Nottebohm case

Last updated
Nottebohm Case
(Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)
Seal of the International Court of Justice.png
Court International Court of Justice
Full case nameNottebohm Case (second phase), Judgment of April 6, 1955
DecidedApril 6, 1955 (1955-04-06)
Citation(s)[1955] ICJ 1
Court membership
Judges sitting Green Hackworth, Abdel Badawi Pasha, Jules Basdevant, Milovan Zoričić, Helge Klæstad, John Read, Hsu Mo, Enrique Armand-Ugon, Fyodor Kozhevnikov, Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Lucio Moreno Quintana, Roberto Cordova, Paul Guggenheim (ad hoc), and Carlos García Bauer (ad hoc)
Case opinions
Dissent: Helge Klæstad
Dissent: John Read
Dissent: Paul Guggenheim
Keywords
diplomatic protection

Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) [1955] ICJ 1 [1] is the proper name for the 1955 case adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Liechtenstein sought a ruling to force Guatemala to recognize Friedrich Nottebohm as a Liechtenstein national. [2] The case has been cited in many definitions of nationality.

Contents

Background

Friedrich Nottebohm was born September 16, 1881, in Hamburg, Germany. In 1905, he moved to Guatemala, where he went into business in trade, banking, and plantations with his brothers. The business prospered, and Nottebohm became its head in 1937. Nottebohm would live in Guatemala until 1943 as a permanent resident without ever acquiring Guatemalan citizenship. He would sometimes visit Germany on business, and had friends and relatives in both countries. He also paid a few visits to Liechtenstein to see his brother Hermann, who had moved there in 1931 and became a citizen.

In 1939, Nottebohm again visited Liechtenstein, and on October 9, 1939, shortly after World War II began, he applied for citizenship. His application was approved and he became a citizen. Under German law, he lost his German citizenship. In January 1940, he returned to Guatemala on a Liechtenstein passport and informed the local government of his change of nationality.

Although originally neutral, Guatemala soon sided with the Allies and formally declared war on Germany on December 11, 1941. In spite of his Liechtenstein citizenship, the Guatemalan government treated Nottebohm as a German citizen. As part of a massive program in which the US co-operated with various Latin American countries to intern in the US over 4,000 persons of German ancestry or citizenship, Nottebohm was arrested by the Guatemalan government as an enemy alien in 1943, handed over to a US military base, and transferred to the US, where he was interned until 1946. The Guatemalan government confiscated all his property in the country, and the US government also seized his company's assets in the US. In 1950, the US government returned to the Nottebohm family about half the value of what it had seized. The Guatemalan government held on to his property and returned 16 coffee plantations to his family only in 1962, after he had died. [3] After his release, he returned to Liechtenstein, where he lived for the rest of his life.

In 1951, the Liechtenstein government, acting on behalf of Nottebohm, brought suit against Guatemala in the International Court of Justice for what it argued was unjust treatment of him and the illegal confiscation of his property. However, the government of Guatemala argued that Nottebohm did not gain Liechtenstein citizenship for the purposes of international law. The court agreed and so stopped the case from continuing.

Judgment

Although the Court stated that it is the sovereign right of all states to determine its own citizens and criteria for becoming one in municipal law, such a process would have to be internationally scrutinized if the question is of diplomatic protection. The Court upheld the principle of effective nationality (the Nottebohm principle): the national must prove a meaningful connection to the state in question. That principle had previously been applied only in cases of dual nationality to determine the nationality that should be used in a given case. The court ruled that Nottebohm's naturalization as a citizen of Liechtenstein had not been based on any genuine link with that country, but for the sole purpose of enabling him to replace his status as the national of a belligerent state with that of a neutral state in a time of war. The Court held that Liechtenstein was not entitled to take up his case and put forward an international claim on his behalf against Guatemala: [4] [5]

Naturalization was asked for not so much for the purpose of obtaining a legal recognition of Nottebohm's membership in fact in the population of Liechtenstein, as it was to enable him to substitute for his status as a national of a belligerent State that of a national of a neutral State, with the sole aim of thus coming within the protection of Liechtenstein but not of becoming wedded to its traditions, its interests, its way of life or of assuming the obligations-other than fiscal obligations-and exercising the rights pertaining to the status thus acquired. Guatemala is under no obligation to recognize a nationality granted in such circumstances. Liechtenstein consequently is not entitled to extend its protection to Nottebohm vis-à-vis Guatemala and its claim must, for this reason, be held to be inadmissible.

Criticism

The ruling came under scrutiny due to the implication that a person could be left without any effective nationality. While applying such a standard in cases of dual nationality would still leave a person eligible for diplomatic protection from one state, Nottebohm was not a citizen of any country other than Liechtenstein at the time, and the ruling implied he may not have been an effective national of any country, though it's unclear if Nottebohm was treated as a dual national due to his long-term residence in Guatemala or previous links to Germany. The International Law Commission noted that in an age of globalization and large-scale migration, this standard has the potential of creating an underclass of millions of people lacking any diplomatic protection, as "there are millions of persons who have drifted away from their state of nationality and made their lives in states whose nationality they never acquire, or have acquired from birth and descent from states with which they have a tenuous connection." [6]

See also

Notes

  1. "Liechtenstein v Guatemala - Nottebohm - Judgment of 6 April 1955 - Second Phase - Judgments [1955] ICJ 1; ICJ Reports 1955, p 4; [1955] ICJ Rep 4 (6 April 1955)".
  2. 1955 I.C.J. 4
  3. Wojcikiewicz Almeida, Paula and Sorel, Jean-Marc: Latin America and the International Court of Justice: Contributions to International Law
  4. "Cour internationale de Justice - International Court of Justice - Cour internationale de Justice". www.icj-cij.org. Archived from the original on 2017-09-28. Retrieved 2018-03-19.
  5. Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "Refworld - Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala); Second Phase".
  6. Boll, Alfred Michael: Multiple Nationality And International Law, p. 113

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Court of Justice</span> Primary judicial organ of the United Nations

The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

Jurisdiction is the legal term for the legal authority granted to a legal entity to enact justice. In federations like the United States, the concept of jurisdiction applies at multiple levels.

Nationality is the status of belonging to a particular nation, defined as a group of people organized in one country, under one legal jurisdiction, or as a group of people who are united on the basis of culture.

The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of voluntary return to, or re-entry to, their country of origin or of citizenship. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept freedom of movement and is also related to the legal concept of nationality. While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense. It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bancroft Treaties</span>

The Bancroft treaties, also called the Bancroft conventions, were a series of agreements made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries between the United States and other countries. They recognized the right of each party's nationals to become naturalized citizens of the other; and defined circumstances in which naturalized persons were legally presumed to have abandoned their new citizenship and resumed their old one.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Union citizenship</span> Legal right conferred to citizens of EU member states

European Union citizenship is afforded to all nationals of member states of the European Union (EU). It was formally created with the adoption of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, at the same time as the creation of the EU. EU citizenship is additional to, as it does not replace, national citizenship. It affords EU citizens with rights, freedoms and legal protections available under EU law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Master Nationality Rule</span> Consequence of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws

The Master Nationality Rule is a consequence of Article 4 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws of 1930, a treaty ratified by twenty-three parties. This provides that "a State may not afford diplomatic protection to one of its nationals against a state whose nationality such person also possesses".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Austrian nationality law</span> History and regulations of Austrian citizenship

Austrian nationality law details the conditions by which an individual is a national of Austria. The primary law governing these requirements is the Nationality Law, which came into force on 31 July 1985.

<i>Afroyim v. Rusk</i> 1967 United States Supreme Court case

Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court struck down a federal law mandating loss of U.S. citizenship for voting in a foreign election—thereby overruling one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barcelona Traction</span>

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (BTLP) was a Canadian utility company that operated light and power utilities in Catalonia, Spain. It was incorporated on September 12, 1911 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada by Frederick Stark Pearson. The company was developed by Belgian-American engineer Dannie Heineman.

<i>United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran</i>

United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ 1 is a public international law case brought to the International Court of Justice by the United States of America against Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis, where United States diplomatic offices and personnel were seized by militant revolutionaries.

The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981 was a set of obligations and commitments undertaken independently by the United States and Iran to resolve the Iran hostage crisis, brokered by the Algerian government and signed in Algiers on January 19, 1981. The crisis began from the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979, where Iranian students took hostage of present American embassy staff. By this accord and its adherence, 52 American citizens were able to leave Iran. With the two countries unable to settle on mutually agreeable terms, particularly for quantitative financial obligations, Algerian mediators proposed an alternative agreement model - one where each country undertook obligations under the accords independently, rather than requiring both countries to mutually adhere to the same terms under a bilateral agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Greek nationality law</span> History and regulations of Greek citizenship

Nationality law of Greece is based on the principle of jus sanguinis. Greek citizenship may be acquired by descent or through naturalization. Greek law permits dual citizenship. A Greek national is a citizen of the European Union, and therefore entitled to the same rights as other EU citizens.

In international law, diplomatic protection is a means for a state to take diplomatic and other action against another state on behalf of its national whose rights and interests have been injured by that state. Diplomatic protection, which has been confirmed in different cases of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, is a discretionary right of a state and may take any form that is not prohibited by international law. It can include consular action, negotiations with the other state, political and economic pressure, judicial or arbitral proceedings or other forms of peaceful dispute settlement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Romanian nationality law</span> History and regulations of Romanian citizenship

The Romanian nationality law addresses specific rights, duties, privileges, and benefits between Romania and the individual. Romanian nationality law is based on jus sanguinis. Current citizenship policy in Romania is in accordance with the Romanian Citizenship Law, which was adopted by the Romanian Parliament on March 6, 1991, and the Constitution of Romania, which was adopted on November 21, 1991.

<i>Avena</i> case ICJ Court Case

The Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals , more commonly the Avena case, was a case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its judgment of 31 March 2004, the Court found that the United States had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in not allowing legal representation from the Mexican consulate to meet with Mexican citizens arrested and imprisoned for crimes in the United States.

Multiple citizenship is a person's legal status in which the person is at the one time recognized by more than one country under its nationality and citizenship law as a national or citizen of that country. There is no international convention which determines the nationality or citizenship status of a person, which is consequently determined exclusively under national laws, that often conflict with each other, thus allowing for multiple citizenship situations to arise.

<i>Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd</i> International law case between the nations of Belgium and Spain

Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd [1970] ICJ 1 is a public international law case, concerning the abuse of rights.

Roberto Córdova was a Mexican jurist, international judge, and diplomat. Córdova served as a judge for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between 1955 and 1964. He was the second Mexican to serve as an ICJ judge, following Isidro Fabela.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liechtensteiner nationality law</span> History and regulations of Liechtensteiner citizenship

Liechtensteiner nationality law details the conditions by which an individual is a national of Liechtenstein. The primary law governing these requirements is the Law on the Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship, which came into force on 4 January 1934.

References