2011] AN INTERNATIONAL LAW OF CITIZENSHIP 725 durational residency requirements, language and civics tests are accepted by liberal theorists, although in this context the question is at least contested.198 Moreover, unlike other citizenship qualifications, backsliding has occurred in recent years away from the relaxation of naturalization thresholds.199 Unreasonably exacting requirements for integration into a society raise human rights concerns, especially where they have a discriminatory impact.200 Post-Soviet citizenship regimes in Latvia and Estonia were condemned for their onerous language requirements.201 When such thresholds require cultural assimilation on top of knowledge they may be suspect; at the same time that more states have moved to adopt naturalization tests,202 there appears a trend away from assimilation criteria.203 States increasingly exempt some classes of applicants, including the elderly and the disabled, from language and civics requirements.204 Failure to provide such exemptions has been criticized by international actors.205 Disqualifying naturalization criteria. Many states disqualify individuals who have a criminal history or who lack good moral character or other indicia of personal integrity from eligibility to naturalize.206 Such barriers may come to implicate human rights norms, especially if they are applied on a discriminatory or arbitrary basis. 198 Compare Joseph Carens, Why Naturalization Should Be Easy: A Response to Noah Pickus, in IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY 141 (Noah M. J. Pickus ed., 1998) (no requirements justified beyond durational residency) with BENHABIB, supra note 7, at 139 (language competency and proof of civil literacy do not violate “self-understanding of liberal democracies as associations”); see also Bauböck & Perchinig, supra note 180, at 451–52 (accepting legitimacy of language, but not civics, tests). For a range of views, see Rainer Bauböck & Christian Joppke, How Liberal Are Citizenship Tests? (Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European Union Institute, Working Paper No. RSCAS 2010/41, 2010) (with contributions from Christian Joppke, Joseph Carens, Randall Hansen, and Dora Kostakopoulou, among others); see also Ines Michalowski, Citizenship Tests in Five Countries—An Expression of Political Liberalism? (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fur Socialforschung Discussion Paper, Oct. 2009), at http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2009/iv09-702.pdf. 199 See infra notes 257– 60 and accompanying text. 200 See, e.g., MANDBY, STRUGGLES FOR CITIZENSHIP IN AFRICA, supra note 5, at 142– 43 (noting that language and cultural requirements for naturalization in African states “may be used in practice to restrict citizenship on an ethnic basis”); SOKOLOFF, supra note 152, at 28 (“Language proficiency in the main national language is a condition widely used to reject citizenship claims from non-mainstream ethnic groups.”). 201 See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports: Estonia, para. 110, UN Doc. A/51/40, vol. I (Sept. 16, 1996) (expressing concern at the “stringency of the language criterion” for naturalization); Report of the Secretary-General, The Situation of Human Rights in Estonia and Latvia, UN Doc. A/47/748, Annex, at 8 (Oct. 26, 1993) (calling on Latvia to exempt residents over fifty from satisfaction of language requirement); Report of the Secretary-General, The Situation of Human Rights in Estonia and Latvia, UN Doc. A/48/511, Annex, at 16 –17 (Oct. 26, 1993) (recommending exemption for those over sixty and for invalids). 202 See infra text accompanying note 259. 203 See, e.g., MANBY, CITIZENSHIP LAW IN AFRICA, supra note 5, at 65 (noting amendment of Ethiopian naturalization law to eliminate requirement that applicants “know [the] Amharic language perfectly, speaking and writing it fluently” and to require only ability “to communicate in any one of the languages spoken” in Ethiopia). 204 Bauböck & Perchinig, supra note 180, at 452; see also 8 U.S.C. §1423(b)(1) (2011) (U.S. law exempting those with “physical or developmental disability or mental impairment” from language and civics tests). 205 See Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Addendum: Mission to Latvia, supra note 193, para. 88 (recommending that Latvia relax naturalization requirements, in particular language proficiency exams, for elderly persons); see also CERD, Concluding Observations: Norway para. 19, UN Doc. CERD/ C/NOR/CO/18 (Oct. 19, 2006) (“While noting the importance of adequate command of the State language as a vehicle of social integration, the Committee is concerned about the strictness of the language requirements for acquiring Norwegian citizenship”). 206 See Bauböck & Perchinig, supra note 180, at 450. This content downloaded from 82.196.111.31 on Thu, 07 Oct 2021 15:20:30 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms