2025 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 7(2) protection.46 This test considers factors like habitual residence, time spent in each country of nationality, family ties, and employment, emphasising the actual and effective connection between individuals and their state of nationality. 47 As international law evolves, the relaxation of the genuine link requirement does not eliminate scrutiny of an individual’s nationality. Instead, as observed in this article, the test now turns to determine the primary link between individuals and the specific state in cases involving multiple nationalities. Both the genuine link test and the predominant nationality test include similar evaluations such as social connections to the country. Therefore, examining the genuine link between states and individuals is the essential standard for predominant nationality, even though the focus of the test has shifted. In other words, the genuine link test declines to recognise the nationality if lacking genuine connection(s), 48 while the predominant nationality test allows the individual to hold multiple nationalities while determining which of these nationalities is dominant. In addition, the evolvement shows that even in a period where holding multiple nationality is becoming much more common in a globalising world, the evaluation of genuine links between an individual and the state has not expired but continues to serve as critical criteria for citizenship recognition. The genuine link and predominant nationality tests may offer insight on the predicament of Taiwanese citizenship being interpreted as Chinese or PRC citizenship. As such tests determine the international community’s recognition of a person’s nationality by focusing on the connections between the state and the individual, they highlight the core of nationality. Therefore, by examining these connections, one can gauge not only the contents and practices of nationality but also the real ties between individuals and states. The predominant nationality test does not aim to deny any of the multiple nationalities a person may hold, but it does not address cases where nationality has been forcibly imposed. Consequently, the case of Taiwanese people holding ROC nationality but having PRC nationality conferred upon them en masse — and without their consent — may extend the discussion of both the predominant nationality test or the genuine link test to encompass nationality imposed by the PRC, and potentially by other states adopting a similar approach. With Taiwan’s limited international recognition, many states view Taiwanese people as Chinese citizens, even though their real and effective links exist with the 46 47 48 Draft Articles (n 43) art 7. Francisco Orrego Vicuña, ‘The Changing Law of Nationality of Claims’ (Interim Report, International Law Association, Report of the 69th Conference, 2000) 646[11], cited in Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (n 44) 43; Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries (n 44) 26 [5]. There are concerns about whether such an approach may lead to statelessness, especially in the migratory context. However, scholars also argue that the genuine link principle may help resolve issues of statelessness in situ, where individuals lack legal status but have strong social connections. See Caia Vlieks, ‘Contexts of Statelessness’ in Tendayi Bloom, Katherine Tonkiss and Phillip Cole (eds), Understanding Statelessness (Routledge 2017). 110