II STATE DISCRETION IN NATIONALITY MATTERS v INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO NATIONALITY 13. Under international law, states have traditionally been granted broad discretion in the regulation of nationality matters. 20 This is not, however, an absolute discretion. States’ prerogative in nationality matters has been gradually limited by the evolution of human rights law. 21 14. As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has explained: It is generally accepted today that nationality is an inherent right of all human beings. Not only is nationality the basic requirement for the exercise of political rights, it also has an important bearing on the individual’s legal capacity. Thus, despite the fact that it is traditionally accepted that the conferral and regulation of nationality are matters for each state to decide, contemporary developments indicate that international law does impose certain limits on the broad powers enjoyed by the states in that area, and that the manner in which states regulate matters bearing on nationality cannot today be deemed within their sole jurisdiction; those powers of the state are also circumscribed by their obligations to ensure the full protection of human rights. 22 State regulation of nationality must therefore be exercised in compliance with relevant provisions of international human rights law, including those relating to the right to a nationality and the principle of non-discrimination. Thus, we disagree with the Indian Government’s submission to the Court that ‘the very nature of the question regarding citizenship of the country and issues pertaining thereto, the said subject matter may not be within the scope of judicial review and may not be justiciable’. 23 On the contrary, we submit that the Court is entitled to scrutinise this legislation by reference to its compliance with India’s international law obligations. 20 For an overview of the history and development of the relationship between international law and nationality matters see, Peter Spiro, ‘A New International Law of Citizenship’ (2011) 105(4) American Journal of International Law 694. 21 See Alice Edwards, ‘The Meaning of Nationality in International Law in an Era of Human Rights’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014) 11. 22 Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica (Advisory Opinion) (Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series A No 4, 19 January 1984) [32]. 23 Preliminary Counter Affidavit on Behalf of the Union of India, Submission in the matter of Indian Union of Muslim League v Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 1470 of 2019, [14] (‘Counter Affidavit’); see also at [15] referring to these matters as an ‘incident of sovereignty’. 5