Forthcoming in the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (27) of state succession, where the status of the inhabitants of the territory affected by the change of sovereignty becomes the concern of at least two states. The Commission thus tried to reduce this uncertainty by delimiting the competence of both predecessor and successor states in nationality matters, while fleshing out the right to a nationality. 79 These normative commitments are also reflected in Art. 5, according to which individuals habitually residing in the territory of the successor state on the date of the succession are presumed to have acquired the latter’s nationality. While its main purpose is to address the effects of possible delays between the date of the succession and the adoption of domestic nationality laws, especially by avoiding that the concerned individuals are treated as stateless in the meantime, this presumption is nevertheless rebuttable. For instance, as explained in the commentaries, individuals entitled to exercise an option may decide to retain the nationality of the predecessor state or to become a national of a successor state other than the one of habitual residence. 80 There may also be instances where the status of the inhabitants is regulated by a treaty. 81 The Commission seems to have taken an intermediary position between the conclusion that international law does not impose automatic transfer of nationality, nor any duty on the successor state to grant its nationality 82 and the theory that the population follows the change of sovereignty in nationality matters.83 Things get more complicated when it comes to the nationals of the predecessor state who are, at the time of the transfer, residing outside the territory affected by the change of sovereignty. However, the solution found by the ILC was rather odd. For one, according to Art. 8, if these individuals are also nationals of another state, the successor state is not required to 79 Ibid., at Art. 6. Ibid., at 29. 81 For example, the Italian Peace Treaty of 1947. 82 See D.P. O’Connell, The Law of State Succession (Cambridge University Press 1956), at 247–249; P. Weis, Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Sijthoff & Noordhoff 1979), at 143–144. 83 See I. Brownlie, ‘The Relations of Nationality in Public International Law’ (1963) 39 British Yearbook of International Law 284-364, at 320. 80 21 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4816199