Introduction

This article seeks to answer the question of whether International Law sufficiently protects
the right of foundlings to a nationality. In particular, it focuses on the issue of whether
International Law affords foundlings the right to be considered nationals of the State in
which they are found, and whether States have a binding obligation to confer their
nationality on foundlings found in their territory.
As used in this article, a foundling is a child of unknown parentage found abandoned on
the territory of a State.[2] It must be an infant at the time it was found abandoned. The
Blacks Law Dictionary defines a foundling as a deserted or abandoned infant; a
child without a parent or guardian, its relatives being unknown.[3] The Oxford
English Dictionary also uses the terminfant in defining foundling, thus an infant that
has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared for by
others.[4] The word infant, on the other hand, is defined as a very young child or
baby.[5]
This article will argue that there are gaps in International Law that result in inadequate
protection and implementation of the right of foundlings to a nationality. In particular, this
article will show that the obligation of a State to confer its nationality upon a foundling in its
territory exists only as a matter of treaty obligation in International Law.
This article is structured as follows: The first section will talk about nationality and discuss
the different principles of acquiring a nationality and the corresponding obligations of
States. The second section will talk about statelessness and the measures taken States to
reduce it. The third section will examine the rules that confer nationality on foundlings in
international conventions and treaties, and determine the scope of their coverage and their
binding nature. The fourth section will determine if the existing practices or rules that
confer nationality on foundlings have attained the status of customary international law
and, therefore, binding upon all States.
For purposes of this article, the terms nationality and citizenship shall be used
interchangeably and without distinction. Most States consider citizenship, which is the
term that is commonly used in municipal or national law, as synonymous with nationality,
which is the term used in International Law. The United States (U.S.) and Russia are two
of the notable exceptions. Under U.S. law, not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. For
example,

the

inhabitants

of

American

Samoa

and

Swain

Island

are

considered nationals for International Law purposes but are not considered citizens for
purposes of the U.S. Constitution and its laws.[6] Under Russian law, the term nationality
is associated with the ethnicity of a person, while the term citizenship refers to the legal
bond between an individual and the State.[7]
Nationality

Nationality is generally understood as the legal bond that connects a person to a particular
State. It constitutes his membership in the particular State. It makes him a national (or
a citizenin the point of view of municipal law) of that State.
Nationality creates reciprocal obligations between the citizen and the State. It imposes
upon the citizen the duty to render allegiance to the State and subjects him to the
obligations created by the laws of that State. Thus, it is the basis of the States exercise of
jurisdiction over the person. On the part of the State, nationality imposes the responsibility
to protect the citizen. It also gives the State the right to accord diplomatic protection to its
nationals and to make claims on their behalf.
Article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[8] provides that everyone has
a right to nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor
denied the right to change his nationality.
International Law, however, recognizes the right of each State to determine who its citizens
are, and to establish its own standards for conferring nationality albeit only for domestic
law purposes. In the Nottebohm case,[9] the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled
that Liechtenstein is the sole judge of whether Nottebohm is a citizen of the State but such
is for domestic law purposes only as other nations are not obliged to recognize
Nottebohms Liechtenstein citizenship especially absent a genuine link between
Nottebohm and that State.
The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of
Nationality Laws[10] (hereafter, the 1930 Hague Convention) provides the following
rules in determining a persons nationality:
It is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be
recognized by other States in so far as it is consistent with international conventions,
international custom, and the principles of law generally recognized with regard to
nationality. (Article 1)
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular State shall
be determined in accordance with the law of that State. (Article 2)
A State may confer its nationality exclusively upon persons born within its territory or
jurisdiction by the application of the principle of jus soli (by place of birth)[11] regardless
of the nationality of their parents. A State may also confer nationality only to persons
whose parents are nationals of the State by the application of the principle of jus
sanguinis (by right of blood) regardless of whether they are born within or outside its
territory. A State may also apply both principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis. A State
may also confer nationality upon persons through naturalization, which does not require
the naturalized citizen to be born within the territory of the State or to be born of parents
who are nationals of the State. A State may also consider marriage and adoption as
methods of acquiring a nationality.
The concurrent application of the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis may result in an
individual having the nationalities of two States, i.e., dual citizenship. If a child whose
parents State of nationality applies the principle of jus sanguinis is born in the territory of
another State that applies the principle of jus soli, the child would be possessed of dual

citizenship. The child acquires both the nationality of his parents State of nationality and
the nationality of the State where he was born.
Article 3 of the 1930 Hague Convention recognizes that a person having two or more
nationalities may be regarded as its national by each of the States whose nationality he
possesses. However, Article 5 of the said Convention also adds that:
Within a third State, a person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he
had only one. Without prejudice to the application of its law in matters of personal status
and of any conventions in force, a third State shall, of the nationalities which any such
person possesses, recognise exclusively in its territory either the nationality of the country
in which he is habitually and principally resident, or the nationality of the country with
which in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected.
Statelessness
While the concurrent application of the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis may result
in a person having dual or multiple nationalities, their conflicting application, on the other
hand, may result in an anomaly whereby an individual is not possessed of any nationality.
If a child whose parents State of nationality exclusively applies the principle of jus soli is
born in the territory of another State that exclusively applies the principle of jus sanguinis,
the child would not be considered a citizen of either State; hence, a stateless person.
Article

1 of the 1954

Convention

Relating

to

the

Status

of

Stateless

Persons[12] defines astateless person as a person who is not considered as a national

by any State under the operation of its laws. Since many rights and privileges afforded by
States may be exercised only by their nationals, a stateless person, therefore, is at a big
disadvantage.
While nationality is the basis of the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the part of the
citizen and obligation of protection on the part of the State, a stateless person is not
without obligations to the State in which he finds himself. Article 2 of the 1954
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons[13] provides that:
Every stateless person has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require
in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for
the maintenance of public order.
Reciprocally, although not a national of the State in which he finds himself, a stateless
person is not entirely without right and protection. Under the same Convention,[14] a
stateless person shall be accorded the same treatment at least as favorable as that
accorded to the nationals of the State with respect to freedom to practice their religion and
freedom as regards the religious education of their children.[15] A stateless person shall
also be accorded the same treatment granted to a national of the country of his habitual
residence with respect to rights to artistic rights and industrial property, free access to
courts, rationing, elementary education, and public relief and assistance.[16] A stateless
person shall also be accorded the same treatment which shall be as favorable as possible
and, in any event, not less favorable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same
circumstances with respect to rights to movable and immovable property, right of

association, wage-earning employment, liberal professions, housing, and freedom of

movement.[17]
Aiming to reduce statelessness by international agreement, the 1961 Convention on
the Reduction of Statelessness[18] has adopted the following measures to prevent
statelessness:
A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would
otherwise be stateless. (Article 1)
A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person, not born in the territory of a
Contracting State, who would otherwise be stateless, if the nationality of one of his parents
at the time of the persons birth was that of that State. (Article 4)
The Right to Nationality in International Law
Since nationality is the legal bond between a State and an individual, such bond is not
possible without the consent of the State. Such consent may be manifested by a State in
several ways:
1.

Expressly, through a municipal law that confers nationality upon a

foundling;

2.

Expressly, through an international convention or treaty where a State

assumes the obligation to confer its nationality upon foundlings in its
territory; or

3.

Impliedly, through a rule of customary international law that imposes an

obligation on the State to confer its nationality upon foundlings in its
territory.

This article focuses only on conferment of nationality on foundlings either by way of an

obligation assumed under an international convention or imposed by an international
custom or norm. However, the examination of municipal laws that confer nationality upon
foundlings is still relevant as evidence of a general practice accepted as law, i.e., an
international custom.[19]
Hence, under International Law, the right of a foundling to nationality can be based on
international conventions or on international customs, both of which are considered to be
sources of International Law pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute).[20]
The Right to Nationality in Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[21] which was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948, has codified nationality as a
human right.[22]Article 15 of the Declaration reads:
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his
nationality.
As to the binding nature of resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly, Professor Ian
Brownlie expresses the view that these resolutions, in general, are not binding on member

States. He adds, however, that when the resolutions are concerned with general norms of
international law, then acceptance by a majority vote constitutes evidence of the opinions
of governments in the widest forum for the expression of such opinions.[23]
As a mere resolution of the General Assembly, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is not per se legally binding. There is, however, a view that since 1948 the
Declaration has become binding as a new rule of Customary International Law.
[24] Paragraph 2 of theProclamation of Teheran,[25] which was adopted by the
International Conference on Human Rights held in Iran in 1968 declares: The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights states a common understanding of the peoples of
the world concerning the inalienable and inviolable rights of all members of the
human family and constitutes an obligation for the members of the
international community.
In 1959, the Declaration on the Rights of the Child[26] was proclaimed by the U.N.
General Assembly through its Resolution 1386(XIV) of 20 November 1959. It contains a
more emphatic provision on the right to nationality as applied to children as it makes it an
entitlement of a child from birth. Principle 3 of the Declaration reads:
The child shall be entitled from his birth to a name and a nationality.
Another resolution of the U.N. General Assembly, the Declaration on Social and Legal
Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children,

[27]

adopted on 3

December 1986, and published on 6 February 1987, also affirms the right to nationality as
applied to children. Article 8 of the said Declaration reads:
The child shall at all times have a name, a nationality and a legal representative. The child
should not, as a result of foster placement, adoption or any alternative regime, be deprived
of his or her name, nationality or legal representative unless the child thereby acquires a
new name, nationality or legal representative.
The Right to Nationality in International Conventions
International conventions or treaties are agreements that establish rules that are expressly
recognized by the parties to them.[28] The Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties[29]defines a treaty as an international agreement concluded between States in
written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or
in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation.[30]
Since express consent is required for a State to be bound by the rules that international
conventions or treaties establish, States that do not become a party to a particular
convention or treaty cannot be bound by its terms. This principle was explained by the ICJ
in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases[31] where it stated that:
In principle, when a number of States, including the one whose conduct is invoked, and
those invoking it, have drawn up a convention specifically providing for a particular method
by which the intention to become bound by the rgime of the convention is to be
manifested-namely by the carrying out of certain prescribed formalities (ratification,
accession), it is not lightly to be presumed that a State which has not carried out these
formalities, though at all times fully able and entitled to do so, has nevertheless somehow

become bound in another way. Indeed if it were a question not of obligation but of rights,
if, that is to say, a State which, though entitled to do so, had not ratified or acceded,
attempted to claim rights under the convention, on the basis of a declared willingness to be
bound by it, or of conduct evincing acceptance of the conventional rgime, it would simply
be told that, not having become a party to the convention it could not claim any rights
under it until the professed willingness and acceptance had been manifested in the
prescribed form.[32]
The principle is also echoed in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It
states: A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State
without its consent.[33] It adds further: An obligation arises for a third State
from a provision of a treaty if the parties to the treaty intend the provision to
be the means of establishing the obligation and the third State expressly
accepts that obligation in writing.[34]
Therefore, a rule conferring nationality upon foundlings, if established pursuant to an
international convention or treaty, is only binding on States that are parties to the said
convention or treaty. Consequently, foundlings found in States that are not parties to such
an international convention may not compel said States to give them their nationalities.
Thus, the following international conventions that affirm the right of everyone to a
nationality must be understood as binding only on State which are parties to them, either
by ratification, accession, or any other means allowed by the particular convention in
question.
The Council of Europe affirms the right of everyone to a nationality through the European
Convention on Nationality,[35] which it adopted on 6 November 1997 at Strasbourg. It
provides:
Article 4 Principles
The rules on nationality of each State Party shall be based on the following principles:
1.

everyone has the right to a nationality;

2.

statelessness shall be avoided;

3.

no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality;

The Arab States also recognize the right to a nationality. Article 29 of the Arab Charter
on Human Rights,[36] which was adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States
on 22 May 2004, states:
1.

Everyone has the right to nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily or

unlawfully deprived of his nationality.

2.

States parties shall take such measures as they deem appropriate, in

accordance with their domestic laws on nationality, to allow a child to
acquire the mothers nationality, having due regard, in all cases, to the
best interests of the child.

3.

No one shall be denied the right to acquire another nationality, having

due regard for the domestic legal procedures in his country.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) also echoes a similar declaration
which affirms the right to nationality. Article 18 of the ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration,[37] which was adopted on 18 November 2012 at Phnom Penh, Cambodia,
states:
Every person has the right to a nationality as prescribed by law. No person shall be
arbitrarily deprived of such nationality nor denied the right to change that nationality.
The Latin American States also uphold the right to nationality of every person.
The American Convention on Human Rights, Pact of San Jose, Costa
Rica,

[38]

which was adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS) on 22

November 1969, states:

Article 20. Right to Nationality
1.

Every person has the right to a nationality.

2.

Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose
territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.

3.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or of the right to

change it.

The 1995 Commonwealth of Independent States Convention on Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms,[39] which was adopted on 26 May 1995 at Minsk,
Belarus, also provides that:
Article 24
1.

Everyone shall have the right to citizenship.

2.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his citizenship or of the right to

change it.

In other international conventions, this right to a nationality is guaranteed in a clearer

language, i.e., as the right to acquire a nationality, especially in the case of children.
Article 24(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[40] which
was adopted on 16 December 1966 in New York, affirms that: Every child has the right
to acquire a nationality.
Article 7(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[41] which was adopted on
20 November 1989 in New York, reads:
The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a
name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be
cared for by his or her parents.
Article 7(2) of the same Convention[42] imposes the further obligation upon States
Parties to ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their
national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments
in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

The African States also assert the right of every child to acquire a nationality. The African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child,[43] which was adopted by the
Organization of African Unity on 11 July 1990 at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, states:
Article 6: Name and Nationality
1.

Every child shall have the right from his birth to a name.

2.

Every child shall be registered immediately after birth.

3.

Every child has the right to acquire a nationality.

4.

States Parties to the present Charter shall undertake to ensure that their
Constitutional legislation recognize the principles according to which a
child shall acquire the nationality of the State in the territory of which he
has been born if, at the time of the childs birth, he is not granted
nationality by any other State in accordance with its laws.

The Scope and Meaning of the Right to Nationality

While there is no question about the binding nature of the provisions of international
conventions protecting the right of everyone to a nationality and to acquire a nationality,
the question, however, is the scope of the said provisions and the nature of the obligation
they impose upon the states which are parties to them. Are the said general rights to a
nationality and to acquire a nationality sufficient to impose a binding obligation upon a
state party to confer its nationality upon a foundling in its territory?
In General Comments No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of the Child),[44] the Human
Rights Committee has made the following observations:
Special attention should also be paid, in the context of the protection to be granted to
children, to the right of every child to acquire a nationality, as provided for in article 24,
paragraph 3. While the purpose of this provision is to prevent a child from being afforded
less protection by society and the State because he is stateless, it does not necessarily
make it an obligation for States to give their nationality to every child born in their territory.
In his Guide to the Travaux Prparatoires of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights,[45] Marc Bossuyt made the following observations with
respect to the adoption of the wording of Article 24, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR.
During the ensuing debate, the word acquire was inserted in draft Article 24(3), and the
words from his birth were deleted. Accordingly, the word acquire would infer that
naturalization was not to be considered as a right of the individual but was accorded by the
State at its discretion.[46]
Hence, the general right of everyone to nationality and of every child to acquire a
nationality does not impose an unqualified obligation on the part of a State party to give its
nationality on every child born on its territory.
The same interpretation would apply to all the other international conventions that protect
the right of everyone to nationality and the more specific right of a child to acquire a
nationality, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child which was adopted

after the ICCPR. In fact, Article 7(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides:
States parties shallensure the implementation of these rights in accordance
with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international
instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be
stateless.
Article 7(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child underscores the equal importance
of a States national law and its obligations under the relevant international
instruments in ensuring its implementation of the right of a child to acquire a
nationality, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless. This
obligation is explained by the Human Rights Committee in paragraph 8 of General
Comments No. 17,[47] which reads:
States are required to adopt every appropriate measure, both internally and in
cooperation with other States, to ensure that every child has a nationality when he is born.
In this connection, no discrimination with regard to the acquisition of nationality should be
admissible under internal law as between legitimate children and children born out of
wedlock or of stateless parents or based on the nationality status of one or both of the
parents. The measures adopted to ensure that children have a nationality should always
be referred to in reports by States parties.
International Conventions that Specifically Apply to Foundlings
While the international conventions cited above deal with the right to nationality as applied
to anyone or any person, or to children in general, there are several international
conventions that contain specific provisions that apply to foundlings and their right to a
nationality.
The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the
Conflict of Nationality Laws[48] provides:
Article 14. A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. If the childs parentage is established, its nationality shall be determined
by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.
A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of
the State in which it was found.
Article 15. Where the nationality of a State is not acquired automatically by reason of birth
on its territory, a child born on the territory of that State of parents having no nationality, or
of unknown nationality, may obtain the nationality of the said State. The law of that State
shall determine the conditions governing the acquisition of its nationality in such cases.
The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,[49] on the other
hand, contains the following provisions:
Article 1

1.

A Contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its

territory who would otherwise be stateless. Such nationality shall be
granted:

(a) at birth, by operation of law, or

(b) upon an application being lodged with the appropriate authority, by or on behalf of the
person concerned, in the manner prescribed by the national law. Subject to the provisions
of paragraph 2 of this article, no such application may be rejected.
A Contracting State which provides for the grant of its nationality in accordance with
subparagraph (b) of this paragraph may also provide for the grant of its nationality by
operation of law at such age and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the
national law.
Article 2
A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, be considered to have been born within that territory of parents possessing the
nationality of that State.
Article 12
1.

In relation to a Contracting State which does not, in accordance with the

provisions of paragraph 1 of article 1 or of article 4 of this Convention,
grant its nationality at birth by operation of law, the provisions of
paragraph 1 of article 1 or of article 4, as the case may be, shall apply to
persons born before as well as to persons born after the entry into force of
this Convention.

2.

The provisions of paragraph 4 of article 1 of this Convention shall apply

to persons born before as well as to persons born after its entry into force.

3.

The provisions of article 2 of this Convention shall apply only to

foundlings found in the territory of a Contracting State after the entry into
force of the Convention for that State.

The European Convention on Nationality[50] also provides:

Article 6 Acquisition of Nationality
1 Each State Party shall provide in its internal law for its nationality to be acquired ex
lege by the following persons:
1.

children one of whose parents possesses, at the time of the birth of

these children, the nationality of that State Party, subject to any
exceptions which may be provided for by its internal law as regards
children born abroad. With respect to children whose parenthood is
established by recognition, court order or similar procedures, each State
Party may provide that the child acquires its nationality following the
procedure determined by its internal law;

2.

foundlings found in its territory who would otherwise be stateless.

The Covenant on the Rights of the Child in Islam,[51] which was adopted by the
32nd Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers in Sanaa, Republic of Yemen in June 2005,
states:
Article Seven Identity
1.

A child shall, from birth, have right to a good name, to be registered with
authorities concerned, to have his nationality determined and to know
his/her parents, all his/her relatives and foster mother.

2.

States Parties to the Covenant shall safeguard the elements of the childs
identity, including his/her name, nationality, and family relations in
accordance with their domestic laws and shall make every effort to
resolve the issue of statelessness for any child born on their territories or
to any of their citizens outside their territory.

3.

The child of unknown descent or who is legally assimilated to this status

shall have the right to guardianship and care but without adoption. He
shall have a right to a name, title and nationality.

The Right to Nationality in Customary International Law

The Charter of the United Nations[52] acknowledges the existence of customary
international law through Article 38(1)(b) of the ICJ Statute, which is incorporated into the
Charter by Article 92 thereof. It states:
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with International Law such
disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply international custom, as evidence of a
general practice accepted as law.[53]
Being a general practice accepted as law, a rule of customary international Law requires
the presence of a State practice (usus) and the belief that such practice is obligatory as a
matter of law or juridical necessity (opinio juris sive necesitatis). Opinio juris was
described by Professor Brownlie as a sense of legal obligation, as opposed to
motives of courtesy, fairness, or morality.
We will now turn to examine if there is evidence of practice that States adhere to, out of a
sense of legal obligation (opinio juris), that is sufficient to maintain that the obligation of a
State to give its nationality upon a foundling born or found on its territory has crystallized
into a rule of customary international law.
State practice in the form of having municipal laws granting nationality on foundlings in
their territories has been found in the following States:
1.

United States of America Section 301(f) of its Immigration and

Nationality Act,[54] also known as the Foundling Statute, provides:

SEC. 301. The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five
years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born
in the United States;
1.

Canada The Citizenship Act[55] provides:

Section 3, Par. 4. (1) For the purposes of paragraph 3(1) (a), every person who, before
apparently attaining the age of seven years, was found as a deserted child in Canada shall
be deemed to have been born in Canada, unless the contrary is proved within seven years
from the date the person was found.
1.

Austria The Nationality Act of 1985[56] provides that:

Article 8. (1) Until proof to the contrary, a person under the age of six months found on the
territory of the Republic is regarded as national by descent.
1.

Bulgaria The Law for the Bulgarian Citizenship[57] provides:

Art. 11. Considered born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a child found on this
territory, whose parents are unknown.
1.

Croatia The Law on Croatian Citizenship[58] provides:

Article 7. A child who was born or found on the territory of the Republic of Croatia shall
acquire Croatian citizenship if both of his or her parents are unknown or are persons
whose citizenship is unknown or are stateless persons. The child shall lose Croatian
citizenship if by time he or she is fourteen it shall be determined that both of his or her
parents are foreign citizens.
1.

Denmark The Danish Nationality Act[59] provides:

Article 1(2) A child found abandoned in Denmark will, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, be considered a Danish national.
1.

Finland Section 12 of its Nationality Act of 2003[60] provides:

Section 12. Foundlings and children of parents with unknown citizenship

A foundling who is found in Finland is considered to be a Finnish citizen as long as he or
she has not been established as a citizen of a foreign State. If the child has been
established as a citizen of a foreign State only after he or she has reached the age of five,
the child retains Finnish citizenship, however.
1.

Greece The Greek Nationality Code[61] states:

Article 1(2). A person born on Greek territory shall acquire the Greek nationality by birth,
provided that such person does not acquire any foreign nationality by birth or is of
unknown nationality.
1.

Hungary The ACT LV of 1993 on Hungarian Citizenship[62] states:

Section 3(3) Until proven to the contrary, the following persons shall be recognized as
Hungarian citizens:
1.

b) children born of unknown parents and found in Hungary.

2.

Italy The Law No. 91 of 1992[63] provides:

Article 1(2). The child of unknown parents who is found abandoned in the territory of the
Republic shall, unless possession of another citizenship is proved, be deemed citizen by
birth.
1.

Spain The Spanish Civil Code[64] provides that:

Article 17. The following persons are Spaniards by birth:

1.

d) Those born in Spain of uncertain filiation. For these purposes, minors

whose first known place of existence is in Spanish territory shall be
presumed born within Spanish territory.

2.

Sweden The Act on Swedish Citizenship[65] provides:

Section 2 Any foundling discovered in Sweden shall be considered to be a Swedish citizen

until any indication to the contrary is discovered.
1.

United Kingdom The British Nationality Act of 1981[66] states:

(2) A new-born infant who, after commencement, is found abandoned in the United
Kingdomshall, unless the contrary is shown, be deemed for the purposes of subsection
(1)(a) to have been born in the United Kingdom after commencement; and
(b) to have been born to a parent who at the time of the birth was a British citizen or settled
in the United Kingdom.
1.

India Section 3(1) of its Citizenship Act of 1955[67] states:

2.

Citizenship by birth

(1) Except as provided in sub-section (2), every person born in India,

(a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950.
Mere birth in India, even if both the parents are unknown, is sufficient.[68]
1.

Sri Lanka Its Citizenship Act of 1948[69] provides:

2.

Foundlings

Every person first found in Ceylon as a newly born deserted infant of unknown and
unascertainable parentage shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have the
status of a citizen of Ceylon by descent.
1.

South Korea Article 2, paragraph 2 of its Nationality Law[70] reads:

Article 2. Attainment of Nationality by Birth

(1) A person falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be a national of the
Republic of Korea at birth:
3.

A person who was born in the Republic of Korea, if both of the persons
parents are unknown or have no identity.

(2) An abandoned child found in the Republic of Korea shall be recognized as born in the
Republic of Korea.
1.

Egypt

Its

Law

No.

26

of

1975

Concerning

Egyptian

Nationality[71] provides:
Article 2: Shall be considered Egyptians:
4.

Those who were born in Egypt of unknown parents. A foundling in Egypt

shall be considered as born in it, unless otherwise proved.

5.

Iraq Its Law No. (46) of 1963[72] provides:

Article 4: Shall hereby deemed to be an Iraqi National:

3.

Every person in Iraq of unknown parents. The foundling who is found in

Iraq, shall be deemed to be born there unless there shall be an evidence
against it.

4.

Kuwait Its Nationality Law of 1959[73] provides:

Article 3. Kuwaiti nationality is acquired by any person born in Kuwait whose parents are
unknown. A foundling is deemed to have been born in Kuwait unless the contrary is
proved.
1.

Mozambique Its Nationality Act of 1975[74] states:

Article 1
1.

The following shall be Mozambican nationals, provided they are born in

Mozambique:

(b) Persons born of stateless parents or parents of unknown nationality or of unknown

parents;
1.

Algeria The Nationality Law of 1970[75] states that:

Article 7. The following are of Algerian nationality by birth in Algeria:

(1) the child born in Algeria of unknown parents;
However, the child born in Algeria of unknown parents shall not be considered to have ever
been Algerian if, before he comes of age, it is established that he is also of foreign descent
and if he possesses the nationality of his foreign parent in accordance with the law of that
country.

Any foundling found in Algeria is considered to be born in Algeria until the contrary has
been proved.
1.

Belize The Nationality Act of 1981[76] provides:

2.

Foundlings.

Every person first found in Belize as a newly born deserted infant of unknown and
unascertainable parentage shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have the
status of a citizen of Belize by descent.
1.

The

following

post-Communist

States

in

Europe

also

grant

exceptional jus solicitizenship for children of unknown parents, found in

the territory, particularly: Albania, Bosnia H., Czech Republic, Estonia,
FRY/Serbia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia, and Slovenia.[77]
The above shows that there is a big corpus of domestic statutes granting citizenship on
foundlings. However, whether it satisfies the state practice requirement of customary
international law is an entirely different question.
The State practice, to establish a rule of customary international law, must be extensive,
virtually uniform, and show a general recognition that a rule of law or legal obligation is
involved. As stated by the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental
Shelfcases:
Although the passage of only a short period of time is not necessarily, or of itself, a bar to
the formation of a new rule of customary international law on the basis of what was
originally a purely conventional rule, an indispensable requirement would be that within the
period in question, short though it might be, State practice, including that of States whose
interests are specially affected, should have been both extensive and virtually uniform in
the sense of the provision invoked; and should moreover have occurred in such a way as
to show a general recognition that a rule of law or legal obligation is involved.[78]
However, perfect uniformity in the application of the practice is not really necessary. In
theCase Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against
Nicaragua[79] when it examined the customary nature of the principles of non-use of
force and non-intervention, the ICJ stated that:
It is not to be expected that in the practice of States the application of the rules in question
should have been perfect, in the sense that States should have refrained, with complete
consistency, from the use of force or from intervention in each others internal affairs. The
Court does not consider that, for a rule to be established as customary, the corresponding
practice must be in absolutely rigorous conformity with the rule. In order to deduce the
existence of customary rules, the Court deems it sufficient that the conduct of States
should, in general, be consistent with such rules, and that instances of State conduct
inconsistent with a given rule should generally have been treated as breaches of that rule,
not as indications of the recognition of a new rule. If a State acts in a way prima facie
incompatible with a recognized rule, but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or

justifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or not the States conduct is in
fact justifiable on that basis, the significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to
weaken the rule.[80]
The ICJ also emphasized the necessity of opinio juris in several decisions. In the North
Sea Continental Shelf cases, it observed:
Not only must the acts concerned amount to a settled practice, but they must also be
such, or be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a belief that this practice is
rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of law requiring it. The need for such a
belief, i.e., the existence of a subjective element, is implicit in the very notion of the opinio
juris sive necessitatis. The States concerned must therefore feel that they are
conforming to what amounts to a legal obligation. The frequency, or even habitua1
character of the acts is not in itself enough. There are many international acts, e.g., in the
field of ceremonial and protocol, which are performed almost invariably, but which are
motivated only by considerations of courtesy, convenience or tradition, and not by any
sense of legal duty.[81]
While the State practice of conferring nationality on foundlings is sufficiently dense and
extensive, it does not appear to be virtually uniform.
A number of States give their citizenship on foundlings found in their territory without
requiring that the foundling must have been born in their territory. Some States, on the
other hand, require that a foundling be born in their territory in strict application of the
principle of jus soli. But some States implement a presumption that foundlings are
deemed to have been born in their territory unless the contrary is proved.
Other States implementing such presumption impose a period within which such
presumption can be rebutted, and that after such period and there is no evidence against
it, then the presumption becomes conclusive. An example of this is Finland, where a
foundling retains Finnish citizenship if established as a citizen of another State only after
he or she has reached the age of five.[82] Another example is Canada that considers a
deserted child to have been born in Canada, unless the contrary is proved within seven
years from the date the person was found.[83]
Some States also implement an age requirement on foundlings as a condition for giving its
citizenship. For example, the United States requires that foundlings were under the age of
five years at the time they were found.[84] Canada requires that the foundling be found
before apparently reaching the age of seven years.[85] Austria requires that a foundling
be found under the age of six months.[86] The United Kingdom, on the other hand,
requires that the foundling was a new-born infant at the time it was found.[87] This reflects
the understanding of some States that a foundling must be an infant or a very young child.
Therefore, the practice of States of giving nationality to foundlings found in their territory is
not sufficiently uniform and consistent enough to constitute a rule of customary
international law. There is also no clear evidence of opinio juris that States feel a sense
of legal obligation to confer their nationality on foundlings found in their territory.
The Right to Nationality as a Customary Rule of International Law Derived from
Treaties

Some treaties known as law-making treaties (trait-loi) may also establish norms which,
when coupled with opinio juris, result to rules of customary international law that become
binding not only on the parties to the treaty, but also on non-parties. Article 38 of the
Vienna Convention provides: Nothing in articles 34 to 37 precludes a rule set forth
in a treaty from becoming binding upon a third State as a customary rule of
international law, recognized as such.
In the ILA Report (London Principles),[88] the International Law Association
summarized the case law on the role of treaties in the formation of customary international
law:
1.

A treaty may provide evidence of existing (lex lata) customary law;[89]

2.

Multilateral treaties can provide the impulse or model for the formation
of new customary rules through State practice.[90]

3.

Multilateral treaties can assist in the crystallization of emerging rules

of customary international law.[91]

4.

A multilateral treaty may give rise to new customary rules (or to assist in
their creation) of its own impact if it is widely adopted by States and it is
the clear intention of the parties to create new customary law.[92]

Treaties can, therefore, play an important role in the crystallization of emerging norms as
binding international customs or at least to affirm their existence. In the North Sea
Continental Shelf cases, the ICJ also recognized the norm-creating nature of treaties,
as one of the recognized methods of establishing international customs, holding that:
There is no doubt that this process is a perfectly possible one and does from time to time
occur: it constitutes indeed one of the recognized methods by which new rules of
customary international law may be formed.[93]
The ICJ, however, also declared that in order to become an international custom, the
provision of a treaty in question must be:
a norm-creating provision which has constituted the foundation of, or has generated a rule
which, while only conventional or contractual in its origin, has since passed into the
general corpus of international law, and is now accepted as such by the opinio juris, so as
to have become binding even for countries which have never, and do not, become parties
to the Convention.[94]
The relevant treaty provisions that specifically give foundlings the right to the nationality of
the State where they are found state provide the following:
1.

A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. (Art. 14, 1930 Hague Convention)[95];

2.

A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born
on the territory of the State in which it was found. (Art. 14, 1930 Hague
Convention)[96];

3.

A foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the

absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within

that territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State. (Art.

2, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness)[97];
4.

Each State Party shall provide in its internal law for its nationality to be
acquired ex legeby foundlings found in its territory who would otherwise
be stateless. ( 6, European Convention on Nationality)[98]

For the said treaty provisions to be binding on States, which are not parties to said
conventions as norms of customary international law, said provisions must fulfill the said
standards set by the ICJ.
The 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws entered into force on 1 July 1937 by virtue of the ratification or accessions of ten
States.[99]As of this writing, only twenty-two States are parties to the Convention, namely
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma (Myanmar), China, Cyprus, Fiji, Great Britain, India,
Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Malta, Mauritius, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan,
Poland, Swaziland, Sweden, and Zimbabwe.

[100]

Canada previously ratified the Convention

in 1934 but subsequently denounced it 15 May 1996.[101]

The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness entered into force on 13
December 1975 and has sixty-four States parties as of this writing.[102] However, while it
has more parties, its provision on foundlings (Article 2) cannot be said to reflect existing
rules of customary law. Article 12(3) of the Convention states that the provisions of Article
2 shall apply only to foundlings found in the territory of a Contracting State after the entry
into force of the Convention for that State. That being the case, the provision on foundlings
contained in Article 2 of the Convention neither provides evidence of existing customary
law nor assists in the crystallization of rules of customary international law. The said
provision creates a purely conventional or treaty obligation that is referable only to the
Convention.
Moreover, not having been widely adopted by States, the said provision cannot give rise to
a new rule (lex ferenda) of customary international law or assist in its creation of its own
impact.
The same things can be said of the provision on the nationality of foundlings in Article 6 of
the European Convention on Nationality, which entered into force on 1 March 2000. While
the Convention is also open to non-members of the Council of Europe, the Convention, as
of this writing, has been signed by twenty-nine States, but has been ratified by only twenty
of those States.[103] From the very wordings of Article 6, the obligation of a State Party to
give its nationality to foundlings found in its territory who would otherwise be stateless shall
be provided in its internal law. Evidently, it is an obligation that a State assumes within the
context of the Convention, and not arising from a belief that it is rendered obligatory by the
existence of a rule of customary international law requiring it.
Conclusion
While the right to nationality is declared as a fundamental human right by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and some international conventions, its specific application
on foundlings is still a matter of State prerogative and discretion. A State has the exclusive

prerogative to determine who its citizens are, which may be limited only by international
obligations that the State itself has assumed in International Law.
Some States already give their nationality to foundlings found in their territory ex lege.
However, there is no indication that such practice is done out of a sense of legal obligation,
or in recognition of what States believe to be a rule of customary international law.
The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness has implemented
provisions to secure the right of foundlings to a nationality, and impose an obligation on
States to ensure its observance by giving their nationality on foundlings found on their
territory. However, being a mere treaty or conventional obligation, the same is binding only
upon States which are parties to the Convention. Furthermore, not having been generally
accepted by States, it cannot be lightly assumed that its provisions on foundlings have
crystallized into the establishment of an obligation that exists outside of the Convention as
a matter of general practice accepted as law.
Absent a national law or an international convention where a State has agreed to assume
an obligation to confer its nationality on a foundling found in its territory, the right of a
foundling to nationality cannot be enforced by an action against the State. It is not a right
that enforces itself by its own inherent value.
Thus, the right of foundlings to a nationality will just be an empty rhetoric unless States
accord it due respect and take measures, internally and internationally, to implement the
right. Foundlings in States that have no national laws, and which are not parties to
international conventions, that give foundlings their nationality may, therefore, find
themselves stateless, and International Law affords no remedy.
Endnotes:
[1] Dean, University of St. La Salle College of Law; Author: Public International Law Bar
Reviewer; MCLE Lecturer & Bar Reviewer on Public International Law
[2] European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship, The EUDO Glossary on
Citizenship

and

Nationality,

available

at http://eudo-

citizenship.eu/databases/citizenship-glossary/glossary [accessed on September 7,

2015]
[3] H.C. Black, Blacks Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979)
[4] Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1989
[5] Ibid.
[6] Boleslaw A. Boczek, International Law: A Dictionary, Scarecrow Press Inc., 2005,
p. 188
[7] See the European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenships Glossary
Citizenship

or

Nationality?

available

at http://eudo-

citizenship.eu/databases/citizenship-glossary/terminology [accessed
September 7, 2015], which makes the following discussion about Russia:

on

While modern international law uses the term nationality to refer to the legal bond
between an individual and a sovereign state, Russian domestic law uses the term
citizenship (grazdanstvo ). According to Russian legislation there is striking
difference between citizenship (grazdanstvo ) and nationality (nationalnost
). In consequence, in the Russian context the term citizenship cannot be used as
a synonym for nationality.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation distinguishes between these two legal
definitions. Thus, under Article 6 of the Russian Constitution citizenship (grazdanstvo
) of the Russian Federation shall be acquired and terminated according to federal
law; it shall be one and equal, irrespective of the grounds of acquisition (Article 6 (1); a
citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deprived of his or her citizenship
(grazdanstvo ) or of the right to change it (Article 6 (3). At the same time, with
regard to Article 26 (1) of the Russian Constitution the term nationality (nationalnost
) is associated with the ethnicity of the person: Everyone shall have the right to
determine and indicate his nationality (nationalnost ). No one may be forced to
determine and indicate his or her nationality (nationalnost ). As a result, in the
Russian language, the term nationality (nationalnost ) refers to individual
membership in a nation () as a cultural, linguistic and historic community.
[8] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December
1948, 217 A (III)
[9] Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala); Second Phase, International
Court of Justice (ICJ), 6 April 1955
[10] League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict
of Nationality Law, 13 April 1930, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89, No.
4137
[11] Jus soli literally means right of the soil.
[12] UN General Assembly, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless
Persons, 28 September 1954, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 360, p. 117
[13] Supra.
[14] Supra.
[15] Ibid., Art. 4
[16] Ibid., Articles 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23
[17] Ibid., Articles 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 26
[18] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30
August 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 989, p. 175
[19] Article 38, paragraph 1(b), Statute of the International Court of Justice, 18 April
1946
[20] See Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, at p. 3 (Fifth Ed. 1998)
[21] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December
1948, 217 A (III)

[22] Ren de Groot, Survey on Rules on Loss of Nationality in International Treaties and
Case Law, CEPS Papers in Liberty and Security in Europe, No. 57/August 2013, available
at:http://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/16514111.pdf [Accessed on August 20, 2015]
[23] Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, at p. 14 (Fifth Ed. 1998)
[24] L. Malone, International Law, Emanuel Publishing Corporation, 1998, at p. 118
[25] Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human
Rights, Teheran, 22 April to 13 May 1968, U.N. Doc. A/CONF. 32/41 at 3 (1968)
[26] UN General Assembly, Declaration of the Rights of the Child, 20 November
1959, A/RES/1386(XIV)
[27] UN General Assembly, Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to
the Protection and Welfare of Children, with special reference to Foster
Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally : resolution / adopted
by the General Assembly, 6 February 1987, A/RES/41/85
[28] ICJ Statute, Art. 38(1)(a)
[29] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. 1155, p. 331
[30] Vienna Convention, Article 2(1)(a)
[31] ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.
Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), I.C.J. Reports 1969, p.3,
International Court of Justice (ICJ), 20 February 1969
[32] Id. at par. 28
[33] Vienna Convention, supra., Art. 34
[34] Id., Art. 35
[35] Council of Europe, European Convention on Nationality, 6 November 1997,
CETS 166
[36] League of Arab States, Arab Charter on Human Rights, 12 Intl Hum. Rts. Rep.
893, May 22, 2004
[37] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration, 18 November 2012
[38] Organization of American States (OAS), American Convention on Human
Rights, Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969
[39] Regional Treaties, Agreements, Declarations and Related, Commonwealth of
Independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
26 May 1995
[40] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16
December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171
[41] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November
1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3
[42] Supra
[43] Organization of African Unity (OAU), African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child, 11 July 1990, CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990)
[44] UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR General Comment No. 17: Article
24 (Rights of the Child), 7 April 1989

[45] M.J. Bossuyt, Guide to the Travaux Prparatoires of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987
[46] Id. at pp. 466-467
[47] General Comments No. 17, supra., par. 8
[48] League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict
of Nationality Law, 13 April 1930, League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 179, p. 89, No.
4137
[49] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 30
August 1961, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 989, p. 175
[50] Supra
[51] Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Covenant on the Rights of the
Child in Islam, June 2005, OIC/9-IGGE/HRI/2004/Rep.Final
[52] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI
[53] ICJ Statute, Article 38(1)(b)
[54] Title

III,

Chapter

1,

301,

U.S.C.

1401,

available

athttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 [accessed 7 September 2015]

[55] Canada: Citizenship Act [Canada], R.S., 1985, c. C-29, 10 July 1985, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/48106cf72.html %5Baccessed 12

September

2015]
[56] Austria: Federal Law Concerning the Austrian Nationality (Nationality Act
1985,

available

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b52114.html %5Baccessed 22

September

1985)

(last

amended

2006) [Austria], 30

July

2015]
[57] Law

for

the

Bulgarian

2013) [Bulgaria], 5

Citizenship

(last

November

amended

1998,

February
available

at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/49622ef32.html %5Baccessed 10

September

2015]
[58] Law on Croatian Citizenship (last amended 1993), 26 June 1991, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4dc14.html %5Baccessed 10

September

2015]
[59] Act

on

the

Acquisition

of

Danish

Nationality

(amended

to

2004) [Denmark], Consolidated Act No. 113 of 20 February 2003, with the amendments
following

from

Act

No.

311

of

May

2004,

June

2004,

at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4e5cf36d2.html %5Baccessed10

available
September

2015]
[60] Nationality

Act

(359/2003) [Finland], 359/2003, 1

June

2003,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b51614.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[61] Greek Nationality Code [Greece], Law 3284/2004, 10 November 2004, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c90edcf2.html %5Baccessed 12
2015]

September

[62] Act LV of 1993 on Hungarian Citizenship [Hungary], 1 October 1993, available

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4e630.html %5Baccessed 12

September

2015]
[63]Italian

Parliament, Law

No.

91

or

1992,

15

August

1992,

available

athttp://www.culture.gouv.fr/entreelibre/Laurette/country/italytxt.html [accessed
12 September 2015]
[64] Civil Code of Spain (as approved by Royal Decree of 24 July 1889), available
athttp://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=221319 [accessed 12 September
2015]
[65] Swedish Citizenship Act (with amendments up to and including SFS
2006:222) [Sweden], 30

April

2006,

available

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/4e6628972.html %5Baccessed 12

September

2015]
[66] British Nationality Act 1981, 1981 Chapter 61, 30 October 1981, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5b08.html %5Baccessed 12

September

2015]
[67] India: Act No. 57 of 1955, Citizenship Act, 1955, 30 December 1955, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b57b8.html %5Baccessed 7

September

2015]
[68] Ko Swan Sik, Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, 1990, at p. 77
Act [], 15

[69] Citizenship

November

1948,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b50414.html %5Baccessed 21

available
September

2015]
[70] Republic of Korea: Law No. 16 of 1948, Nationality Act (last amended
2010) [Republic

of

Korea], 20

December

1948,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3fc1d8ca2.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[71] Law No. 26 of 1975 Concerning Egyptian Nationality [], Official Journal No. 22,
29

May

1975, 29

May

1975,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4e218.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[72] Law

No.

(46)

of

1963

Iraqi

Nationality,1963,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ec38.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[73] Nationality

Law,

1959,

1959,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4ef1c.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[74] Nationality

Act, 25

June

1975,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5238.html %5Baccessed 7
2015]

available
September

[75] Law No. 1970-86, 15 December 1970, Nationality Law, 18 December 1970,
available

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b4d714.html %5Baccessed 7

September 2015]
[76] Belizean

Nationality

Act

1981,

28

November

1981,

at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b50ac.html %5Baccessed 7

available
September

2015]
[77] Costica Dumbrava, Citizenship Policies in Eastern Europe: Acquisition and
Loss of Citizenship in Sixteen Post Communist Countries (2007), at p. 31,
available

athttp://www.etd.ceu.hu/2007/dumbrava_costica.pdf [accessed

on

September 2015]
[78] ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra., at par. 74
[79] Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against
Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America); Merits, International Court of
Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986
[80] Id., par. 186
[81] ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra., at par. 77
[82] Nationality Act (359/2003) [Finland], 359/2003, supra.
[83] Canada: Citizenship Act [Canada], R.S., 1985, c. C-29, 10 July 1985, supra.
[84] Title III, Chapter 1, 301, 8 U.S.C. 1401
[85] Canada: Citizenship Act [Canada], R.S., 1985, c. C-29, 10 July 1985, supra.
[86] Austria: Federal Law Concerning the Austrian Nationality (Nationality Act
1985), supra.
[87] British Nationality Act 1981, 1981 Chapter 61, 30 October 1981, available
at:http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5b08.html %5Baccessed 12

September

2015]
[88] International Law Association, Final Report of the Committee on Formation of
Customary (General) International Law, Statement of Principle Applicable to
the Formation of General Customary International Law, International Law
Association

London

Conference

2000,

available

at http://www.ila-

hq.org/download.cfm/docid/A709CDEB-92D6-4CFA-A61C4CA30217F376 [access
ed on September 7, 2015]
[89] Id. Section 21
[90] Id. Section 24
[91] Id. Section 26
[92] Id. Section 26
[93] ICJ, North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra., at par. 71
[94] Id.
[95] League of Nations, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict
of Nationality Laws, supra.
[96] Id.
[97] UN General Assembly, Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, supra.
[98] Supra

[99] See Articles 25 & 26, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the
Conflict of Nationality Laws, supra.
[100] United Nations Treaty Collection, Convention on Certain Questions relating to
the Conflict of Nationality Laws, Ratifications or definitive accessions, available
athttps://treaties.un.org/pages/LONViewDetails.aspx?
src=LON&id=512&chapter=30&lang=en[accessed 9 September 2015]
[101] Id.
[102] United Nations Treaty Collection, 1961 Convention on the Reduction of
Statelessness,

available

at

https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?

src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-4&chapter=5&lang=en [accessed 9 September 2015]

[103] Council of Europe Treaty Office, European Convention on Nationality, Status of
Ratifications, available