Rising Statelessness Due to Disappearing Island States born on the territory of a state. 63 Therefore, when speaking of a so-called human right to nationality, scholarly debate should accurately distinguish between existing treaty provisions conferring a right to nationality on everyone (eg art 20 ACHR) 64 or only to children born on the territory of the host state (eg art 24(3) ICCPR). While many instruments incorporate the right of children to acquire a nationality and the obligation not to render them stateless has indeed most likely become part of customary international law, it is difficult to find a ‘general’ right to nationality on the universal level. 65 Based on the findings of the Nottebohm Case before the ICJ, scholars have nonetheless tried to argue innovatively for a right to nationality — applicable to everyone — primarily in the case of state succession. 66 They referred to the socalled principle of effective nationality to propose that states might have a positive obligation to grant nationality to individuals if they have a ‘genuine and effective’ link to a state. 67 Conversely, Guy S Goodwin-Gill merely proposed relying on the principle of effective nationality that, if a person has ‘a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments’ with regard to a particular state, it might be bound by incidental obligations such as that of nonexpulsion or readmission. 68 However, the reliance on the Nottebohm Case as support for an emerging right to nationality seems far-fetched at best. The Nottebohm Case was merely concerned with the question whether Liechtenstein was allowed to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its naturalised citizen Friedrich Nottebohm in respect of a claim against Guatemala. 69 The ICJ held that since Nottebohm had no real and effective link to Liechtenstein, the question has to be answered in the negative. Besides the ‘traditional’ requirement of nationality, the Court also asked for the ‘individual’s genuine connection with the State’ for the purpose of diplomatic protection. 70 Consequently, it is difficult to use the Nottebohm Case as reference to establish ‘a right to nationality’. 71 However, the criterion of ‘genuine or effective link’ has already been used in regional instruments in the context of state succession. 72 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Foster and Lambert (n 22) 567. Oliver Dörr, ‘Nationality’ in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press, 2012) vol 9 496 [7]. Ineta Ziemele, ‘State Succession and Issues of Nationality’ in Alice Edwards and Laura van Waas (eds), Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Cambridge University Press 2014) 243. Laura van Waas also speaks of the ‘widespread recognition of a child’s right to a nationality’: van Waas (n 15) 84. Nottebohm Case (n 34); See, eg, Foster and Lambert (n 22) 574, with reference to scholar Guy S Goodwin-Gill. See also, Jeffrey L Blackman, ‘State Successions and Statelessness: The Emerging Right to an Effective Nationality under International Law’ (1998) 19(4) Michigan Journal of International Law 1141, 1163: ‘Nevertheless, the trend in international law, at least in the context of state succession, is moving in the direction of imposing positive legal obligations on states deriving from the principle of effective nationality enunciated in Nottebohm’. Belton (n 36) 227. Foster and Lambert (n 22) 574. Nottebohm Case (n 34). ibid, 23. Cf Foster and Lambert (n 22) 574, with regard to the propositions made by Goodwin-Gill: ‘He suggested, innovatively, that the criteria set out by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm Case to assess an individual’s genuine connection with a State in the context of diplomatic protection may have relevance beyond this limited context’. European Convention on Nationality (n 61). 51