Part I. Introduction and Context of peoples – played an important role. James Crawford points out that “the Treaty of Versailles and the counterpart peace treaties of 1919–23 paid regard to the principle of self-determination in some respects”.331 To deal with the exclusion of ethnic minorities, the peace treaties and the LoN-system complemented the principle of self-determination with the protection of minority rights332, which included ensuring citizenship in the country in which people were.333 The protection of minorities was subject to limitations though, because the stability in the states was not to be threatened by minorities, and should certainly not result in the establishment of new political entities.334 Marc Vishniak believes that “[t]hose who created the new order in Europe and drafted the peace treaties were fully conscious of the injustice inherent in statelessness”, evidenced by the inclusion of specific provisions to prevent statelessness in, for instance, the Treaty of St. Germain (with Austria) and the Treaty of Trianon (with Hungary).335 The problem with these kinds of provisions was, however, that they were interpreted in a restrictive manner and insufficiently implemented by changes in the domestic laws. 336 Indeed, it was clear at the time, from the treaties concluded, but also from the decisions and opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), that states retained their power to regulate the acquisition and loss of nationality in their national laws.337 Nonetheless, the problems of statelessness and of refugees were recognized by states. Th is was evidenced by some of the other legal instruments of the interwar period. In 1922, for instance, the Rome Convention attempted to alleviate the problems arising from the break-up of the AustrianHungarian Empire. Th is series of treaties included a treaty on nationality matters and attempted to prevent statelessness in successor states of Austria-Hungary, but still was unable to address the plight of minorities that no state felt were their citizens. Since the treaty lacked comprehensiveness and ratifications by states, because governments simply did not seem interested, it was never applied generally but rather as a bilateral treaty between the two countries that ratified the instrument: Austria and Italy. 338 Its influence was therefore limited. 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 64 James Crawford, ‘The Right of Self-Determination in International Law: Its Development and Future’ in Philip Alston (ed), Peoples’ Rights (Oxford University Press 2001) 7–67, 14. See also James Crawford, ‘The Right of Self-Determination in International Law: Its Development and Future’ in Philip Alston (ed), Peoples’ Rights (Oxford University Press 2001) 14. Marc Vishniak, ‘The Legal Status of Stateless Persons’ in AG Duker (ed), Pamphlet Series: Jews and the Post-War World (No. 6, American Jewish Committee 1945) 16. Eg Melina Grizo, ‘The Versailles System of Peace Treaties and the Minority Protection in Southeast Europe. The Bulgarian-Greek Convention for the Exchange of Population of 1919’ (2010) 3 Belgrade Law Review 67–72. Marc Vishniak, ‘The Legal Status of Stateless Persons’ in AG Duker (ed), Pamphlet Series: Jews and the Post-War World (No. 6, American Jewish Committee 1945) 16. Ibid, 16–18. William E Conklin, Statelessness. The Enigma of the International Community (Hart Publishing 2015) 105. See also eg Acquisition of Polish Nationality (Advisory Opinion) 1923 PCIJ Rep Series B No 7; Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations (Advisory Opinion) 1925 PCIJ Rep Series B No 10. Marc Vishniak, ‘The Legal Status of Stateless Persons’ in AG Duker (ed), Pamphlet Series: Jews and the Post-War World (No. 6, American Jewish Committee 1945) 42–43. Intersentia