Investment Citizenship and State Sovereignty in International Law

This paper provides a detailed discussion of the evolution of the approaches to nationality in International Law – from The Hague convention and the obiter dicta in the Tunis and Morocco Nationality Decrees case of the Permanent Court of International Justice, predicting the rise of international nationality law, to the unfortunate case of Nottebohm and a gradual move away from it in the years that followed. Key trends are crystal-clear: international law is more and more aware of citizenship regulations at the national level. Moreover, the approach to these has changed entirely since the Cold War days of Nottebohm, as the actual situation of the individual comes to the fore, as opposed to sheer formalism and the denial of legal remedies, as was the case in Nottebohm. All in all, while the sovereignty paradigm stands strong and states are as free as ever to confer nationality based on the conditions they see fit, the rising importance of the individual in the international legal context observable over the last decades could put a limit on the absolute sovereigntist approach, thus helping the old PCIJ prediction materialize, at least to some degree. The paper supplies the ground for two analyses of such possible deviations: the reinterpretation of international law on nationality inspired by the logic of democracy and arguments for making wholesale trade in nationalities illegal in international law.