Part II. European Law on Nationality and Statelessness treaty. These included clarifying the meaning of certain provisions, for instance making reservations with regard to married woman to the Convention impossible and making new provisions for allowing an individual to retain their nationality of origin in certain circumstances, such as marriage between nationals of different state parties. When this treaty was adopted, the – then only Western and Southern European – member states of the CoE agreed that multiple nationality was undesirable and should be reduced. Such reduction can, however, only be achieved when states work together. Hence, the introduction of a treaty on this matter was a logical step. Even though the instrument is focused on the reduction of cases of multiple nationality, it allows for multiple nationality in limited situations, thereby recognizing state discretion in these matters.512 It further considers the consequences of cases of multiple nationality, in particular as regards military obligation of the individual concerned. It provides, for example, that “[p] ersons possessing the nationality of two or more Contracting Parties shall be required to fulfil their military obligations in relation to one of those Parties only”.513 Nonetheless, the CoE and Europe changed a lot after 1963. It was found that multiple nationality and other issues relating to nationality were not adequately addressed by the original 1963 CoE Convention, as also evidenced by the adoption of the later Protocols that were mentioned above, and in particular the 1993 Protocol.514 Multiple nationality is no longer necessarily viewed as something that is to be avoided. Important is therefore the general treaty on nationality that was introduced later: the ECN.515 Even if the 1963 CoE Convention is of no to little significance to preventing and solving statelessness, it deserves some attention here, because the ECN cannot be properly introduced without mentioning 1963 CoE Convention.516 As Horst Schade, at the time involved with the CoE, explains in his article on the draft ECN: “(…) in particular, mobility and migration and the principle of equality between women and men has meant that, in practice, there are many cases of dual nationality, and for the purposes of integration, some countries see dual nationality as desirable.”517 512 513 514 515 516 517 102 See also Margaret Killerby, ‘Steps Taken by the Council of Europe to Promote the Modernization of the Nationality Laws of European States’ in Síofra O’Leary & Teija Tiilikainen, Citizenship and Nationality Status in the New Europe (Institute for Public Policy Research, Sweet & Maxwell 1998) 21–37, 32. Art 5(1) 1963 CoE Convention. Second Protocol amending the Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality (Strasbourg, 1993, CETS No. 149), which recognized changing circumstances in its preamble, noting in particular migration and integration of second-generation migrants, mixed marriages, and conservation of nationality of origin. See also this para, under ‘European Convention on Nationality’. See also Horst Schade, ‘The Draft European Convention on Nationality’ (1995) 49 Austrian Journal of Public International Law 100. The 1963 CoE Convention is not very relevant anymore, yet still has 12 ratifications. Many of these states have however denounced chapter I on the reduction of cases of multiple nationality, which demonstrates this treaty’s decreased relevance, access through CoE, ‘Details of Treaty No. 043’ <www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/043> accessed 26 May 2021. Horst Schade, ‘The Draft European Convention on Nationality’ (1995) 49 Austrian Journal of Public International Law 100. Similar considerations are found in the Explanatory Report to the ECN: CoE, Intersentia