284 K. Henrard When considering the obligations that used to be reserved for nationals, some of them have been made generally applicable to residents (the duty to pay taxes), or even more broadly to everyone in the jurisdiction of the state (obeying laws). The transition in most countries to professional armies has eliminated military duties. It may be so that states are said to have legitimate expectations of loyalty of their citizens, international law recognizes no such obligation.108 Admittedly, several countries require an oath of loyalty or allegiance from persons seeking to naturalise,109 but this does not tend to translate into concrete obligations.110 4.2.1 Rights, Entitlements and Protection Mechanisms (Traditionally) Reserved for Nationals Nationality is in several respects an important marker for international law purposes. Indeed, nationality not only determines enemy status in times of war, but states are also entitled to exercise diplomatic protection in favour of their nationals and refuse extradition of their own nationals. Since the 19th century the rule of diplomatic protection111 was established following which one state may invoke the responsibility of a third state for an internationally wrongful act inflicted on its nationals. As diplomatic protection is conceived as a right of a state against another state, in the sense that the internationally wrongful act against the person can be constructed as an injury to the state itself, there needs to be a sufficient connection between the state exercising diplomatic protection and the individual. Nationality is supposed to reflect (guarantee) such a sufficient connection, or—referring to the ICJ in the Nottebohm case—a genuine link. In its 2006 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection the International Law Commission (ILC) still clearly demands sufficient ties between the individual and the state, but also acknowledges the impact of globalisation and the growing migration streams.112 Traditionally, diplomatic protection is conceived as a right of a state that does not go hand in hand with a duty towards the national disadvantaged by the internationally wrongful act.113 As these internationally wrongful acts will largely correspond to the norms found in the principal human rights treaties,114 the growing individual complaints rights before international courts (including treaty bodies) do reduce the importance of diplomatic protection.115 Nevertheless, in the several instances 108 Boll (2005), pp. 41, 46. Boll (2005), pp. 58–59. 110 See however the grounds for deprivation of nationality, some of which apply even if this would cause statelessness, Art. 8(3) of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961). 111 For a more comprehensive account of diplomatic protection, see Denza (2018) in this special issue. 112 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection the International Law Commission (2006) p. 8. A state can also exercise diplomatic protection in relation to recognized refugees and stateless persons as long as they are lawfully and habitually resident on its territory (tho Pesch (2015), p. 56). 113 The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Britain), 1924 PCIJ, Series A, No. 2. 114 Dugard (2009), tho Pesch (2015), p. 65. 115 See also Denza (2018) in this special issue; Dugard (2013), p. 3. 109 123