Homegrown Statelessness in Malaysia became a citizen of Liechtenstein in 1939. 24 Nottebohm was, however, a longterm resident of Guatemala and had few ties to Liechtenstein. 25 Guatemala challenged the admissibility of Liechtenstein’s claim on the ground that Nottebohm’s naturalisation to Liechtenstein was defective. 26 The International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) agreed with Nottebohm and Guatemala, peering behind the veil of naturalisation to find that his citizenship with Liechtenstein was not ‘real and effective’. 27 The ICJ noted, ‘nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties’. 28 Since the Nottebohm Case, there have been a series of international law cases dealing with dual nationals that have adopted this ‘dominant and effective’ test espousing the examination of relevant factors such as ‘habitual residence, center of interests, family ties, participation in public life and other evidence of attachment’. 29 As Charles Brower and Jason Brueschke suggest, the increasing number of cases in which tribunals have turned to the dominant and effective nationality test (albeit in the context of dual nationals) ‘certainly represent a large source of precedent on the subject, which should serve as useful examples in other contexts’. 30 The Nottebohm Case is seen as authority for the position that there should be an ‘effective’ or ‘genuine’ link between the individual and the State of nationality, not only in the case of dual or plural nationality (where such a requirement is generally accepted), but also where the national possesses only one nationality. 31 C The Context of Malaysia: A Thin Human Rights Regime Malaysia is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 32 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which provide rights to citizenship. 33 However, Malaysia is not a party to the 1954 Statelessness Convention or the 1961 Statelessness Convention, 34 the Refugee Convention, 35 the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 36 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), 37 the Convention against Torture; 38 among others. In response to 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ibid. ibid. ibid 16. ibid 22–25. ibid 23. Case No A/18 (1984) 75 ILR 176, 173 [5] (Iran–United States Claims Tribunal); ‘Claims of Dual Nationals in the Modern Era: The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal’ (1984) 83(3) Michigan Law Review 597, 601; Abraham Kannoff, ‘Dueling Nationalities: Dual Citizenship, Dominant and Effective Nationality, and the Case of Anwar Al-Aulaqi’ (2011) 25(3) Emory Law Review 1372, 1390–1. Charles N Brower and Jason D Brueschke, The Iran–United States Claims Tribunal (Martinus Nijhoff 1998) 321. John R Dugard, Special Rapporteur, First Report on Diplomatic Protection, UN Doc, A/CN.4/506 (7 March 2000 and 20 April 2000) 228 [106]. UDHR (n 20). CRC (n 20). 1954 Statelessness Convention (n 11); 1961 Statelessness Convention (n 19). Refugee Convention (n 12). CERD (n 20). ICCPR (n 20). 101