Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992


国务院


国务院关于加强国民经济和社会发展规划编制工作的若干意见

国发〔2005〕 33 号


各省、自治区、直辖市人民政府，国务院各部委、各直属机构：
　　国民经济和社会发展规划是国家加强和改善宏观调控的重要手段，也是政府履行经济调节、市场监管、社会管理和公共服务职责的重要依据。科学编制并组织实施国民经济和社会发展规划，有利于合理有效地配置公共资源，引导市场发挥资源配置的基础性作用，促进国民经济持续快速协调健康发展和社会全面进步。为推进国民经济和社会发展规划编制工作的规范化、制度化，提高规划的科学性、民主性，更好地发挥规划在宏观调控、政府管理和资源配置中的作用，现提出以下意见：
　　一、建立健全规划体系
　　（一）建立三级三类规划管理体系。国民经济和社会发展规划按行政层级分为国家级规划、省（区、市）级规划、市县级规划；按对象和功能类别分为总体规划、专项规划、区域规划。
　　国家总体规划和省（区、市）级、市县级总体规划分别由同级人民政府组织编制，并由同级人民政府发展改革部门会同有关部门负责起草；专项规划由各级人民政府有关部门组织编制；跨省（区、市）的区域规划，由国务院发展改革部门组织国务院有关部门和区域内省（区、市）人民政府有关部门编制。
　　（二）明确总体规划、专项规划和区域规划的定位。总体规划是国民经济和社会发展的战略性、纲领性、综合性规划,是编制本级和下级专项规划、区域规划以及制定有关政策和年度计划的依据，其他规划要符合总体规划的要求。专项规划是以国民经济和社会发展特定领域为对象编制的规划，是总体规划在特定领域的细化，也是政府指导该领域发展以及审批、核准重大项目，安排政府投资和财政支出预算，制定特定领域相关政策的依据。区域规划是以跨行政区的特定区域国民经济和社会发展为对象编制的规划，是总体规划在特定区域的细化和落实。跨省（区、市）的区域规划是编制区域内省（区、市）级总体规划、专项规划的依据。
　　国家总体规划、省（区、市）级总体规划和区域规划的规划期一般为5年，可以展望到10年以上。市县级总体规划和各类专项规划的规划期可根据需要确定。
　　（三）严格编制国家级专项规划的领域。编制国家级专项规划原则上限于关系国民经济和社会发展大局、需要国务院审批和核准重大项目以及安排国家投资数额较大的领域。主要包括：农业、水利、能源、交通、通信等方面的基础设施建设，土地、水、海洋、煤炭、石油、天然气等重要资源的开发保护，生态建设、环境保护、防灾减灾，科技、教育、文化、卫生、社会保障、国防建设等公共事业和公共服务，需要政府扶持或者调控的产业，国家总体规划确定的重大战略任务和重大工程，以及法律、行政法规规定和国务院要求的其他领域。
　　（四）合理确定编制国家级区域规划的范围。国家对经济社会发展联系紧密的地区、有较强辐射能力和带动作用的特大城市为依托的城市群地区、国家总体规划确定的重点开发或保护区域等，编制跨省（区、市）的区域规划。其主要内容包括：对人口、经济增长、资源环境承载能力进行预测和分析，对区域内各类经济社会发展功能区进行划分，提出规划实施的保障措施等。
　　二、完善规划编制的协调衔接机制
　　（五）遵循正确的规划编制原则。坚持以人为本、全面协调可持续的科学发展观；坚持从实际出发，遵循自然规律、经济规律和社会发展规律；坚持科学化、民主化，广泛听取社会各界和人民群众的意见；坚持统筹兼顾，加强各级各类规划之间的衔接和协调；坚持社会主义市场经济体制的改革方向，充分发挥市场配置资源的基础性作用。
　　（六）做好规划编制的前期工作。编制规划前，必须认真做好基础调查、信息搜集、课题研究以及纳入规划重大项目的论证等前期工作，及时与有关方面进行沟通协调。编制国家级专项规划，编制部门要拟订规划编制工作方案，明确规划编制的必要性、衔接单位、论证方式、进度安排和批准机关等，并送有关部门进行协调。需由国务院批准的专项规划，要拟订年度计划，由国务院发展改革部门商有关部门报国务院批准后执行。编制跨省（区、市）区域规划，由国务院发展改革部门会同有关省（区、市）人民政府提出申请，经国务院批准后实施。规划编制工作所需经费，应按照综合考虑、统筹安排的原则，由编制规划的部门商同级财政部门后列入部门预算。
　　（七）强化规划之间的衔接协调。要高度重视规划衔接工作，使各类规划协调一致，形成合力。规划衔接要遵循专项规划和区域规划服从本级和上级总体规划，下级政府规划服从上级政府规划，专项规划之间不得相互矛盾的原则。编制跨省（区、市）区域规划，还要充分考虑土地利用总体规划、城市规划等相关领域规划的要求。
　　省（区、市）级总体规划草案在送本级人民政府审定前，应由省（区、市）发展改革部门送国务院发展改革部门与国家总体规划进行衔接，并送相关的相邻省（区、市）人民政府发展改革部门与其总体规划进行衔接，必要时还应送国务院其他有关部门与国家级专项规划进行衔接。相邻地区间规划衔接不能达成一致意见的，可由国务院发展改革部门进行协调，重大事项报国务院决定。
　　专项规划草案由编制部门送本级人民政府发展改革部门与总体规划进行衔接，送上一级人民政府有关部门与其编制的专项规划进行衔接，涉及其他领域时还应当送本级人民政府有关部门与其编制的专项规划进行衔接。同级专项规划之间衔接不能达成一致意见的，由本级人民政府协调决定。
　　跨省（区、市）的区域规划草案由国务院发展改革部门送国务院其他有关部门与相关专项规划进行衔接。
　　各有关部门要积极配合规划编制部门，认真做好衔接工作，并自收到规划草案之日起30个工作日内，以书面形式向规划编制部门反馈意见。
　　三、建立规划编制的社会参与和论证制度
　　（八）建立健全规划编制的公众参与制度。编制规划要充分发扬民主，广泛听取意见。各级各类规划应视不同情况，征求本级人民政府有关部门和下一级人民政府以及其他有关单位、个人的意见。除涉及国家秘密的外，规划编制部门应当公布规划草案或者举行听证会，听取公众意见。
　　国务院发展改革部门、省（区、市）人民政府发展改革部门在将国家总体规划、省（区、市）级总体规划草案送本级人民政府审定前，要认真听取本级人民代表大会、政治协商会议有关专门委员会的意见，自觉接受指导。
　　（九）实行编制规划的专家论证制度。为充分发挥专家的作用，提高规划的科学性，国务院发展改革部门和省（区、市）人民政府发展改革部门要组建由不同领域专家组成的规划专家委员会，并在规划编制过程中认真听取专家委员会的意见。规划草案形成后，要组织专家进行深入论证。对国家级、省（区、市）级专项规划组织专家论证时，专项规划领域以外的相关领域专家应当不少于1/3。规划经专家论证后，应当由专家出具论证报告。
　　四、加强规划的审批管理
　　（十）规范审批内容。规划编制部门向规划批准机关提交规划草案时应当报送规划编制说明、论证报告以及法律、行政法规规定需要报送的其他有关材料。其中，规划编制说明要载明规划编制过程，征求意见和规划衔接、专家论证的情况以及未采纳的重要意见和理由。
　　（十一）明确审批权限。总体规划草案由各级人民政府报同级人民代表大会审议批准。关系国民经济和社会发展全局、需要国务院审批或者核准重大项目以及安排国家投资数额较大的国家级专项规划，由国务院审批；其他国家级专项规划由国务院有关部门批准，报国务院备案。跨省（区、市）的区域规划由国务院批准。
　　除法律、行政法规另有规定以及涉及国家秘密的外，规划经法定程序批准后应当及时公布。未经衔接或专家论证的规划，不得报请批准和公布实施。
　　五、建立规划的评估调整机制
　　（十二）实行规划评估制度。规划编制部门要在规划实施过程中适时组织开展对规划实施情况的评估，及时发现问题，认真分析产生问题的原因，提出有针对性的对策建议。评估工作可以由编制部门自行承担，也可以委托其他机构进行评估。评估结果要形成报告，作为修订规划的重要依据。有关地区和部门也要密切跟踪分析规划实施情况，及时向规划编制部门反馈意见。
　　（十三）适时对规划进行调整和修订。经评估或者因其他原因需要对规划进行修订的，规划编制部门应当提出规划修订方案（需要报批、公布的要履行报批、公布手续）。总体规划涉及的特定领域或区域发展方向等内容有重大变化的，专项规划或区域规划也要相应调整和修订。
　　各地区、各部门要结合本地区、本部门实际，认真做好贯彻落实工作。要不断总结经验教训，改革规划管理体制，创新规划编制方式，规范规划编制程序，使规划编制工作更好地适应社会主义市场经济体制的要求和经济社会发展的需要。

国务院
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 二○○五年十月二十二日