Nauru would lessen any such supposed danger. To the contrary, the cancellation of his passport had all the appearance of a vindictive measure against a political opponent, taken with the deliberate intention of separating him from his family. Mr Kun’s treatment was almost certainly unlawful under Nauruan law.19 It was also contrary to a host of international human rights standards.20 Importantly, it was not just Mr Kun’s own rights that were engaged,21 but those of his (New Zealand-resident) family.22 His three children (aged, at the time of Mr Kun’s departure, seven, five and 18 months) had been involuntarily separated from their father and primary caregiver. As the Nauruan Government had barred Dr Le Roy from entering Nauru, this separation of the family was both absolute and open-ended. The avenues for legal resolution of Mr Kun’s situation were, however, limited. There was little hope of an effective remedy from the (now quiescent) Nauruan courts;23 nor, it seemed, any prospect of a back-down from the Nauruan Government. There was no international body with jurisdiction to adjudicate the relevant human rights claims, indeed, the Nauruan Government had not even ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Mr Kun’s only realistic prospect of a legal resolution to his situation was thus to obtain a valid travel document from another country. And New Zealand – the country in which he and his family had chosen to settle – was the only viable candidate.24 But was Mr Kun eligible for New Zealand citizenship? That depended on the scheme of the Citizenship Act 1977, to which we now turn. 2. Section 8 of the Citizenship Act: citizenship by grant The Citizenship Act 1977 provides three principal bases for New Zealand citizenship: citizenship derived from birth on New Zealand soil,25 citizenship derived from descent from a New Zealand citizen,26 and “citizenship by grant”.27 Citizenship by birth or descent is a matter of recognition rather than acquisition; a status that one is (or is not) born into. On the other hand, “citizenship by grant” is the principal mechanism by which those who are not born into the status of New Zealand citizen may nevertheless 19 See Passports Act 2011 (Nauru), providing the limited bases on which the Minister of Justice may refuse a Nauruan citizen a passport; Constitution of Nauru, Part II (protecting rights to liberty, to the protection of the law, to the freedoms of conscience, expression, assembly and association and, at least in its preamble, to private and family life). 20 Relevant instruments include the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 21 His rights, for example, to freedom of expression (ICCPR, art 19.2), to freedom of movement (ICCPR, art 12), to protection of his home and family from arbitrary or unlawful interference (ICCPR, art 17) and to take part in the conduct of public affairs (ICCPR, art 25). 22 These included a host of rights found in UNCROC and the ICCPR associated with the protection of the unity of the family, and of the best interests of children: see especially ICCPR, arts 17 and 23; UNCROC, arts 3, 9, 10 and 16. 23 In the event, Mr Kun’s attempt to gain such a remedy quickly became mired in technical objections, and was eventually struck out on procedural grounds. 24 Although Dr Le Roy is an Australian citizen, an application for Australian citizenship had no prospect of success for at least three reasons: first, Australian citizenship law contains no equivalent of the s 9(1)(c) special circumstances criteria; secondly, it was in New Zealand, not Australia, that the family had chosen to settle; and thirdly, the Australian Government is strongly aligned to Nauru due to their use of the island as an off-shore processing facility for asylum seekers. 25 Section 6. 26 Section 7. 27 Section 8. 6 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731