the disapprobation of ‘transactional’ citizenship rules,192 the emphasis on fundamental rights and common values193 and the potential for future jurisprudence to further encroach on State discretion, for example in relation to excessive fees in nationality matters.194 There is no need for a rejection of citizenship purchase to mean a return to ‘blood and soil’ discrimination on racial grounds; rather, there could be a move towards the positive implications of the Nottebohm judgment, including that States may be obliged in some contexts to grant citizenship based on ‘genuine connections’ seen through a more civic lens. 3. Conclusion and the role of strategic litigation In her pessimistic assessment of the manufacturing of statelessness by States’ manipulation of apparently neutral procedural rules for discriminatory purposes, Neha Jain recommended strategic litigation as the most promising strategy to challenge these practices. It is hoped that this article has demonstrated that litigation has already had real success in establishing normative statements that condemn both explicit denial of nationality on racial or ethnic grounds, and the indirect discrimination embedded in procedures that have disproportionate impacts on some groups. The American and African human rights systems have played a particularly important role in developing these norms, responding to the post-colonial context in which an ethno-cultural ‘nation’ is so much harder to imagine.195 These cases also provide a counterpoint to Michelle Foster and Timnah Rachel Baker’s relative pessimism about the weakness of the CERD Committee in interpretation of its mandate. Some of these cases were brought because they were the only option available to the person affected. The Anudo case before the AfCtHR was initiated by the complainant himself who, without any assistance, had written directly to the Court (hosted by his home town of Arusha) for help.196 But many were conceived from the outset as ‘strategic’; that is, litigation with a broader purpose to change law and practice and not only to assist the named complainants. One leading player in this effort was the Open Society Justice Initiative;197 other transnational support has been provided by organisations such as the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) or the Global Strategic Litigation Council.198 National civil society organisations have done the hardest work in bringing these cases to court (such as Lawyers for Human Rights in South Africa; Family Frontiers in Malaysia; the People’s Legal Aid Centre in Sudan; Corporación Opción Legal in Colombia; or the Public Interest Law Project in the Netherlands).199 192 S Cox, ‘The EU Free Market Does Not Extend to Citizenship’ (Verfassungsblog, 30 April 2025) <https://verfassungsblog.de/the-eu-free-market-does-not-extend-to-citizenship/>. 193 L-J Wagner, ‘Fury and Surprise Anchored in Dogmas and Myths: Reflections on Commission v Malta and Its Discontents’ (Verfassungsblog, 26 May 2025) <https://verfassungsblog.de/fury-and-surprise-anchored-indogmas-and-myths/>. 194 S Peers, ‘Pirates of the Mediterranean Meet Judges of the Kirchberg: The CJEU Rules on Malta’s Investor Citizenship Law’ (EU Law Analysis, 30 April 2025) <https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2025/04/pirates-ofmediterranean-meet-judges-of.html>. 195 B Manby, ‘Post-Colonial Citizenship and Decolonisation as a Turning Point: Continuities and Discontinuities in African States’ (European University Institute 2023). 196 Manby (n 99). 197 Cases searchable by country: Open Society Justice Initiative, Litigation <https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation>. 198 CEJIL litigation collected at CEJIL, Library <https://summa.cejil.org/en/library/>; work of the Global Strategic Litigation Council collected at: Global Strategic Litigation Council, Regional Networks <https://www.globalcouncil.org/regional-networks>. 199 B Manby, ‘Litigating the Right to a Nationality: A Guide for Practitioners’ (UNHCR 2024) (see boxes on Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic, 24; Zhao v the Netherlands, 30; Colombia’s Constitutional Court, 47; Family Frontiers litigation in Malaysia, 66). For the work of Lawyers for Human Rights, see Statelessness Project <https://www.lhr.org.za/lhr-units/statelessness-project/>.