2025 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 7(2) The Norwegian authorities dominate cases concerning the recognition of citizenship of Taiwanese people and refuse their input, making the recognition of Taiwanese citizenship a target for their foreign policy: the One-China policy. It should be seen as a mistreatment for the Norwegian Government not to consider the predominant test where there are multiple nationalities in conflict, and to instead consider its own diplomatic needs to manipulate an individual’s right to their own nationality. By overlooking the Taiwanese people’s close connection to the Taiwanese Government, the Norwegian authorities deprive foreign citizens of their citizenship(s) for its state politics. This case underscores the importance of aligning citizenship recognition with the concept of a genuine link to prevent arbitrary and atypical citizenship deprivation. B From Citizenship to Other Rights: An Analysis of Liu v Poland In another case, Liu v Poland,108 the ECtHR intervened and advised Poland against extraditing a Taiwanese individual to China due to human rights concerns. While this case did not delve into the jurisdictional or citizenship regime differences, it highlights concerns related to the potential extradition to China and potential human rights abuses, such as torture and inhumane treatment. 109 Therefore, despite the applicant being Taiwanese, the case was examined primarily from the perspective of human rights abuses in China instead of the right to identity. This case not only underscores the difficulties faced by Taiwanese individuals in international settings as they risk being mistreated, but also points out the ‘spillover effects’ of sovereignty in the international regime. This is not the first ECtHR case concerning the extradition of a Taiwanese citizen to China. In 1999, a similar case arose in Macao, but the Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.110 1 Liu v Poland in the ECtHR In the Liu v Poland case, the applicant was involved in an international telecommunications fraud syndicate and was arrested in Poland on 6 August 2017. The Chinese authorities requested his extradition on 1 September. The Polish national court ruled that the applicant’s extradition to China would not compromise his right to a fair trial, while also complying with Polish law as there were insufficient grounds to believe he would face torture or other ill-treatment.111 Subsequently, this case was brought to the ECtHR, where the applicant raised 108 Liu v Poland (n 9). 109 ibid 78–83. 110 See Yonghong v Portugal (ECtHR, Fourth Section, Application No 50887/99, 25 November 1999). The case reflected the complex sovereignty shifts between Portugal and China before the end of 1999. The Court found it had no jurisdiction ratione loci because Portugal had never made a declaration under art 56 of the ECHR (n 76) (or the equivalent in Protocol No 6) extending the ECHR’s application to Macao: ECHR (n 76), as amended by Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, opened for signature 28 April 1983, ETS No 114 (entered into force 1 March 1985). Without such a declaration, acts of Macanese authorities (or Portuguese policies toward Macao) fell outside the ECHR’s scope. The Governor’s decision to allow extradition proceedings to continue was deemed only a preparatory step, not a final act by Portuguese judicial authorities. Moreover, Macao’s courts had held exclusive judicial authority since June 1999, and no Portuguese court would review the case, leaving the ECtHR unable to examine the applicant’s claims. 111 Liu v Poland (n 9) [8]–[28]. 120