The Shifting Parameters of Nationality 291 multiple nationalities (which is reflected in the regulation on acquisition and deprivation of nationality). Traditionally dual nationality was considered an anomaly because the legal bond of nationality between an individual and the state was considered exclusive and indissoluble, reflecting perpetual allegiance and loyalty.165 In the meantime, and particularly since the 1980s the conceptualisation of citizenship and nationality has changed, translating into a growing tendency to accept dual nationality.166 A variety of reasons have been identified to explain this shift,167 but what seems to play a significant role is the current reality of a mobile world, in which people migrate to other states than their state of origin and nationality. The new patterns of belonging that thus emerge facilitate the acceptance that one can have loyalties to more than one state. The expansion of communication channels furthermore makes it easier to be a functional citizen in both/more countries.168 Also strategic considerations come into play, both for the state of origin and the state of residence: the former seeks to accommodate its own nationals abroad who want to maintain ties and the latter is influenced by changing notions of what will optimize integration of migrants into the state of residence.169 As is further elaborated in the other articles in this special issue, dual nationality raises additional thorny questions in relation to the exercise of diplomatic protection,170 and whether this more open attitude towards dual nationals does not facilitate so-called instrumental citizenship (for example in the world of Olympic sports).171 5 Some Concluding Observations The preceding analysis has revealed how the changing spatialities of citizenship culminated in a focus on the nation-state, and the emergence of legal citizenship or nationality, reflecting the legal bond between an individual and a state. It was also noted that in several respects the parameters of nationality keep changing. More particularly, four developments have been highlighted that circumscribe the sovereign right of states to determine who are their nationals, both legally and through de facto pressures. First, as was emphasized in this contribution, and is taken up in several other articles in this special issue, the expanding human rights paradigm does not only increasingly detach rights from nationality (status), but also constrains the sovereign choices made in relation to the conferral and deprivation of nationality, not in the least through the prohibition of discrimination. Secondly, and relatedly, the 165 Spiro (2017), pp. 622–623. Sejersen (2008), p. 534. 167 Spiro (2017), pp. 622, 630; Sejersen (2008), pp. 538–542. 168 Sejersen (2008), pp. 538–539. 169 Sejersen (2008), p. 542. 170 See Denza (2018) in this special issue. 171 Spiro (2017), p. 623. See also Wollmann (2018) in this special issue. 166 123