full documentary proof of their descent if, for example, the archives of the civil registry
have been destroyed. It might be impossible to provide documentary proof of the place
of residence in cases where the place of residence was not registered. This provision
also covers situations where it might be feasible for a person to provide proof but it
would be unreasonable to demand such proof – for example, if providing proof would
put the applicant’s life or health in danger. Circumstances that make it difficult to provide
proof are not always directly linked to the event of State succession. They may be the
consequences of an event that occurred before or after the succession – for example,
when, under the regime of the predecessor state, the civil registry was destroyed or
essential documents were not issued to a certain segment of the population. In all these
instances, a high probability of proof and/or independent testimony shall be sufficient for
fulfilling the conditions to acquire the nationality of a successor State.
Paragraph two of Article 8 is only relevant when the predecessor State has disappeared
and all persons possessing the nationality of that State have lost that nationality as an
automatic consequence of the State’s dissolution. If the new successor State prevents
or reduces the number of multiple nationalities, the State might require proof from
the person concerned that they have not acquired another nationality or that they are
stateless. The requirement to prove that a person does not possess another nationality
or is stateless is often impossible to fulfil since it depends upon the cooperation of other
States. If there is a risk that the person concerned might become stateless as a result of
State succession, the successor State should not require proof that the person concerned
does not have another nationality or that the person is stateless before granting
that person citizenship. This rule is based on the predominant view that preventing
statelessness is the primary concern of the international community, while the acceptance
or rejection of multiple nationalities is a matter to be decided by each individual State.
These provisions do not prevent a State that wants to reduce the number of people with
multiple nationalities in its territory from cooperating with other States and exchanging
information on the acquisition and loss of nationality. Multiple nationalities may be
countered through the provision on non‑recognition of another nationality found in the
1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws
and through Article 7.1.a of the ECN, which sets out the possibility of automatic loss of
nationality when a person voluntarily acquires another nationality. A State may also ask the
individual concerned to make a written statement declaring that they do not and will not
possess another nationality. That will enable the State to deprive the person concerned of
its own citizenship if it is later discovered that they have made a false declaration.
42