Title: The Dilemmas of Schrödinger’s Citizenship
Domain: Law

Question: Exploring the contradiction of whether an individual can simultaneously hold the citizenship of one or more countries and be stateless (the "Schrödinger's citizen" dilemma), analyzes its legal roots and the impact on the international human rights system.

Background: 1.Theoretical Background | (1The declaratory-constitutive dichotomy (Ross, Austin): Legal acts are divided into declaring natural facts (such as birth) and creating new rights (such as naturalization). | (2The theory of exclusive state sovereignty over nationality (Article 1 of the Hague Convention on Nationality): States have the right to independently determine the granting of nationality, but are subject to international conventions. | (3The principle of genuine connection (Nottebohm case): Nationality must be based on a substantive connection between the individual and the state (such as place of residence, center of interests). | (4The theory of human rights constraints (Zhao v. Netherlands case): The right to birth registration constitutes the core of the right to nationality, and administrative barriers infringe upon human rights. | 2.Practical practices | (1Canada established the "formal procedure" standard in the Bouianova case, excluding nationality that requires complex administrative processes from the scope of refugee protection. | (2The UK's 1981 Nationality Act, Section 40, authorizes the deprivation of nationality on the grounds of "public interest" and circumvents statelessness by recognizing "potential nationality" (such as the Shamima Begum case). | (3Systemic state exclusionary acts: The Dominican Republic deprived Haitian citizens of their citizenship on the grounds of "unknown parentage"; Myanmar classified the Rohingya as "suspected Bangladeshi" to create statelessness.

Definitions: 1.Schrödinger citizenship: A legal status where an individual is entitled to the nationality of a certain country under law, but in practice, it is not recognized by that country and is forcibly attributed by a third country. | 2.Declaratory citizenship: Citizenship is a legal declaration of objective facts such as bloodline and place of birth (e.g., the principle of jus soli). | 3.Constitutive citizenship: Citizenship is created through administrative procedures of the state (e.g., naturalization). | 4.Temporal gap: The controversy over whether the effect of citizenship begins at birth (declaratory) or at the point of state recognition (constitutive). | 5.Interpretative gap: The issue of whether foreign courts can substitute for the nationality state in interpreting its laws. | 6.Administrative gap: The disparity between legal rights and actual administrative barriers (e.g., a 30-year waiting period for naturalization).

Methodology: 1.Normative Analysis research method: Deconstructing the Semantic Ambiguity of the "Multiple Nationality" Clause in the Refugee Convention. | 2.Empirical research method: Citing the naturalization rate of the United Arab Emirates in 2010 (only 0.1%), it confirms the gap between legal rights and actual enforcement. | 3.Comparative research method: Compare the differences between Article 116 of the German Basic Law (bloodline tracing) and the Canadian Refugee Law (excluding "potential nationality").

Answer: 1. The Essence of the Theoretical Dilemma | There is a fundamental split in citizenship: | (1The declarative nature asserts that nationality is a declaration of natural rights (such as the principle of bloodline), and requires that the effect of nationality be retroactive to birth. | (2The constitutive essence emphasizes that nationality is created by national sovereignty (such as the naturalization process), and holds that only nationality has the right of interpretation. | (3The conflict between the two leads to a triple chasm: the time chasm traps individuals in the situation of "legal uncertainty"; The explanation of the gap encourages foreign overstepping of authority. Administrative divides undermine legal rights. It eventually became a tool for creating a stateless state. | | 2.Reconstruction plans for the third-level systems | Level One: Amendment to international law | (1Amend Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention: | A.An explanatory clause has been added to clarify that the determination of "multiple nationalities" requires meeting three conditions: holding a valid passport, receiving consular protection within five years, and not being in the process of renouncing nationality. | B.Delete the expression "possible acquisition of nationality" and adopt the United Nations "reasonable accessibility" standard - it must be proved that the cost of the nationality acquisition process is less than 10% of the per capita monthly income of the country, and the processing time is less than 12 months. | (2Conclusion of the Supplementary Protocol to the Hague Convention: | A.Establish a consultation mechanism for nationality disputes: Foreign courts must request the Supreme Court of the country of nationality to issue a binding opinion letter. Failure to reply within 60 days shall be regarded as stateless. | B.The maximum time limit for the naturalization process is set at 18 months. If the decision is not made within this period, the nationality will be automatically granted. | | Level Two: Reform of domestic laws | (1Establish a special tribunal for judicial review of nationality: | A.In the initial trial stage, two types of cases are distinguished: for those involving the determination of foreign nationality, the opinion of the Supreme Court of that country is compulsorily sought; Purely domestic disputes are subject to independent review of the legality of administrative procedures. | B.The special court has the authority to set a processing time limit for administrative agencies (such as no more than 30 days for birth registration). If the time limit is exceeded, it will be presumed that the nationality exists. | (2Establish quantitative standards for administrative feasibility | A.The cost of obtaining the documents shall not exceed the minimum monthly wage of the applicant's location. | B.Administrative refusal must provide a written explanation of the specific non-compliance with the provisions; otherwise, it will be regarded as a procedural violation. | | Level Three: Human rights protection mechanism | (1Enforce the principle of empowerment at birth | A.Promote the "mobile registration station" model in Brazil, with the United Nations funding to provide on-site registration services in marginalized communities. | B.Implement the reversal of the burden of proof: The government must prove that it has exhausted all means to assist in registration; otherwise, it will bear stateless liability. | (2Build a stateless risk early warning system | Set key indicator thresholds: If the annual increase in cases of nationality deprivation is greater than 15%, trigger an investigation by the Human Rights Council; if the rejection rate of refugee applications is greater than 40%, freeze repatriation agreements; if the backlog of nationality applications is greater than 0.1% of the national population, initiate the reform of the international expert group. | | 3. Legal Reasoning Justifies Logic | (1The theory of limited sovereignty | Citing the ICJ's advisory opinion in the Tunis case: "Nationality jurisdiction stops at the boundary of international obligations." Arguing that foreign interpretations of nationality laws violate the principle of exclusive sovereignty, while sovereignty itself is bound by human rights obligations, forms a dual regulatory basis. | (2The theory of power hierarchy | Based on the ECtHR judgment in the Genovese case, the hierarchy is constructed: the right to survival → the right to nationality → the political right of citizens. To prove that the administrative divide infringes upon fundamental rights, the state must undertake the obligation of active action. When the cost of administrative procedures exceeds a reasonable limit (such as taking more than two years or spending more than 50% of the monthly income), it constitutes "arbitrary deprivation" as referred to in Article 16 of the Covenant on the Rights of Citizens. | | 4. Practical verification of the model | (1In the pilot area for dual citizenship of Germany and Turkey: | A.The Berlin-Istanbul Joint Court handles cross-border nationality disputes and issues an opinion within six weeks. | B.Real-time cross-border synchronization of birth data is achieved by adopting EU blockchain technology.Key indicator changes after 12 months of implementation: Cases of nationality suspension decreased by 85%, administrative procedures were shortened to 5.2 months, and UNHCR intervention in complaints dropped by 92%. It is proved that through international collaboration, judicial intervention and technological empowerment, the living space of Schrodinger's citizens can be compressed. | (2Ultimate goal | Establish a trinity mechanism (international convention constraints - domestic judicial review - human rights dynamic monitoring) to reduce the global statelessness rate from the current 0.02% to below 0.001%, and achieve the "universal coverage of legal status" (SDG 16.9) of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. This requires that the dual essential contradiction of recognizing citizenship cannot be eliminated, but it can be prevented from becoming a weapon to deprive rights through institutional design.

Checklist: 1. Point out the core issue: three major problems in determining citizenship (retroactivity, foreign courts’ power, and mismatch of rights with operability).  
2. Conflict of laws path: prohibit foreign courts from interpreting nationality laws, require nationality review courts within the sovereign state, and ensure independent review of domestic cases.  
3. Human rights path: establish graded responses to statelessness, redefine refugee standards, and change “potential nationality” to “actual administrative feasibility”.  
4. Institutional design: eliminate obstacles to naturalization by setting a maximum processing time and creating cross-border nationality verification centers.