2 International Legal Development: Creation of Two “Orphan” Conventions (1) International regulation of nationality laws and statelessness International law has traditionally reserved the right to grant nationality to each state. The Permanent International Court of Justice 1923 Advisory Opinion on the Tunis and Morocco Nationality Decrees32 and the 1930 Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws33 are often cited as evidence. The Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws was the first convention to deal with the problem of statelessness as well as dual nationality, and was the starting point in the effort to prevent statelessness in international law.34 The Convention stipulates prevention of statelessness from the loss of nationality when expatriate permits are issued (Article 7), for married women (Articles 8~11), for a child whose parents are both unknown or parents having no or unknown nationality, and for an illegitimate or adopted child (Articles 13~17). The Hague Conference for Codification of International Law, which adopted this Convention, also adopted detailed provisions for stateless persons and stateless children whose fathers’ nationality is unknown in A Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness and A Special Protocol Concerning Statelessness. Article 1 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws stipulates that it is for each State to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognized by other States in so far as it is consistent with international treaties, international customs, and the generally recognized principles of law with regard to nationality. In order for nationality laws to have opposability, its laws must be consistent with international law. The International Court of Justice provided the “genuine and effective link” criteria in the Nottebohm case. Unless the 32 Advisory Opinion on the Tunis and Morocco Nationality Decrees [1923] PCIJ, Series B, No.4, p.24. Okuda incisively analyses this advisory opinion: “the conception that nationality belongs to the domestic jurisdiction of the state only rephrases a given that assigning a particular nationality is through domestic law and not international law.” (Okuda, supra note 3, p.53). 33 Japan signed on April 12, 1930, but has yet to ratify this Convention. This is also the case for the 1930 A Protocol Relating to Certain Case of Statelessness. 34 Only about 20 countries have become signatories of the Hague Convention. This reflects the states’ desire to reserve rights about stateless persons to their jurisdiction, but the principles expressed in the Convention have greatly influenced the development of domestic nationality laws in non-contracting States. See Weis, P., Nationality and Statelessness in International Law (rev.2nd ed., 1979) pp.27-28; Chan, J., “The Right to Nationality as a Human Right,” Human Rights Law Journal. Vol.12 (1991), p.2. As will be discussed later, Japan has also conformed to this trend in international law. 17