regime. Goldston, Foster and Baker, and Jain are far from the only scholars dismayed by the limited constraints in place.15 This article revisits these discussions and asks where international law now stands on the right to a specific nationality. Its ambition is to show that the norms of international law in this area have moved further than recognised by recent literature, especially in relation to arbitrary denial of nationality on discriminatory grounds. It also revisits the concept of the ‘genuine connection’ that should exist between a person and the State of nationality, the lack of which was invoked in Nottebohm to deny the right of Liechtenstein to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its naturalised citizen.16 The 2025 decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to strike down the ‘investor citizenship’ programme adopted by Malta 17 has revived this discussion in relation to the constraints on State discretion to extend citizenship to those without a ‘genuine connection’.18 The article highlights an alternative approach reinterpreting the idea of a ‘genuine connection’ as a positive reason for the State to grant nationality, even without proof of statelessness; and the particular contribution of the African and Inter-American human rights institutions to these developments. The article takes the 2005 judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in the Yean and Bosico case against the Dominican Republic as the starting point (issued the same year as Goldston’s article), the first contentious case at international level to conclude that the discretion of States in relation to nationality is limited ‘by their obligations to guarantee equal protection before the law and to prevent, avoid, and reduce statelessness’.19 The article picks out five themes in the evolution of the normative frameworks: (a) the obligation to prevent and reduce statelessness; (b) loss and deprivation of nationality and the right to due process; (c) arbitrary denial of nationality as arbitrary deprivation; (d) an expanded interpretation of the definition of ‘stateless person’; and, in greatest depth, (e) the challenge to racial or ethnic discrimination, and the positive role of other types of ‘genuine connection’ as the basis for nationality. The concluding section reflects on the contribution of strategic litigation, proposed by Neha Jain as a tool to challenge the manufacturing of statelessness. 2. Normative advances regarding the right to a nationality in international law The right to a nationality was first articulated in international law by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).20 Notoriously, however, the question of which specific State had the obligation to ensure that any particular individual enjoyed the right to a nationality remained unanswered for many years.21 Nonetheless, some basic rules aimed at avoiding statelessness had already been established as early as 1930 by the League of Nations Convention on Nationality,22 reinforced and elaborated in the UN era by the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (adopted in 1961, before the human rights treaties, but with low levels of adherence for many years).23 The right to a nationality was also gradually incorporated 15 For a historical discussion, see Spiro (n 6) 697–716; for a rhetorical use of the same point, see R Bauböck, ‘Epilogue: International Norms for Nationality: An Elusive Goal?’ (2018) 65 NILR 497. 16 The phrase ‘genuine link’, which has passed into nationality lore and law, appears nowhere in the English version of the judgment. 17 Case C‑181/23 European Commission v Republic of Malta, ECLI:EU:C:2025:283. 18 See, e.g. the collection of posts on Verfassungsblog <https://verfassungsblog.de/tag/commission-v-malta/> and references in Section 2.5. 19 Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v Dominican Republic (Judgment) (2005) IACtHR Ser C No 130, para 140. 20 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217 A (III) (10 December 1948). 21 M Adjami and J Harrington, ‘The Scope and Content of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (2008) 27 Refugee Survey Quarterly 93. 22 League of Nations Convention on Nationality (n 14) arts 14, 15. 23 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (adopted 30 August 1961, entered into force 13 December 1975) 989 UNTS 175, art 1(1). In 2000, there were only 21 States Parties, increasing to 82 by the end of 2025.