Article 22 Attribution of the nationality of the successor States When a State dissolves and ceases to exist and the various parts of the territory of the predecessor State form two or more successor States, each successor State shall, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of a right of option, attribute its nationality to: (a) Persons concerned having their habitual residence in its territory; and (b) Subject to the provisions of article 8: (i) Persons concerned not covered by subparagraph (a) having an appropriate legal connection with a constituent unit of the predecessor State that has become part of that successor State; (ii) Persons concerned not entitled to a nationality of any State concerned under subparagraphs (a) and (b) (i) having their habitual residence in a third State, who were born in or, before leaving the predecessor State, had their last habitual residence in what has become the territory of that successor State or having any other appropriate connection with that successor State. Article 23 Granting of the right of option by the successor States 1. Successor States shall grant a right of option to persons concerned covered by the provisions of article 22 who are qualified to acquire the nationality of two or more successor States. 2. Each successor State shall grant a right to opt for its nationality to persons concerned who are not covered by the provisions of article 22. Thus, leaving aside the situation of two or more States uniting into one successor State, habitual residents should normally be granted the nationality of the successor State in which they reside, unless otherwise indicated by the exercise of a grant of option to the nationality of a predecessor State or of another successor State. This is consistent with the position of UNHCR above that, in the context of the disintegration of the SFRY, the habitual residents of each successor State should have been granted the nationality of the State concerned, unless being granted a right of option to the nationality of the State where they had held their “republican citizenship”. However, it is another matter whether it also means that those habitual residents who against their will acquired the nationality of the State where they had held republican citizenship, instead of their State of residence, were thereby rendered de facto stateless. Critique of UNHCR’s position on de facto statelessness As already noted, UNHCR claims that the above-mentioned persons are de facto stateless not because they do not enjoy the protection of the State of their nationality vis-à-vis other States, including the State of their habitual residence, but because they are condemned to live as foreigners in the latter State. However, it is not all clear why persons who have a much closer link with the State of their habitual residence than with the State of their nationality should be termed “stateless”. Similarly-situated persons may also be found in contexts much more common than that of State succession, but have never been called “stateless” by UNHCR or by anybody else. 57