Also widely cited is the definition provided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 1955 Nottebohm case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala: [N]ationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be said to constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the individual upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as the result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the State conferring nationality than with that of any other State.8 The facts of the Nottebohm case were limited to a state’s right to refuse to recognise an exercise of diplomatic protection by another state on behalf of an individual without sufficient connection to the other state. The definition has been heavily criticised for implying that such genuine connections are essential for recognition of a person’s legal nationality, potentially providing grounds for loss or deprivation of nationality.9 However, it has also been referenced in support of the positive right to a nationality based on such connections (u section 7.2). 2.3. “Nationality” or “citizenship”? In international law, nationality and citizenship are now used as synonyms; the terms can be used interchangeably in English, though “nationality” is more commonly used in international treaties. Neither term has any connotation of ethnic or racial content, but is simply the legal status that gives a person certain rights and obligations in relation to a particular state. At national level, either term may be used, according to the legal tradition of the particular country concerned. Litigators must pay attention both to the correct usage of the different terms in law in the relevant jurisdiction, and to the wider resonances of each term in the national context. “Citizenship” often carries connotations of participation and voice in society, while “nationality” may suggest an ethnic content. In international law, however, the terms do not have these different meanings. This Guide uses the term nationality in relation to international law (unless referring to a text where citizenship is used) and the terms nationality or citizenship as they are used national level. 2.4. The modes of acquisition and loss of nationality Most people obtain a nationality at birth, by operation of law. nationality attributed at birth by operation of law is generally termed “nationality of origin” in civil law countries; while in the common law countries the term used may be citizenship by birth (if born in the country) or citizenship by descent (if born outside the country). However, terminology is not consistent across countries (even in countries within the same general legal tradition), which can lead to confusion in understanding the different meanings of what appear to be the same terms in other languages or jurisdictions. In determining the nationality of a child at birth, most states combine the two basic concepts known as jus soli (literally, law or right of the soil), whereby an individual obtains nationality based on birth in a particular country (or if both that person and one parent were born there); and jus sanguinis (law or right of blood), where nationality is based on descent from parents (or grandparents) who themselves are citizens.10 Another distinction is also often important, between nationality attributed at birth and nationality that is acquired later in life based on an application that is founded on a strong connection to the country (such as marriage to a national or long residence). In this context, national laws may distinguish between “attribution” of nationality (automatic, by operation of law, most often but not only at birth) or “acquisition” of nationality (based on an application, where the state may also have discretion to deny or reject nationality). In other legal traditions, however, “acquisition” is used to cover both attribution at birth and later acquisition based on an application. Similarly, international law (the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961) makes a distinction between “loss” of nationality (automatic, by operation of law), and “deprivation” of nationality (for which an administrative decision must be taken, whether by a court or the executive branch). This distinction may be made in national laws, 8 Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala) (second phase), ICJ Reports 4 (International Court of Justice 1955), p.23. Robert D. Sloane, “Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International Legal Regulation of Nationality”, Harvard International Law Journal Vol. 50, no. 1 (2009), pp.1–60; Audrey Macklin, “Is It Time to Retire Nottebohm?”, AJIL Unbound 111 (2017). pp.492–97; Rayner Thwaites, “The Life and Times of the Genuine Link”, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review Vol. 49, no. 4 (2018), pp.645–70. 9 Comprehensive information on the multiple possible modes of acquisition and loss of nationality in all countries of the world are provided in datasets compiled by the GLOBALCIT project of the European University Institute. Maarten Vink, Luuk van der Baaren, Rainer Bauböck, Jelena Džankić, Iseult Honohan and Bronwen Manby (2023). GLOBALCIT Citizenship Law Dataset, v2.0, Country-Year-Mode Data ([Acquisition]/[Loss]). Global Citizenship Observatory, https:// globalcit.eu/databases/globalcit-citizenship-law-dataset/. 10 16 U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S