Nationality in relation to the succession of States wording of this paragraph of the preamble is essentially based on the equivalent paragraphs of the preambles to the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (hereinafter “1978 Vienna Convention”) and the 1983 Vienna Convention. PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1. Right to a nationality Every individual who, on the date of the succession of States, had the nationality of the predecessor State, irrespective of the mode of acquisition of that nationality, has the right to the nationality of at least one of the States concerned, in accordance with the present draft articles. Commentary (1) Article 1 is a key provision, the very foundation of the present draft articles. It states the main principle from which other draft articles are derived. The core element of this article is the recognition of the right to a nationality in the particular context of a succession of States. Thus, it applies to this particular situation the general principle contained in article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,25 which was the first international instrument embodying the “right of everyone to a nationality”. (2) The Commission acknowledges that the positive character of article 15 has been disputed in the doctrine.26 It has been argued, in particular, that it is not possible to determine the State vis-à-vis which a person would be entitled to present a claim for nationality, i.e. the addressee of the obligation corresponding to such a right.27 However, in the case of a succession of States, it is possible to identify such a State. It is either the successor State, or one of the successor States when there are more than one, or, as the case may be, the predecessor State. (3) The right embodied in article 1 in general terms is given more concrete form in subsequent provisions, as indicated by the phrase “in accordance with the present draft articles”. This article cannot therefore be read in isolation. (4) The identification of the State which is under the obligation to attribute its nationality depends mainly on the type of succession of States and the nature of the links 25 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. 26 See J. M. M. Chan, “The right to a nationality as a human right: The current trend towards recognition”, Human Rights Law Journal, vol. 12, Nos. 1-2 (1991), pp. 1-14. 27 See the comment by Rezek, according to whom article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out a “rule which evokes unanimous sympathy, but which is ineffective, as it fails to specify for whom it is intended”. J. F. Rezek, “Le droit international de la nationalité”, in Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, 1986-III (Dordrecht, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987), vol. 198, pp. 333-400, at p. 354. 25 that persons referred to in article 1 may have with one or more States involved in the succession. In most cases, such persons have links with only one of the States involved in a succession. Unification of States is a situation where a single State–the successor State–is the addressee of the obligation to attribute its nationality to these persons. In other types of succession of States, such as dissolution, separation or transfer of territory, the major part of the population has also most, if not all, of its links to one of the States involved in the territorial change: it falls within the category of persons resident in the territory where they were born and with which they are bound by many other links, including family and professional ties. (5) In certain cases, however, persons may have links to two or even more States involved in a succession. In this event, a person might either end up with the nationality of two or more of these States or, as a result of a choice, end up with the nationality of only one of them. Under no circumstances, however, shall a person be denied the right to acquire at least one such nationality. This is the meaning of the phrase “has the right to the nationality of at least one of the States concerned”. The recognition of the possibility of multiple nationality resulting from a succession of States does not mean that the Commission intended to encourage a policy of dual or multiple nationality. The draft articles in their entirety are completely neutral on this question, leaving it to the discretion of each and every State. Moreover, articles 8, 9 and 10 provide sufficient opportunities to the States which favour a policy of a single nationality to apply such a policy. (6) Another element which is stated expressly in article 1 is that the mode of acquisition of the predecessor State’s nationality has no effect on the scope of the right of the persons referred to in this provision to a nationality. It is irrelevant in this regard whether they have acquired the nationality of the predecessor State at birth, by virtue of the principles of jus soli or jus sanguinis, or by naturalization, or even as a result of a previous succession of States.28 They are all equally entitled to a nationality under the terms of this article. Article 2. Use of terms For the purposes of the present draft articles: (a) “Succession of States” means the replacement of one State by another in the responsibility for the international relations of territory; (b) “Predecessor State” means the State which has been replaced by another State on the occurrence of a succession of States; 28 As stated in the comment to article 18 of the Draft Convention on Nationality prepared by Harvard Law School, “there is no reason whatsoever for drawing a distinction between persons who have acquired nationality at birth and those who have acquired nationality through some process of naturalization prior to the [succession]”. (“Comments to the 1929 Harvard Draft Convention on Nationality”, Research in International Law (footnote 19 above), p. 63.)