Mai Kaneko-Iwase, Ph.D. (Law)
(8) No age specified (Foundling provision uses term ‘foundling’ or ‘child’
[niño or niña in Spanish/enfant in French] which may mean ‘small child’
or ‘minor’ but no further info unavailable): Afghanistan (art 12), Albania (art
7[1]), Algeria (art 7[1]), Bahrain (art 5[B]), Benin (art 21), Bosnia and Herzegovina (art 7/art 28[3]), Bulgaria (art 11), Burundi (art 3), Central African Republic
(art 10), Chile (art 173), Comoros (art 13), Denmark (sec 1[3]), Egypt (art 2[2]),
Estonia (art 5[2]), Ethiopia (art 3[2]), Finland (sec 12[1]), Germany (sec 4[2]),
Guinea (art 58 and 59), Iceland (art 1[2]), Iraq (art 3[b]), Jordan (art 3[5]), Kuwait
(art 3), Lao People‘s Democratic Republic (art 17), Liechtenstein (sec 3[a][3] and
sec 4a), Mexico (art 7), Mongolia (art 7[4]), Montenegro (art 7), Morocco (art 7),
Nepal (sec 3[3]), Netherlands (art 3[3]), Norway (sec 4), Panama (art 9[1], art
32, art 63), Papua New Guinea (sec 77[1] and 77[2]), Poland (art 14[2] and art
15), Qatar (art 2), Republic of Korea (art 2[1][iii], 2[2]), Rwanda (art 2[2] and art
10), Saudi Arabia (art 7), Slovakia (sec 5[2][b]), Somalia (art 15) (Note: The title
of article 15 states in brackets ‘Minors in Special Circumstances.’), Suriname (art
4[b]), Sweden (sec 3), Syrian Arab Republic (art 3[c]), Turkey (art 8[2]), Tuvalu
(art 44[2]), UAE (art 2[e]), Viet Nam (art 18), Yemen (art 3[d]).
49
Total
142 100%
35%
Out of the 26 states that are classified to be open to ‘all minors’, 10 states (7% out of 142 States)
either use the term ‘minor’ (‘menor de edad’ in Spanish and ‘[enfant] mineur’ in French) in their
foundling provisions in their nationality legislation, or use the term ‘child’ (or its equivalents) and define
it as meaning ‘minor’ within the same legislation (and for the Philippines, the relevant Implementing
Rules), as detailed in Table 4 below.
The remaining 16 out of the 26 states (11% of 142 States) use the neutral term ‘child’ or its
equivalent in their nationality laws without defining ‘child’ within the same legislation. For these 16
states, while formal written positions issued by the competent authorities could not be accessed
directly, there were, nevertheless, available comments made by the government and/or local experts
that the term is indeed interpreted to mean a ‘minor’. More specifically, for 7 out of 16 states i.e.
Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Serbia, Slovenia, and Uzbekistan, authors of the country
chapters of European Network on Statelessness (ENS)’s Statelessness Index (whose PRS.3.b
addresses the age limit of a foundling) as well as UNHCR staff members cited government positions
(that ‘child’ means a minor) either in their published reports or in their emails to the author. Regarding
the remaining 9 countries, local experts in their emails to the author and/or in their published reports
confirmed that the local language term equivalent to ‘child’ in foundling provisions meant a ‘minor’.
This was mostly because the local term equivalent to ‘child’ is defined as a ‘minor’ in separate child
protection-related legislation. In the absence of the original definition of ‘child’ in the nationality law
legislation, the general legal rule is that the definition in the former applies to the latter (see detailed
justifications on individual states in Table 4).
While the remaining 49 states (35% of the 142 states with foundling provisions) either use the
term ‘child’ (niño in Spanish, enfant in French) or ‘foundling’ or an equivalent expression in the local
languages without limiting the age of the persons concerned, the number of states whose foundling
provisions ‘cover all minors’ is expected to increase as more information is gathered. In this context,
it would be effective for States that have not done so to develop proper operational guidance to
clarify the scope of their foundling provisions (along with the procedures for the nationality grant) in
light of the provisions’ object and purpose.
29
Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies