Forthcoming in the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (27) On the suggestion of Special Rapporteur John Dugard, the Commission took the view that the precedent set in Nottebohm was but a solution to a specific, isolated case and not a rule applicable to all states.93 In fact, as noted in the commentary, if the said requirement was strictly applied today, when economic globalization and international migration have been increasing robustly, millions of persons would be rendered stateless.94 This was well received by states in the Sixth Committee. While most delegates supported the Commission’s approach, 95 some (few) others resisted the idea of discarding the precedent set in Nottebohm as it might still be useful. 96 Interestingly, John Dugard had initially suggested keeping the genuine link test for when diplomatic protection was a ‘legal duty’ instead of merely a ‘right’ of the state of nationality. He had proposed the inclusion of a provision whereby a state would be obliged to intervene on behalf of wronged nationals where the injury resulted from serious violations of a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens).97 However, following Dugard’s proposal, a state would be under no obligation to protect nationals who had no genuine link with it. 98 Due to the possible conflicts with the law of state responsibility and the lack of state practice and corresponding opinio juris, this draft article was later deleted. A second important development was the inclusion of a right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of refugees and stateless persons lawfully and habitually residing in the UN ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, with Commentaries’ in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2006, vol. II (Part Two) UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2006/Add.l, at 29–30. 94 Ibid., at 30. 95 UN ILC, ‘Comments and Observations Received from Governments, Diplomatic Protection’ (27 January, 3 and 12 April 2006) UN Doc. A/CN.4/561 and Add. 1–2, at 40. 96 For instance, Belgium, El Salvador, Italy, and Morocco highlighted the usefulness of the precedent set in Nottebohm for cases of dual or multiple nationalities, conflating the concepts of ‘effective/genuine link’ and ‘dominant nationality’ ibid., at 39, 44, and 45. 97 UN ILC, ‘Report of the Commission to the General Assembly on the Work of its Fifty-First Session’ in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1999, vol. II (Part Two) UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1999/Add.1, at 77–78. 98 Ibid. 93 25 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4816199