34 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session of them consider that the legal basis of such right can be deduced only from a treaty, others, however, have asserted the existence of an independent right of option as an attribute of the principle of self-determination.71 (6) In the view of the Commission, the respect for the will of the individual is a consideration which, with the development of human rights law, has become paramount. However, this does not mean that every acquisition of nationality upon a succession of States must have a consensual basis. The Commission considers that a right of option has a role to play, in particular, in resolving problems of attribution of nationality to persons concerned falling within an area of overlapping jurisdictions of States concerned. (7) The term “option” used in the present draft articles does not only mean a choice between nationalities, but is used in a broader sense, covering also the procedures of “opting in”, i.e. the voluntary acquisition of nationality by declaration, and “opting out”, i.e. the renunciation of a nationality acquired ex lege. Such right of option may be provided under national legislation even without agreement between States concerned. (8) Paragraph 1 of article 11 sets out the requirement of respect for the will of the person concerned where such person is qualified to acquire the nationality of two or several States concerned. The expression “shall give consideration” implies that there is no strict obligation to grant a right of option to this category of persons concerned. This principle, however, is further developed in articles 20, 23 and 26, relating to specific categories of succession of States, where the obligation to grant the right of option is enshrined and where the categories of persons entitled to such a right are also specified. Paragraph 1 does also not prejudice the policy of single or dual nationality which each State concerned may pursue. (9) Paragraph 2 highlights the function of the right of option as one of the techniques aimed at eliminating the risk of statelessness in situations of succession of States. Such an approach was adopted, e.g. in the Burma Independence Act, 194772 (see paragraph (3) of the present commentary) or in article 6 of Law No. 40/1993 of 29 December 1992 on the acquisition and loss of citizenship of the Czech Republic.73 The Commission chooses to describe the link which must exist between the persons concerned and a particular State concerned by means of the expression “appropriate connection”, which should be interpreted in a broader sense than the notion of “genuine link”. The reason for this terminological choice is the paramount importance attached by the Commission to the prevention of statelessness, which, in this particular case, supersedes the strict requirement of an effective nationality. (10) The core meaning of the term “appropriate connection” in a particular case is spelled out in Part II, where the criteria, such as habitual residence, appropriate legal connection with one of the constituent units of the predecessor State, or the birth in the territory which is a part of a State concerned, are used in order to define categories of persons entitled to the nationality of a State concerned. However, in the absence of the above-mentioned type of link between a person concerned and a State concerned further criteria, such as being a descendant of a person who is a national of a State concerned or having once resided in the territory which is a part of a State concerned, should be taken into consideration. (11) The Commission decides to couch paragraph 2 in terms of an obligation, in order to ensure consistency with the obligation to prevent statelessness under article 4. (12) Paragraphs 3 and 4 spell out the consequences of the exercise of the right of option by a person concerned as regards the obligations of the States concerned mentioned therein. The obligations of various States involved in a particular succession may operate jointly, when the right of option is based on a treaty between them, but also separately, when the right of option (in the form of both opting-in or opting-out) is granted solely by the legislation of these States. Thus, acquisition upon option of the nationality of one State concerned does not inevitably imply the obligation of the other State concerned to withdraw its nationality. Such obligation exists only if provided in a treaty between the States concerned or if the person opting for the nationality of one State concerned also renounces the nationality of the other in accordance with the provisions of the latter’s legislation. (13) Paragraph 5 stipulates the general requirement of a reasonable time limit for the exercise of the right of option, irrespective of whether it is provided in a treaty between States concerned or in the legislation of a State concerned. State practice shows that the length of the period during which persons concerned were granted the right of option varied considerably. For example, under the Treaty of cession of the territory of the Free Town of Chandernagore of 1951 between India and France,74 the right of option was provided for a period of six months,75 while the Treaty between Spain and Morocco regarding Spain’s retrocession to Morocco of the Territory of Sidi Ifni76 established a three-month period.77 In some cases, the right of option was granted for a considerable period 74 71 See J. L. Kunz, “L’option de nationalité”, Recueil des cours . . . 1930–I (Paris, Sirey), vol. 31, pp. 111–175; and “Nationality and option clauses in the Italian Peace Treaty of 1947”, American Journal of International Law (Washington, D.C.), vol. 41, No. 3 (July 1947), pp. 622631. 72 See footnote 37 above. 73 See Report of the experts of the Council of Europe . . . (footnote 35 above), appendix IV; and the last footnote to paragraph (31) of the commentary to draft article 8 proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his third report (footnote 10 above). United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 203, No. 2744, p. 155. See paragraphs (17) and (18) of the commentary to draft article 9 proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his third report (footnote 10 above). 76 Tratado por el que el Estado Español retrocede al Reino de Marruecos el territorio de Ifni (Fez, 4 January 1969), Repertorio Cronológico de Legislación (Pamplona, Aranzadi, 1969), pp. 10081011 and 1041. 77 See paragraph (28) of the commentary to draft articles 7 and 8 proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his third report (footnote 10 above). 75