2025 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 7(2) By extension, the plaintiffs argued that ethnic identity, as a component of one’s legal civil status and deeply connected to a person’s sense of self and belonging, should also fall within the protective scope of art 8.98 While marital status and ethnic identity are distinct, both relate to how individuals are recognised by the state in ways that significantly affect their private and social identity. Therefore, the protection of ethnic identity under art 8 is consistent with the ECtHR’s recognition that legal status, where central to one’s identity, is part of the private life safeguarded by the ECHR. Building on this precedent in Ciubotaru v Moldova,99 the ECtHR ruled that ethnic identity is protected under art 8. Combining these principles, the plaintiffs argued the registration of Taiwanese identity, as an ethic identity, should be recognised as essential to safeguarding the psychological integrity and personal development of this ethnic group.100 Given that the ECtHR has acknowledged ethnic identity and the registration of legal civil status as critical aspects of private life under art 8, protecting Taiwanese identity therefore aligned with its established jurisprudence. 101 In addition, framing Taiwanese identity as an ethnic identity does not directly challenge the recognition of nationality or raise immediate questions about statehood. Rather, this approach reflects the complexity and sensitivity involved in asserting Taiwanese identity in the international arena as nationality may bring up more complexities. In this context, the plaintiffs relied on the precedent to claim protection for ethnic identity under international human rights law.102 While the right to ethnic identity may seem distinct from claims to nationality or citizenship, the two often overlap, particularly in cases of contested citizenship. In such situations, the denial of ethnic identity and the denial of citizenship may become interchangeable, as both reflect the underlying instability caused by unresolved questions of sovereignty, state recognition, and citizenship. On the other hand, Dadouch v Malta serves as a judicial example that while a passport may be valid proof of one’s nationality, it is not always regarded as definitive evidence of nationality. 103 In this specific context, the Taiwanese passport might be regarded as proof of the passport holders’ nationality. Nonetheless, the plaintiffs did not focus extensively on this point, instead framing their argument primarily around ethnic identity. The Liu and Others v Norway case eventually reached the ECtHR in July 2021, but it was ruled inadmissible by the judge who declared it manifestly ill-founded: ‘The Court finds, in light of all the material in its possession, that the matters complained of do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and 98 99 Annex to Liu and Others v Norway (n 84) 4, 6. Ciubotaru v Moldova (ECtHR, Fourth Chamber, Application No 27138/04, 27 April 2010) [49]–[59]. 100 Annex to Liu and Others v Norway (n 84) 4. 101 Liu and Others v Norway (n 8). 102 Annex to Liu and Others v Norway (n 84) 3–20. 103 Dadouch v Malta (n 93). Usually, one is required to hold full citizenship before applying for a passport. However, there are cases that show passports cannot always be regarded as proof of nationality. See Kamal Makili-Aliyev, ‘An Illegal Republic: The Formation and Continuity of the Collective Legal Identity of Karabakh Armenians’ (2023) 27(7) Citizenship Studies 799, 808, 810; Eiki Berg and Martin Mölder, ‘Who is Entitled to ‘Earn sovereignty’? Legitimacy and Regime Support in Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh’ (2012) 18(3) Nations and Nationalism 527, 534; John Mitchell and Richard Wilson (eds), Human Rights in Global Perspective: Anthropological Studies of Rights, Claims and Entitlements (Taylor & Francis Group 2003) 103–7. 118