Jelena Džankić Macedonia have obtained the passport of neighbouring Bulgaria,43 whose ethnic citizenship policy was a means for these individuals to access the rights of European Union (EU) citizenship. In 2022, the Bulgarian government conditioned the opening of EU accession negotiations with the formal recognition of ethnic Bulgarians as a constitutional minority in North Macedonia. The request was supported by records on Bulgarian citizenship acquisitions by North Macedonian citizens. Hence the large number of instrumental citizens became leveraged in claims made by foreign authorities against their state of residence and original citizenship. The second kind of repercussions that can arise from malleable citizenship acquisition rules and practices happened in the Comoros mentioned by Neha Jain.44 In The Cosmopolites, Atossa Abrahamian explains how this worked for the bidoons in the UAE and Kuwait.45 The legal basis for the grant of citizenship by investment had already existed by means of the 2008 Comorian Economic Citizenship Law. Once the government of the Comoros made arrangements with the governments of the Gulf states, bidoons were enticed to apply for the Comorian passports with a promise that it would be the first step towards acquiring the nationality of the states where they lived. UAE government officials used examples of influential bidoons to promote their “externalization of nationality”, while posing increasing hurdles for the bidoon population in their everyday lives (e.g., for registering a car). As a result, many opted to apply for the Comorian passport and become vulnerable and precarious in their homeland. In all of these cases, strategic choices by individuals have had adverse consequences. Yet weaponisation of such choices happened only when states “cashed in on” individual decisions on nationality acquisition in a different state. This is at the heart of the second problem with the idea of an international law that would regulate nationality acquisition: how to strike a balance between respecting individual choices and preventing misuse of such choices by states. If this cannot be achieved, it might prove more harmful for already vulnerable individuals than the absence of regulation. Would it make a difference? The final concern related to an international law that would regulate the misuse of citizenship acquisition and attribution is ostensibly a practical one: what form would it take? Nonetheless, even such a simple question raises crucial concerns related to the functioning of the international state system and challenges the substance of norms associated with our understanding of free contemporary societies. First, it is unlikely that the international law regulating the acquisition of nationality would entail any restriction on multiple status. Since the 1960s, dual nationality diffusion became associated with liberal democracies, where increased mobility patterns have substantively altered the meaning of “national” identity.46 This is not as much the case in countries and societies contested by or contesting other state and nation building projects: there, dual citizenship is restricted or promoted for a completely different purpose.47 Openness toward dual nationality is often not a mechanism of inclusion; rather, it is often deployed as a tool for achieving geostrategic objectives. Yet restricting a “liberal” norm because it can be misused questions the system of values that has led to the acceptance of such norm. Second, it is also questionable to what extent the misuse of nationality acquisition can be regulated through human rights law. Norms for the protection against statelessness, as well as those aimed at 43 Nikolov K. (2022), ‘Progress in Sofia’s talks with Skopje despite census debate’, EURACTIV, 1 April 2022, Progress in Sofia’s talks with Skopje despite census debate – EURACTIV.com. 44 Jain 2022. 45 Abrahamanian A. (2015), The Cosmopolites: The Coming of the Global Citizen, Columbia Global Reports. 46 Vink M. et. al. (2019), ‘The international diffusion of expatriate dual citizenship’, Migration Studies 7(3),362–383 47 Džankic J. (2016), Citizenship in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro: Effects of Statehood and Identity Challenges, Taylor and Francis. 9 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies