Chapter 2 The Right to Nationality and Judgment TC/0168/13 of the Constitutional Court | 93 nationality. 216 The State’s decision to confer nationality must not be an arbitrary act. Here the Inter-American Court has written that: 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 manners 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. 217 210. When addressing the right to nationality, the Inter-American Court has held that nationality, “as the political and legal bond that connects a person to a specific State, […] allows the individual to acquire and exercise rights and obligations inherent in membership in a political community. As such, nationality is a requirement for the exercise of specific rights.” 218 211. The Commission has maintained that when it comes to the acquisition of nationality, there is no uniform rule in practice or in domestic law concerning acquisition of nationality by birth, or natural-born citizenship; nevertheless, two principles are applied and nationality is conferred by birth, either by having been born within the territory of a State –the principle of jus soli- or being the descendant of one of its nationals – principle of jus sanguinis. 219 212. Here, the Commission has found that the majority of the States of the American hemisphere use a combined system, in which nationality is conferred through combined application of the principles of jus soli for children born within their territory, and jus sanguinis for those born in some other country. This tradition – which is the system used in most countries of the American hemisphere- has been a major factor in preventing and reducing statelessness within the region. 213. The Commission concurs with the Inter-American Court’s finding to the effect that while the determination of who has a right to be a national continues to fall within a State’s domestic jurisdiction, it is necessary that this attribution be exercised within 216 217 218 219 Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, par. 34; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, par. 128; Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 254. Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, par. 32. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001, par. 88; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., op. cit., para. 101. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 137. IACHR, Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Case 12,189 (Dominican Republic) on the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. July 11, 2003, para. 49. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights | IACHR