Nationality in relation to the succession of States (2) This is, however, a rebuttable presumption. Its limited scope is expressed by the opening clause “subject to the provisions of the present draft articles”, which clearly indicates that the function of this principle must be assessed in the overall context of the other draft articles. Accordingly, when their application leads to a different result, as may happen, for example, when a person concerned opts for the nationality of the predecessor State or of a successor State other than the State of habitual residence, the presumption ceases to operate. (3) Similarly where questions of nationality are regulated by a treaty between States concerned, the provisions of such treaty may also rebut the presumption of the acquisition of the nationality of the State of habitual residence. (4) As regards the criterion on which this presumption relies, it derives from the application of the principle of effective nationality to the specific case of the succession of States. As Rezek has stressed, “the juridical relationship of nationality should not be based on formality or artifice, but on a real connection between the individual and the State”.42 Habitual residence is the test that has most often been used in practice for defining the basic body of nationals of the successor State, even if it was not the only one.43 This is explained by the fact that the population has a “territorial” or local status, and this is unaffected whether there is a universal or partial successor and whether there is a cession, i.e., a “transfer” of sovereignty, or a relinquishment by one State followed by a disposition by international authority.44 Also, in the view of experts of UNHCR, “there is substantial connection with the territory concerned through residence itself”.45 42 Loc. cit. (footnote 27 above), p. 357. O’Connell termed it “the most satisfactory test”. D.P. O’Connell, State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, vol. I (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 518. See also the decision by an Israeli court concerning the Israeli Nationality Law of 1952, according to which “[s]o long as no law has been enacted providing otherwise . . . every individual who, on the date of the establishment of the State of Israel was resident in the territory which today constitutes the State of Israel, is also a national of Israel. Any other view must lead to the absurd result of a State without nationals–a phenomenon the existence of which has not yet been observed” (I. Brownlie, “The relations of nationality in public international law”, The British Year Book of International Law, 1963 (London), vol. 39, p. 318). In another case, however, it was held that Israeli nationality had not existed prior to the adoption of the law in question (ibid.). 44 I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, 4th ed. (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 665. 45 “The Czech and Slovak citizenship laws and the problem of statelessness” (UNHCR, Regional Bureau for Europe, Citizenship in the Context of the Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, European Series, vol. 2, No. 4, September 1996), part 1, p. 10. As it has also been noted, “it is in the interest of the successor State . . . to come as close as possible, when defining its initial body of citizens, to the definition of persons having a genuine link with that State. If a number of persons are considered to be ‘foreigners’ in ‘their own country’ clearly that is not in the interest of the State itself” (Report of the experts of the Council of Europe . . . (footnote 35 above), para. 144). 43 Article 6. 29 Legislation on nationality and other connected issues Each State concerned should, without undue delay, enact legislation on nationality and other connected issues arising in relation to the succession of States consistent with the provisions of the present draft articles. It should take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons concerned will be apprised, within a reasonable time period, of the effect of its legislation on their nationality, of any choices they may have thereunder, as well as of the consequences that the exercise of such choices will have on their status. Commentary (1) Article 6 is based on the recognition of the fact that, in the case of a succession of States, in spite of the role reserved to international law, domestic legislation with regard to nationality has always an important function. The main focus of this article, however, is the issue of the timeliness of internal legislation. In this respect, the practice of States varies. While in some cases the legislation concerning nationality was enacted at the time of the succession of States,46 in other cases the nationality laws were enacted after the date of the succession, sometimes even much later.47 The term “legislation” as used in this article should be interpreted broadly: it includes more than the legal rules adopted by Parliament.48 (2) It would not be realistic in many cases to expect States concerned to enact such legislation at the time of the succession. In some situations, for instance where new States are born as a result of a turbulent process and territorial limits are unclear, this would even be impossible. Accordingly, article 6 sets out a recommendation that States concerned enact legislation concerning nationality and other connected issues arising in relation with the succession of States “without undue delay”. The period which meets such test may be different for each State concerned, even in relation to the same succession. Indeed, the situation of a predecessor State and a successor State born as a result of separation (Part II, sect. 4) may be very different in this regard. For example, the question of the loss of the nationality of the predecessor 46 This was the case of a number of newly independent States. See Materials on succession of States . . . (footnote 37 above). For more recent examples, see Law No. 40/1993 of 29 December 1992 on the acquisition and loss of citizenship of the Czech Republic (Report of the experts of the Council of Europe . . . (footnote 35 above), appendix IV), enacted in parallel to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia, and the Law on Croatian Citizenship of 26 June 1991 (No. 53/1991), enacted in parallel to the proclamation of the independence of Croatia (Narodne Novine: Sluzbeni list Republike Hrvatske (Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia) (8 October 1991), p. 1466). 47 See, for example, the Israeli Nationality Law of 1 April 1952, referred to in footnote 43 above. See also United Nations, Legislative Series, Laws concerning Nationality (ST/LEG/SER.B/4) (Sales No. 1954.V.1), pp. 263-267. 48 See a similar interpretation by Rezek of the notion of legislation in relation to nationality, loc. cit. (footnote 27 above), p. 372.