Forthcoming in the Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (27) example, incorporated in the Council of Europe Convention on the Avoidance of Statelessness in Relation to State Succession (2006). C. Nationality and Statelessness in the ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection (2006) In its 2006 Articles on Diplomatic Protection, the ILC would once again reconsider the position of international law on nationality in at least two respects. From the outset, an unescapable question the Commission had to answer was whether the exercise of diplomatic protection was contingent on the existence of a ‘genuine link’ between national and claimant state, as suggested by the ICJ in the already mentioned Nottebohm case.90 The dispute involved the expropriation of Frederich Nottebohm’s assets by Guatemala in the context of the Second World War. Nottebohm, who was born a German national but later acquired Liechtenstein’s nationality by naturalization, lived in Guatemala for more than three decades before being deported to the United States and interned as an enemy alien until the end of WWII. In 1949, his Guatemalan assets were expropriated without compensation and Liechtenstein started proceedings before the ICJ on his behalf. In its 1955 judgment, the Court rejected Liechtenstein’s claim finding that Nottebohm’s links were not ‘sufficiently close’ to be considered effective and therefore opposable to Guatemala, a country with whom he had a ‘long-standing and close connection’.91 This precedent has been heavily criticized from its inception and remained deeply contested as a matter of international law.92 The Court famously described nationality as a ‘legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be said to constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the individual [...] is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ In Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v Guatemala) (Second Phase) [1955] ICJ Rep. 4 (‘Nottebohm’), at 23. 91 Ibid., at 26. 92 In the Flegenheimer case, the Italian-United States Conciliation Commission confirmed the relative, limited nature of the ICJ decision, noting that the Court did not intend to establish a rule of general international law so as to require the existence of a genuine link between individual and state for the exercise of diplomatic protection on behalf of the former. See Flegenheimer CaseDecision No. 182 [1958] UNRIAA (Sales 65.v4) 327, at 376. See also A. Macklin, ‘Is it Time to Retire Nottebohm?’ (2017) 111 AJIL Unbound 492-497. 90 24 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4816199