jurisdiction on the basis of nationality, including the right to bring claims against other States for their ill-treatment. 22 53. Where States grant a legal status to certain groups of people over whom they consider to have jurisdiction on the basis of a nationality link rather than a form of residence, then a person belonging to this category will be a “national” for the purposes of the 1954 Convention. Generally, at a minimum, such status will be associated with the right of entry, re-entry and residence in the State’s territory but there may be situations where, for historical reasons, entry is only permitted to a non-metropolitan territory belonging to a State. The fact that different categories of nationality within a State have different rights associated with them does not prevent their holders from being treated as a “national” for the purposes of Article 1(1). Nor does the fact that in some countries the rights associated with nationality are fewer than those enjoyed by nationals of other States or indeed fall short of those required in terms of international human rights obligations.36 Although the issue of diminished rights may raise issues regarding the effectiveness of the nationality and violations of international human rights obligations, this is not pertinent to the application of the stateless person definition in the 1954 Convention.37 54. There is no requirement of a “genuine” or an “effective” link implicit in the concept of “national” in Article 1(1).38 Nationality, by its nature, reflects a linkage between the State and the individual, often on the basis of birth on the territory or descent from a national and this is often evident in the criteria for acquisition of nationality in most countries. However, a person can still be a “national” for the purposes of Article 1(1) despite not being born or habitually resident in the State of purported nationality. 55. Under international law, States have broad discretion in the granting and withdrawal of nationality. This discretion may be circumscribed by treaty. In particular, there are numerous prohibitions in global and regional human rights treaties regarding discrimination on grounds such as race, which apply with regard to grant, loss and deprivation of nationality.39 36 Please note that it is the rights generally associated with nationality that are relevant, not whether such rights are actually observed in a specific individual’s experience. 37 Historically, there does not appear to have been any requirement under international law for nationality to have a specific content in terms of rights of individuals, as opposed to it creating certain inter-State obligations. 38 These concepts have arisen in the field of diplomatic protection, that is the area of customary international law that governs the right of a State to take diplomatic and other action against another State on behalf of its national whose rights and interests have been injured by the other State. The International Law Commission recently underlined why these concepts should not be applied beyond a narrow set of circumstances; please see page 33 of its Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries, note 7 above. 39 An example is Article 9 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which guarantees that all women should have equal rights as men in their ability to confer nationality on their children and with respect to acquisition, change, or retention of their nationality (typically upon marriage to a foreigner).