116 COLUM. J. RACE & L. [Vol. 11:83 By contrast, nationality matters have been considered more extensively in the context of the Committee’s examination of individual country reports, although in that context the issue is examined relatively infrequently. 142 The Committee was initially reluctant to criticize states’ treatment of non-citizens and nationality laws, especially as those laws related to naturalization and the granting of preferential treatment to citizens of favored nations. 143 In more recent years, the Committee’s General Recommendations, and especially General Recommendation Thirty, have somewhat narrowed the terms of the Convention so that Article 5 is now seen as limiting the scope of Articles 1(2) and 1(3). Even with this interpretation advanced in its General Recommendations, the Committee has been inconsistent in its willingness to comment directly on racially discriminatory nationality laws. Our survey of the Committee’s concluding observations over a thirty-year period reveals that it is, to a certain degree, still reluctant to call attention clearly and unequivocally to discriminatory nationality laws, particularly as they relate to the denial of nationality. In its General Recommendation Eleven, the Committee made a preliminary and interesting interpretive maneuver with respect to Article 1. Noting that Article 1(2) exempts from Article (Jan. 23, 2017) (Petitioner claimed that his application for naturalization was rejected based on his national origin and disability.); A.M.M. v. Switzerland, Communication 50/2012, Opinion, Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, ¶ 3, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/84/D/50/2012 (Mar. 11, 2014) (Petitioner claimed that the State violated his right not to be arbitrarily discriminated against, on account of his race and national origin, in his quest to secure refugee status.); D.R. v. Australia, Communication 42/2008, Opinion, Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, ¶ 7.3, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/75/D/42/2008 (Sep. 15, 2009) (Petitioner claimed that in withdrawing him from Social Security and depriving him of the right to the full benefits of citizenship, the State arbitrarily discriminated against him because of his race and nationality.). This is current up to November 19, 2020. 142 The Committee has published concluding observations on 161 countries. The analysis for this article has derived from a review of all of the concluding observations available in English up until December 2019. 143 Mahalic & Mahalic, supra note 123, at 79 (“States parties hold, and the Committee has agreed, that a state has the sovereign right to decide who can enter and remain in its territory provided that no element of racial discrimination is involved. Committee members have been hesitant to criticize a state’s naturalization laws unless they reveal a flagrant racially discriminatory practice. With one exception, the Committee has discovered no racist provisions on the face of any state party’s naturalization laws.”); Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Rep. of Meeting, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/SR.488 (Aug. 11, 1980); Comm. on Elimination Racial Discrimination, Provisional Summary Record of Its Twenty-Eighth Session, 643rd mtg. U.N. Doc. CERD/C/SR.643 (July 22, 1983).