule (d) (absence of presumption of expatriation): ‘That he resides in China in the employ of the Chinese Government in a capacity not inconsistent with his American citizenship and calculated to advance legitimate American interests …’, 3 Hackworth, Digest 336–37.

136. 22 US §§ 2191–2200 (1996) (Overseas Private Investment Corp.); Export and Investment Guarantees Act, 1991 (c. 67) (Export Credits Guarantee Dept.); Swiss federal law of 20 Mar 1970 on investment guarantees, R.O 1970 1130; Council Directive 98/29/EC of 7 May 1998 on harmonisation of the main provisions concerning export credit insurance, OJEC, 19 May 1998, L 148, p. 22 (EU legislation), eg, United States and Yugoslavia, Exchange of notes constituting an agreement relating to guaranties under Pub. L. 472, 80th Cong., Washington, 15 Aug 1952, (1954) 184 UNTS 97 No. 2441; US and Senegal, Agreement concerning guaranties of private American investments, Dakar, 12 June 1963, (1969) 696 UNTS 267, No. 9979. Compare Export & Investment Guarantees Act 1991 c.67; Agreement for promotion and protection of investments, United Kingdom and Philippines, London, 3 Dec 1980, (1981) 1218 UNTS 61, No. 19651; Culford Metal Industries Ltd. v Export Credits Guarantee Department, QB Div., Comm'l Ct., 1980 C No. 377, LEXIS ENGGEN Lib.; Convention on the protection of investments, France and Tunisia, Paris, 30 June 1972, (1972) 848 UNTS 141, No. 12147.

137. Above n. 113.

138. Agreement between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their Forces of 19 June 1951, 199 UNTS 67, No. 2678 (1954) and supplementary agreement of 3 Aug 1959, 490 UNTS 28, No. 7153 (1964); Mutasa v Attorney-General, [1980] QB 114 (Rhodesia, imperfect obligation of protection); Re Ho (1975) 5 ALR 304, 55 ILR 487 (Australia, 1979) (British protected person born in Brunei); Ibrahim v The King [1914] AC 599 (PC, Hong Kong) (Afghan soldier in the British army). Third-country nationals accredited as diplomatic agents or dependents are entitled to administrative protection, a different issue.

139. Stuart v City of Easton 156 US 46 (1895) (description of party as ‘a citizen of London, England’ held inadequate to meet the statutory requirement).

140. Adams v Adams [1971] P. 188, 52 ILR 45, above n. 106.

141. In re James (an Insolvent) [1977] 1 Ch. 41, above n. 105.

142. Pelzer v United Dredging Co. 118 Misc. 210, 193 NYS. 676 (1st Dept. 1922); Pelzer v Perry 203 A.D. 58, 196 NYS 342 (1st Dept. 1922) (administratrix appointed by court in unrecognised Mexico; amendment of complaint to reflect ancillary probate disallowed).

143. Kantor v Wellesley Galleries, Ltd. 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983), above n. 92.

144. Levita-Mühlstein v Dépt. féd. de justice et police, Trib. féd., 14 June 1946, (1946) 72-I A.T.F. 407 and Rosenthal v Eidg. Justiz- und Polizeidepartment, Trib. féd., 8 Oct 1948, (1948) 74I ATF 346; and compare, on the revocation of Soviet nationality, Tcherniak v Tcherniak, Trib. Féd. (2nd Civ. Sect.), 15 June 1928, (1928) 54II A.T.F. 225, 4 Ann. Dig. 62, (1929) 56 Clunet 208, note Noël-Henry, reasoning rejected in Lempert v Bonfol (1934) 60 Déc de la Cour féd. suisse 67, 7 Ann. Dig. 290.

145. McKenzie v Hare 239 US 299, 311–12 (1915) (‘a condition voluntarily entered into, with notice of the consequences’), abrogated by the law of 22 Sept 1922 (Cable Act, 42 Stat. 1021); Candice Dawn Bradbenner, A Nationality of Her Own: Women, Marriage and the Law of Citizenship (1998) (thesis, Univ. of Va., 1990 (Toward Independent Citizenship: Married Women's Nationality Rights and the United States, 1855–1937). More subtle discrimination continues, especially in family reunification cases: United Kingdom and United States practice requires proof of ability to support non-national family members without necessarily taking into consideration the economic capacity of the intended immigrant; such a requirement is discriminatory insofar as women's average earnings fall below those of men. US: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–193, Sec. 423, 22 Aug 1996, 110 Stat. 2107, amended Pub. L. 104–208, Sec. 551(a), 30 Sept 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–675., 8 US § 1183(a) (1999); U.: Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, HC 395, 23 May 1994, § 281(v).

146. Miller v Albright 523 US 420 (1998); Wauchope v US Dept. of State 985 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir 1993); United States v Ahumada-Aguilar 189 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999); Lake v Reno 226 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000); Benner v Canada (Secretary of State) [1997] 1 SCR 358; Dow v Attorney General [1992] LRC (Const.) 623 (CA Botswana); Federal law on the acquisition and loss of Swiss nationality, art 58a, Facilitated naturalisation of children of Swiss women by birth, adoption or naturalisation, modif. of 20 June 1997, RO 1997, at 2369.

147. R. v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Miller [1988] Imm. A.R. 358 (CA), aff'g [1988] Imm. A.R. 1 (QB) (Israeli Law of Return); cf. Australian decisions rejecting the proposition that the right to claim Croatian (N94/02520, 28 June 1994), Macedonian (V94/01555, 2 Dec 1994) or Portuguese (in the case of a native of East Timor), N93/02313, 12 July 1994 & N93/01612, 21 July 1994) nationality constitutes a ‘nationality for purposes of refugee law’. Art 7 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956, 1986 (to be amended by the Irish Nationality Bill 1999, reflecting the terms of the Belfast Agreement of 10 Apr 1998, text published as Cmd. 3883) allows individuals born in Northern Ireland of parents without Irish status to register as Irish nationals without limit of time. Similarly, persons born in the United Kingdom, not otherwise attributed British nationality, who reside there for the first ten years of life are afforded the unconditional right of registration as British citizens, British Nationality Act 1981, c. 61, § 1(4).

148. The plural nationality issue in the refugee context is addressed in Canada (Attorney General) v Ward [1993] 2 SCR 689.

149. As amended: Laws Nos. 43 of 1967, 1 of 1972, 74 of 1983, 19(1) of 1996, 58(1) of 1996, 70(1) of 1996, 50(1) of 1997, 102(1) of 1998, 105(1) of 1998, 65(1) of 1999, 128(1) of 1999.

150. Case N95/07552, 12 June 1996. Cf. Kadiroglu v Minister for Immigration [1998] 1656 F.C.A. (1998) (marriage between ethnic Turk and ethnic Greek; asylum refused).

151. Law of 21 May 1993, Resmî Gazete KKTC No. 52, 27 May 1993.

152. Mahaboob Bibi v Home Secretary [1987] Imm. A.R. 340; see also Maury, Trib. Seine, 20 Jan 1967, 41 ILR 379, (1967) 94 Clunet 893, note Aymond, 41 ILR 378 (refusal by French court to give effect to Vietnamese judgment on French nationality).

153. Levita-Mühlstein v Dépt. féd. de justice et police, Trib. féd., 14 June 1946, (1946) 72-I ATF 407 above, n. 144.

154. Kawakita v United States 343 US 717 (1952), and some of the Cases concerning Nazi concentration camp guards and members of the Waffen SS: Fedorenko v United States, 449 US 490 (1981); United States v Breyer 41 F.3d 884 (3rd Cir. 1994); United States v Schiffer 798 F. Supp. 1128 (E.D. Pa. 1992); United States v Kowalchuk 773 F.2d 488 (3d Cir. 1985); United States v Koziy 728 F.2d 1314, 77 ALR Fed. 363 (11th Cir. 1984).

155. H. Marsh, Marital Property in Conflict of Laws (1952), pp. 14, 103 et seq.; Jean-Gabriel Castel, Canadian Conflicts of Laws, (1977), vol. 2, pp. 414, 424; Ernst Rabel, Conflict of Laws, 1958, vol. I, pp. 380–91, ‘The Problem of Mutability: Change of Personal Law During Coverture’; Scoles, ‘Choice of Law in Family Property Transactions’, (1929 II) 209 Rec. des cours 13–93, 28–35; J. K. Grodecki, ch. 8, ‘Intertemporal Conflict of Laws’, vol. III, Private International Law, International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law (1976), pp. 26–28.

156. Martini v Creyssac, Cass. civ. (1st Ch.), 25 June 1974, (1975 II) Dalloz. 189 (holding that Nachat Martini, having the status of refugee in France, his succession would not be determined by article 238 of the Syrian Code of personal status but by French law).

157. Home State Bank v Fuell 654 F. Supp. 113 (DPR 1987).

158. Real v Simon 510 F.2d 557 (5th Cir. 1975); petition for rehearing denied 514 F.2d 738 (5th Cir. 1975); principle set out in In re Bach 145 Misc. 2d 945, 548 NYS 2d 871 (NY County 1989).

159. Kletter v Dulles 111 F.Supp. 593 (DDC 1953); the petitioner had previously been found not to possess British nationality, R. v Ketter [1940] 1 KB 787.

160. Rogers v Cheng Fu Sheng 280 F.2d 663 (DC Cir. 1960), citing United States ex rel. Moon v Shaughnessy 218 F.2d 316 (2d Cir. 1954).

161. Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).

162. Zhislin v Reno 195 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 1999) (Ukrainian origin, stateless; deportation order to ‘Israel or Ukraine’ unenforceable; refused entry on arrival in Dominican Republic with tourist visa); Ma v Reno 208 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2000) (Cambodia); also Sengchanh v Lanier 89 F.Supp.2d 1356 (N.D.Ga. 2000) (Laos and Thailand); Kuhai v INS 199 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 1999) (Uzbekistan and Ukraine).

163. Ho v Greene 204 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2000) (Vietnamese) and Carrera-Valdez v Ferryman 211 F.3d 1046 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing cases from other circuits) (Cuban nationals who arrived during the 1980 Mariel boatlift), both citing Shaughnessy v Mezei 345 US 206 (1953); Kalman Seigel, ‘Stateless, He Faces Life on Ellis Island’, N.Y. Times, 23 Apr 1953, pp. 1, 15 (Mezei was later administratively released).

164. Ma v Reno, 208 F.3d 815 (2000), vacated and remanded sub nom. Ashcroft v Ma, US Sup. Ct., Case No. 0038, decided 28 June 2001 (instructing the courts below to give due weight to the likelihood of successful future negotiations).

165. Zadvydas v Underdown 185 F.3d 279 (5th Cir., 1999), reversed sub. nom. Zadvydas v Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001).

166. Law of 25 Aug 10992.

167. Law on Serb Citizenship (Sluzbeni Glasnik R.S., No.19, 18 Dec 1992), amendment, No. 02–874/96 (SGRS, No. 16, 22 July 1996), superseded by Law on Citizenship 1/97 of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 16 Dec 1997 (S.G. BiH, No. 4/97, Sluzbene Glasnik Federacije BiH, 23.12.97, vol. 1, No. 4), promulgated in conformity with the Dayton Accords, and see attachment to letter dated 14 Oct 1997 from Secretary-General of the United Nations to the President of the Security Council, Doc. S/1997/794, 14 Oct 1997, regarding attempt by Republika Srpska to exact visa fees of entrants from Bosnia-Herzegovina.

168. Magerv Grima 49 US (8 How.) 490 (1850) (allowing state tax upon the right of an alien to receive property as heir, legatee, or donee of a deceased person); In re Apostolopoulos' Estate 68 Utah 344 250 P. 469 (1926), vacated due to consular treaty by 68 Utah 344, 253 P. 1117 (1927); Takeuchi v Schmuck 206 Cal. 782, 276 P. 345, 1929 (S.Ct. 1929).

169. Schultze v Schultze 144 I11. 290, 33 N.E. 201 (S.Ct. 1893) (Hanseatic Republic of Bremen).

170. Webb v O'Brien 263 US 313 (1923), (California Alien Land Law; ineligible aliens may not possess or enjoy land); In re Estate of James 192 Neb. 614, 223 N.W.2d 481 (S.Ct. 1974) (Syrian heirs entitled to full value of escheated land).

171. Sei Fujii v California 38 Cal.2d 718, 242 P.2d 617, (S.Ct. 1952) (holding unconstitutional state's alien land law, and citing the United Nations Charter); Oyama v California 332 US 633 (1948) (failure to file annual report required of alien guardians of minors owning agricultural land).

172. State v Kurita 136 Wash. 426, 240 P. 554 (S.Ct. 1925); but compare California Delta Farms, Inc. v Chinese American Farms, Inc. 207 Cal. 298, 278 P. 227 (S.Ct. 1929).

173. State v Motomatsu 139 Wash. 639, 247 P. 1032 (S.Ct. 1926) (leasehold interest for a period of ten years); State v Kusumi 136 Wash. 432, 240 P. 556 (S.Ct. 1925).

174. Takiguchi v Arizona 47 Ariz. 302, 55 P.2d 802 (S.Ct. 1936).

175. Saiki v Hammock 207 Cal. 90, 276 P. 1015 (S.Ct. 1929).

176. Shiba v Chikuda 214 Cal. 786, 7 P.2d 1011 (S.Ct. 1932); Jue v Jue, 163 Cal. App. 2d 231, 329 P.2d 560 (C.A. 2d Dist. 1958) (US-born daughters of Chinese immigrants as trustees for alien members of family); Kaneda v Kaneda 235 Cal. App. 2d 404, 45 Cal. Rptr. 437 (C.A. 1st Dist. 1965) (resulting trust); People ex rel. Kunstman v Nagano 389 I11. 231, 59 N.E.2d 96 (S.Ct. 1945) (disallowing private prosecution against trust following state abstention); but compare State v O'Connell 121 Wash. 542, 209 P. 865 (S.Ct. 1922) (British subject; trust held violative of antialien statute).

177. State ex rel. Atkinson v World Real Estate Commercial Company 46 Wash. 104, 89 P. 471 (S.Ct. 1907); Abrams v State of Washington 45 Wash. 327, 88 P. 327 (S.Ct. 1907); Branham v Minear 199 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1947).

178. Caparell v Goodbody 132 NJ Eq. 559, 29 A.2d 563 (Chancery 1942) (resident enemy alien in time of war).

179. Calzada v Sinclair 6 Cal. App. 3d 903, 86 Cal. Rptr. 387, (CA 2nd Dist. 1970) (lawyers as intermediaries).

180. Babu v Petersen 4 Cal. 2d 276, 48 P.2d 689 (S.Ct. 1935); Mitsuuchi v Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles 103 Cal. App. 2d 214, 229 P.2d 376 (CA 2nd Dist. 1951) (criticising State prosecution of case ‘without a scintilla of evidence’).