2018] NATIONALITY AND DEFINING “THE RIGHT TO HAVE RIGHTS” S879 There exists some measure of scholarly dispute over to whom States owed the obligation to admit. 155 Weis and Panhuys, two of the foremost scholars on post-World War II nationality in international law, suggested that the obligation resulted in “a duty of a State towards another State” as an extension of States’ territorial integrity. 156 Richard Plender, citing to the UDHR, post-World War II human rights treaties, and States’ practice of accepting their unlawfully expelled nationals, countered that norms had crystallized in a manner recognizing individuals’ right of entry. 157 Discussions regarding the UDHR’s inclusion of the right to return, or nationals’ right of entry, support Plender’s interpretation; State representatives asserted that it was “logical” that every person had the right to return to his or her own State. 158 2. The Relationship Between Nationality and Citizenship The travaux préparatoires for the UDHR show that State representatives ultimately distinguished between nationality and citizenship and did not consider the former to include political rights. Initially, there was considerable confusion among the State representatives regarding the meaning of legal nationality, as compared to historico-biological nationality 159 and citizenship. 160 Only upon clarification from the French, Belgian, and Dutch representatives, who argued that “nationality and the right of asylum were closely linked” 161 and that nationality bore on the availability of legal 155. WEIS, supra note 1, at 50; PLENDER, supra note 125, at 133–34. 156. PANHUYS, supra note 115, at 57. 157. See PLENDER, supra note 125, at 133–39. 158. Comm’n on Human Rights, Hundred and Twentieth Meeting, U.N. Doc. A/C.3/SR.120 (Nov. 2, 1948). 159. See, e.g., Comm’n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm’n on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, First Session: Summary Record of Fifth Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.5 (Nov. 27, 1947) (statement from Australian representative McNamara) (addressing the confusion of the Belgian representative by suggesting that “national origin” is “synonymous with nationality, but . . . might also have a wider meaning”). For a brief discussion of the distinction between legal nationality and historico-biological nationality, see supra note 1. 160. See, e.g., Comm’n on Human Rights, Sub-Comm’n on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, First Session: Summary Record of Eleventh Meeting, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/SR.11 (Dec. 1, 1947) (“Mr. McNamara (Australia) thought that some members had a different idea of the concept of ‘nationality.’ Mr. Borisov appeared to interpret it as meaning the citizenship of a State.”). 161. Comm’n on Human Rights, Second Session: Meeting, supra note 134. Summary Record of the Fifth Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2954729