46 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-first session commentary to section 3 above. As stressed by the Commission in its commentaries to draft articles 14 and 17 on succession of States in respect of State property, archives and debts,136 the case of separation of part or parts of the territory of a State must also be distinguished from the case of the emergence of newly independent States, the territory of which, prior to the date of the succession, had a “status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it”.137 (2) The substantive rules in articles 24 to 26, however, may be applied mutatis mutandis in any case of emergence of a newly independent State. (3) Given the fact that it is sometimes difficult in practice to distinguish between dissolution and separation, the Commission considers it important that the rules applicable in those two situations be equivalent. Accordingly, article 24 is drafted along the lines of article 22. (4) Subparagraph (a) of article 24 sets out the basic rule that the successor State shall attribute its nationality to persons concerned habitually resident in its territory. It must be recalled that an analogous provision regarding the case of separation was included in paragraph (b) of article 18 of the Draft Convention on Nationality prepared by Harvard Law School.138 (5) This rule was applied in practice after the First World War in the case of the establishment of the Free City of Danzig139 and the dismemberment of the AustroHungarian Monarchy.140 More recently, it was applied in the case of the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan in 1971,141 and also when Ukraine142 and Belarus143 became independent following the disintegration of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It may also be noted 136 Yearbook . . . 1981, vol. II (Part Two), pp. 37 and 45, document A/36/10, paragraph (2) of the commentary to draft article 14 and paragraph (5) of the commentary to draft articles 16 and 17. 137 See the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, annex). 138 For the text of this provision see footnote 115 above. 139 See article 105 of the Treaty of Versailles. 140 See article 70 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The rule applied equally to States born from separation and those born from dissolution. It was also embodied in respective article 3 of the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland, the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Czechoslovakia, the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania. 141 Residence in its territory was considered to be the primary criterion for the attribution of the nationality of Bangladesh, regardless of any other considerations. However, non-Bengalese inhabitants of the territory were required to make a simple declaration in order to be recognized as nationals of Bangladesh; they could also opt for the retention of Pakistani nationality. (See M. Rafiqul Islam, “The nationality law and practice of Bangladesh”, Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective, Ko Swan Sik, ed. (Dordrecht/ Boston/London, Martinus Nijhoff, 1990), pp. 5-8.) 142 Article 2 of the Law on Ukrainian Citizenship of 8 October 1991 (see Pravda Ukrainy of 14 November 1991). 143 Article 2 of the Law on Citizenship of the Republic of Belarus of 18 October 1991 (see footnote 58 above), as amended by the Law of 15 June 1993 and the Proclamation of the Supreme Soviet of the Republic of Belarus of 15 June 1993. that the criterion of habitual residence was used in practice by some newly independent States.144 (6) A different criterion was used in the case of the separation of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, namely that of the “citizenship” of Singapore as a component unit of the Federation, which existed in parallel to the nationality of the Federation.145 Yet another criterion, the place of birth, was applied in the case of the separation of Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993,146 probably inspired by the earlier practice of a number of newly independent States.147 (7) As it did in article 22 with respect to the case of dissolution, the Commission decided to resort to the criterion of habitual residence for the determination of the core body of the population of a successor State. In so doing, it took into consideration both the prevailing practice as well as the drawbacks of the use of other criteria to this end, such as rendering a considerable population alien in its homeland.148 (8) As regards subparagraph (b), it was included in article 24 for reasons similar to those leading to the inclusion of subparagraph (b) in article 22.149 The commentary to the latter provision is therefore also relevant to subparagraph (b) of article 24. (9) Paragraph 1 of article 25 deals with the withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State as a corollary to the acquisition of the nationality of the successor State. This provision is based on State practice which, despite some inconsistencies, indicates that such withdrawal has been to a large extent an automatic consequence of the acquisition by persons concerned of the nationality of a 144 See Onuma, loc. cit. (footnote 113 above), p. 15. Goh Phai Cheng, op. cit. (footnote 124 above), p. 9. Comparable criteria were also used by some newly independent States in order to define the core body of their nationals during the process of decolonization. See de Burlet, Nationalité des personnes physiques . . . (footnote 113 above), p. 120, who makes reference to “special nationalities” created in view of a future independence that were only meant to fully come into being with that independence; see also pp. 124 and 129. See further the example of the Philippines cited in Onuma, loc. cit. (footnote 113 above), note 96. 146 See Eritrean Nationality Proclamation No. 21/1992 of 6 April 1992 (Gazette of Eritrean Laws, vol. 2 (1992), No. 3). 147 For examples of such practice, see Onuma, loc. cit. (footnote 113 above), pp. 13-14, and paragraphs (15) to (18) of the commentary to draft article 23 proposed by the Special Rapporteur in his third report (footnote 10 above). 148 See Onuma, loc. cit. (footnote 113 above), p. 29. 149 See paragraphs (7) to (10) of the commentary to section 3 above. For the practice relating to the use of the criterion referred to in subparagraph (b) (i) of article 24, see footnote 145 above. For the use of the criterion of the place of birth listed in subparagraph (b) (ii), see the third report (footnote 10 above), paragraphs (5) and (6) of the commentary to draft article 23 proposed by the Special Rapporteur. See also article 2, paragraph (2), of the Law on Ukrainian Citizenship of 8 October 1991 (footnote 142 above), stipulating that the citizens of Ukraine include “persons who are . . . permanent residents in another country provided they were born in Ukraine or have proved that before leaving for abroad, they had permanently resided in Ukraine, who are not citizens of other States and not later than five years after enactment of this Law express their desire to become citizens of Ukraine.” 145