For example, States such as Switzerland that do not automatically grant nationality jure soli may also not grant nationality jure soli even to a second generation of persons born on their territory (i.e. to children born to foreign parents who themselves were born on the territory). Assuming that such children acquire at birth the nationality of another State (i.e. are not de jure stateless), their position is in all practical respects no different from that of persons who, in the context of State succession, acquire the nationality of a State other than their State of habitual residence. However, nobody has ever suggested that such children are de facto stateless, for the simple reason that even if their links with the State of their nationality are very tenuous, there is no obstacle in principle to their being able to rely on that State’s diplomatic protection and consular assistance. As the ILC has stated in its commentary to its draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, the effective link argument in the Nottebohm case should be distinguished on its very particular facts, and, for purposes of diplomatic protection: it is necessary to be mindful of the fact that if the genuine link requirement proposed by Nottebohm was strictly applied it would exclude millions of persons from the benefit of diplomatic protection as in today’s world of economic globalization and migration there are millions of persons who have moved away from their State of nationality and made their lives in States whose nationality they never acquire or have acquired nationality by birth of descent from States with which they have a tenuous connection.186 Even if the children discussed above were to renounce the protection of the State of their nationality on the grounds that they have a much closer connection with the State of their habitual residence, State practice already shows that renunciation would not be considered as valid for purposes of treating them as stateless under the 1954 Statelessness Convention per the Recommendation of that Convention’s Final Act,187 or for purposes of granting them nationality under the 1961 Convention. Similarly, a tenuous link with the State of nationality would on its own be insufficient for considering as de facto stateless persons who, in the specific context of State succession, against their will do not acquire the nationality of the State of their habitual residence. Even if such persons have unlawfully been denied the nationality of the State of their habitual residence (e.g. by not being given an option to acquire that nationality), it would arguably be unlawful for States to accept as valid their reasons for rejecting the protection of the State of their nationality. Article 19(1) of the draft Articles on Nationality in the Context of State Succession stipulates: Nothing in the present draft articles requires States to treat persons concerned having no effective link with a State concerned as nationals of that State, unless this would result in treating those persons as if they were stateless. 188 186 187 188 International Law Commission, “Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fiftyeighth session”, A/65/10, 2006, p. 33. In many countries it would not even be in the interests of such children to be treated as stateless under the 1954 Convention, since they normally would benefit from the acquired rights (e.g. to permanent residence) of their parents in the country of habitual residence. An earlier version of draft Article 19(1) actually used the term “de facto stateless” and was worded as follows: “Without prejudice to any treaty obligation, where persons having no genuine link with a State concerned have been granted that State’s nationality following the succession of States, other States do not have the obligation to treat those persons as if they were nationals of the said State, unless this would result in treating those persons as if they were de facto stateless” (see International Law Commission, “Third Report on Nationality in Relation to the Succession of States”, A/CN.4.480 and Add.1, 27 and 28 February 1987). However, ILC Member James Crawford objected to use of the term “de facto stateless”, stating that: “He was a little concerned about the reference to … de facto statelessness which seemed to raise a distinction between de facto and de jure status that might be problematic. He would prefer it, therefore, if 58