The ‘Genuine and Effective Link’ stateless, by conferring Malaysian citizenship upon them. In practice, however, the existing s 1(e) test developed by the courts has been applied inconsistently, resulting in both (i) legal uncertainty, and (ii) persons falling within the remit of s 1(e) being excluded from acquiring citizenship. In turn, this perpetuates substantive unfairness by denying such persons the various rights and privileges attached to citizenship despite seemingly satisfying the prerequisite conditions. In addressing this issue, this article has argued for the adoption of the ‘genuine and effective link’ principle developed by the ICJ in Nottebohm as a supplementary element of the s 1(e) test. Such an adoption not only conforms with Parliament’s intent behind the relevant provisions that Malaysian citizenship should be extended to those with a genuine attachment to the country, but also complements (instead of upsets) the caselaw in relation to the existing jus soli/jus sanguinis requirements. Adopting the Nottebohm principle will ensure that applicants who satisfy the s 1(e) requirements acquire citizenship and will remedy the legal uncertainty arising from the inconsistent application of the existing s 1(e) test. A cogent base may be drawn upon by the courts in recognising the principle, of which three sources are identified here: international law, English common law and the domestic practice of acquiring citizenship by naturalisation in the Constitution. As a matter of direct legal transplantation, however, adoption of the Nottebohm principle into Malaysian domestic law simply may not be possible due to an overarching contextual problem. Given that the principle exists at international law in cases concerning diplomatic protection, there is simply no analogue in domestic law allowing for it to take root. Nevertheless, adoption on a policy basis remains a possibility, albeit a very remote one. Only time will tell whether Nottebohm eventually finds its way into Malaysian jurisprudence, but as this article argues, it has much to offer to the wider issue of Malaysia’s citizenship conferral practices and statelessness in the polity. 329