Source: https://zh.b-ok.org/book/959590/60db51
Timestamp: 2019-11-17 22:54:01
Document Index: 798460260

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 11', 'art 1', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11', 'art 11']

Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1997, Volume 1 | United Nations | download
主页 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1997, Volume 1
Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1997, Volume 1
ISBN 10: 9211336147
ISBN 13: 9781435663176
下载 (pdf, 37.24 MB)
nationality2651
paragraph1552
draft1074
special rapporteur954
succession897
chairman827
reservations548
draft articles523
drafting committee512
treaty486
successor state471
treaties470
convention462
succession of states459
predecessor state429
provisions347
economides337
commentary336
obligation332
state succession275
mikulka269
rosenstock266
habitual residence235
sreenivasa223
brownlie220
lukashuk213
reservation208
bennouna208
simma205
legislation202
ninth session181
granting178
footnote176
wording166
hafner164
conventions163
nationality in relation162
acquire161
statelessness157
vienna convention157
subparagraph153
crawford152
alcn151
general assembly150
galicki149
preamble144
goco144
paragraphs143
nationals140
amended132
deleted131
thiam127
回路理論の計算法 (電気計算法シリーズ)
浅川 毅
of the forty-ninth session
12 May-I8 July 1997
New York and Geneva, 1999
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined
with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.
References to the Yearbook of the International Law Commission are abbreviated
to Yearbook...,followed by the year (for example, Yearbook... 1994).
The Yearbook for each session of the International Law Commission comprises
Volume I: summary records of the meetings of the session;
Volume I1 (Part One): reports of special rapporteurs and other documents considered during the session;
Volume I1 (Part Two): report of the Commission to the General Assembly.
All references to these works and quotations from them relate to the final printed
texts of the volumes of the Yearbook issued as United Nations publications.
This volume contains the summary records of the meetings of the forty-ninth ses25 1g), with the corrections resion of the Commission (A/CN.4/SR.2474-A/CN.4/SR.
quested by members of the Commission and such editorial changes as were considered
ISBN 92-1-133613-9
Complete set of two volumes:
ISBN 92-1-133616-3
Officers .......................................................................................
Abbreviations .............................................................................
Multilateral instruments cited in the present volume ............
Check-list of documents of the forty-ninth session
2477th meeting
Thursday, 15 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (continued)
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (continued) ...........
General presentation of the draft articles, preamble and
definitions (continued)................................................
Organization of work of the session (continued) ....................
SUMMARY RECORDS OF THE
2474th TO 2518th MEETINGS
2478th meeting
Friday, 16 May 1997, at 10 a.m.
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (continued)
General presentation of the draft articles, preamble
and definitions (continued) .........................................
2474th meeting
Monday, 12 May 1997, at 3.30p.m.
Opening of the session ...........................................................
Election of officers .................................................................
Programme, procedures and working methods of the Commission, and its documentation ..........................................
Adoption of the agenda ..........................................................
Organization of work of the session .......................................
2479th meeting
Tuesdaj 20 May 1997, at 10 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (continuen)
definitions (concluded) ...............................................
2475th meeting
Tuesday, 13 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Organization of work of the session (continued) ...................
Third report of the Special Rapporteur ..............................
definitions ...................................................................
Part I (General principles concerning nationality in relation to the succession of States)
Article 1 (Right to a nationality) ................................
Article 2 (Obligation of States concerned to take all
reasonable measures to avoid statelessness) ..........
Article 3 (Legislation concerning nationality and
other connected issues) ...........................................
Article 4 (Granting of nationality to persons having
their habitual residence in another State) ...............
Article 5 (Renunciation of the nationality of another
State as a condition for granting nationality) .........
Article 6 (Loss of nationality upon the voluntary acquisition of the nationality of another State) ..........
Article 7 (The right of option) and article 8 (Granting and withdrawal of nationality upon option) .....
Article 9 (Unity of families) .......................................
Article 10 (Right of residence) ...................................
Article I l (Guarantees of the human rights of persons concerned) ......................................................
Article 12 (Non-discrimination) .................................
Article 13 (Prohibition of arbitrary decisions concerning nationality issues) ......................................
Article 14 (Procedures relating to nationality issues)
2480th meeting
Wednesday. 2 1 May 1997. at 10.10 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (continwd)
Part I (General principles concerning nationality in
relation to the succession of States) (cotitinued)
Articles 1 to 3 .............................................................
2481st meeting
Thzirsda-v,22 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (contitiziecl)
relation to the succession of States) (cotitimred)
Articles 1 to 3 (concluded) .........................................
2482nd meeting
Fridav, 23 May 1997, at 10.35 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (coritinwd)
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (cotitinued)
Part 1 (General principles concerning nationality in
relation to the succession of States) (conti~i~red)
Articles 4 to 6 .............................................................
2476th meeting
Wednesdgv, 14 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (contintiecl)
relation to the succession of States (continued)
Article 15 (Obligation of States concerned to consult and negotiate) ..................................................
Article 16 (Other States) .............................................
Composition of the Drafting Committee ................................
2483rd meeting
Ttmdq: 27 May 1997. at 10.05 a.tn.
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (conti~iuecl)
relation to the succession of States) (cotitinrred)
Articles 7 and 8 ...........................................................
Organization of work of the session (conclztden)...................
Section 3 (Dissolution of a State) (continued) ....................
Statement by the Observer for the Inter-American Juridical Committee .................................................................
2484th meeting
relation to the succession of States) (continued)
Articles 7 and 8 (concluded) ......................................
Articles 9 to 14 ...........................................................
2491st meeting
2485th meeting
Thursday, 29 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Articles 9 to 14 (concluded) .......................................
Articles 15 and 16 ......................................................
2486th meeting
2487th meeting
Tuesday, 3 June 1997. at 10.05 a.m.
Second report of the Special Rapporteur ............................
Cooperation with other bodies (continued)
Statement by the Observer for the European Committee
on Legal Cooperation .....................................................
Statement by the Observer for the Inter-American
Juridical Committee (concluded) ....................................
Part 11 (Principles applicable in specific situations of
succession of States) (continued)
Section 3 (Dissolution of a State) (continued) ............
2492nd meeting
Thursday, 12 June 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Friday, 30 May 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
relation to the succession of States) (concluded)
Articles 1 5 and 1 6 (concluded) ..................................
Wednesday, l1 June 1997, at 10 a.m.
Section 3 (Dissolution of a State) (concluded) ...........
Section 4 (Separation of part of the territory)
Article 22 (Scope of application)
Article 23 (Granting of the nationality of the
successor State)
Article 24 (Withdrawal of the nationality of the
predecessor State) and
Article 25 (Granting of the right of option by the
predecessor and the successor States) ................
2493rd meeting
2488th meeting
Frida-v, 13 June 1997, at 10.05 a m .
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (continued) ............
Part I1 (Principles applicable in specific situations of
succession of States) ...................................................
Section 1 (Transfer of part of the territory)
Article 17 (Granting of the nationality of the
successor State and withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State) ............................
Friduj: 6 June 1997. at 10.05 a.m.
Welcome to participants in the International Law Seminar ......
Statement by the Observer for the Asian-African Legal
Consultative Committee .................................................
Third report of the Special Rapporteur (concluded)
succession of States) (conclud&d)
Section 4 (Separation of part of the territory) (concluded) ....................................................................
2495th meeting
Wednesday, 18 June 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
2490th meeting
lkesdu~:10 June 1997, at 10.05 a m .
Part I I (Principles applicable in specific situations of
succession of States) (continued) ...............................
2494th meeting
Tuesday, 17 June 1997, at 10.10 a.m.
2489th meeting
succession of States) (continzred) ...............................
Section 1 (Transfer of ,part of the territory) (concluded) ....................................................................
Section 2 (Unification of States)
Article 18 (Granting of the nationality of the
successor State) ..................................................
Section 3 (Dissolution of a State)
Article 19 (Scope of application)
Article 20 (Granting of the nationality of the
successor States) and
Article 2 1 (Granting of the right of option by the
successor States).................................................
Section 4 (Separation of part of the territory) (continued). ....................................................................
Cooperation with other bodies (continued) ............................
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (cot~tinued)
Draft articles proposed by the Drafting Committee ...........
Part 1 ...............................................................................
Article 1 (Right to a nationality) .................................
2496th meeting
International liability for inji~riousconsequences arising out
of acts not prohibited by international law
Report of the Working Group .............................................
Draft articles proposed by the Drafting Committee (continued). ............................................................................
Article 2 (Use of terms) ..............................................
Article 3 (Prevention of statelessness) .......................
Article 4 (Presumption of nationality) .......................
2502nd meeting
Tiresda-v, l July 1997, at 10.10 a.m.
Reservations to treaties (continued)
Second report of the Special Rapporteur (continued) ........
Wednesday. 2 Ju!v 199 7, at 10.05 a.nz.
2497th meeting
Friday, 20 June 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Article 4 (Presumption of nationality) (concluded) .....
Article 5 (Legislation concerning nationality and
Article 6 (Effective date) ............................................
Article 7 (Attribution of nationality to persons
concerned having their habitual residence in
another State) ..........................................................
Tuesday, 24 June 1997, at 10.05 a m .
another State) (concluded) ......................................
Article 8 (Renunciation of the nationality of another
State as a condition for attribution of nationality)..
Article 9 (Loss of nationality upon the voluntary
acquisition of the nationality of another State) ......
Article 10 (Respect for the will of persons concerned)
Article 11 (Unity of a family) .....................................
Article 12 (Child born after the succession of States)
Article 13 (Status of habitual residents) .....................
Article 14 (Non-discrimination) .................................
Article 15 (Prohibition of arbitrary decisions concerning nationality issues) ......................................
Wednesday, 25 June 1997. at 10.05 a m .
Draft articles proposed by the Drafting Committee (continued) .............................................................................
Article 15 (Prohibition of arbitrary decisions concerning nationality issues) (concluded) ..................
Article 16 (Procedures relating to nationality issues)
Article 17 (Exchange of information, consultation
and negotiation) ......................................................
Article 18 (Other States).............................................
Second report of the Special Rapporteur (continired) ........
Thursday, 26 June 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Second report of the Special Rapporteur (concluded) ........
Cooperation with other bodies (concluded)
Visit by a member of the International Court of Justice .....
Thursday, 3 July 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Report of the Working Group ...........................................
Part 11 ..............................................................................
Article 19 (Application of Part 11) ..........................
Article 20 (Attribution of the nationality of the
successor State and withdrawal of the nationality of the predecessor State).............................
Article 21 (Attribution of the nationality of the
successor State) ...................................................
2505th meeting
Draft articles proposed by the Drafting Committee (continued)
Part I1 (continued)
Section 2 (Unification of States) (concluded) ............
Section 3 (Dissolution of a State) ...............................
Article 22 (Attribution of the nationality of the
successor States) .................................................
Article 23 (Granting of the right of option by the
Closure of the International Law Seminar ..............................
Visit by the Secretary-General ................................................
2507th meeting
Tuesday, 8 July 1997. at 10.05 a.m.
Part l l (continued)
Section 4 (Separation of part of the territory) .............
Article 24 (Attribution of the nationality of the
successor State)...................................................
Article 25 (Withdrawal of the nationality of the
predecessor State) ...............................................
2501st meeting
Frida-v, 27 June 1997. at 10.05 a.n7.
Reservations to treaties (contitiued)
Wednesday, 9 Ju!v 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (continl~ed)
Part I I (concluded)
Section 4 (Separation of part of the territory) (concluded)
Article 26 (Granting of the right of option by the
New article (Cases of succession of States covered
by the present draft articles) ...............................
2509th meeting
Thursday, I0 July 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (concluded)
Draft articles proposed by the Drafting Committee (conchtded) ............................................................................
Titles of Parts I and I1 .....................................................
Preamble .........................................................................
Draft preliminary conclusions on reservations to normative multilateral treaties including human rights
treaties proposed by the Drafting Committee ................
Preamble .............................................................................
Operative part .....................................................................
Draft report of the Commission on the work of its forty-ninth
session (continued)
Chapter IV. Nationality in relation to the succession of
C. Text of the draft articles on nationality of natural
persons in relation to the succession of States
provisionally adopted by the Commission on first
2. Text of the draft articles with commentaries
thereto (continued)
Commentary to article 7 ................................
2510th meeting
Ftkla~:I1 July 1997, at 10.10 a.m.
Appointment of special rapporteurs .......................................
treaties proposed by the Drafting Committee (continued). ............................................................................ 254
Draft preliminary conclusions ........................................
Wednesday, l 6 Jul-v 1997, at 10.10 a.m.
Commentary to article 7 (concluded) ............
Commentary to article 8 ................................
Commentary to article 9 ................................
Commentary to article
2511 th meeting
Wednesday, l 6 Jul-v 1997, at 3.15p.m.
Monday, 14 July 1997. at 10.05 a.m.
Reservations to treaties (concluded)
treaties proposed by the Drafting Committee (concluded) ............................................................................
Dralt prelimina~yconclusions (conclrrded)....................
2512th meeting
Chapter IV. Nationality in relation to the succession
of States ..........................................................................
A. Introduction ...........................................................
B. Consideration of the topic at the present session
provisionally adopted by the Comnlission on first
Commentary to article 1 .................................
Commentary to article 2 .................................
Commentary to article 3 .................................
Commentary to article 4 .................................
Commentary to article 5 .................................
Commentary to article 6 .................................
2516th meeting
Thursday, l 7 July 1997, at 10.05 a.m.
25 13th meeting
Tuesday, 15 J~rly1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Report of the Working Group ..............................................
Draft report of the Commission on the forkof its forty-ninth
Commentary to article 14 (concluded) ..........
Commentary to article 15 ..............................
Commentary to article 16 ..............................
Commentary to article 17 ..............................
Commentary to article 18 ..............................
Commentary to article 19 ..............................
Commentary to article 20 ..............................
Commentary to article 2 1
Commentary to articles 22 and 23 .................
Commentary to articles 24 to 26 ....................
Con~n~entary
to article 27 ..............................
Commentary to the preamble ........................
Commentary to article 2 (continued).............
C. Texts of the preliminary conclusions of the International Law Commission on reservations to normative multilateral treaties including human rights
treaties adopted by the Commission .......................
. . X. Other decisions and conclusions of the Commlssion ............................................................................
A. Programme, procedures and working methods of
the Commission, and its documentation .................
B. Appointment of special rapporteurs ........................
C. Long-term programme of work ..............................
D. Cooperation with other bodies ................................
E. Date and place of the fiftieth session ......................
F. Representation at the fifty-second session of the
General Assembly ....................................................
G. Contribution to the Decade of International Law ...
H. International Law Seminar .....................................
Chapter VI. State responsibility ......................................
Chapter VII. International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law .....................................................................
Chapter VIII. Diplomatic protection ...............................
Chapter IX. Unilateral acts of State .................................
Chapter I. Organization of the session
B. Officers and the Enlarged Bureau
C. Drafting Committee
E. Secretariat ................................................................
F. Agenda ..................................................................
Chapter 11. Summary of the work of the Commission at
its forty-ninth session ......................................................
Chapter 111. Specific issues on which comments would
be of particular interest to the Comn~ission....................
Closure of the session .............................................................
2517th meeting
Thursda-v. 17 July 1997, at 3.05 p.m.
States (concluded)
reading (concluded)
thereto (concluded)
Commentary to article 2 (concluded)
Commentary to article 16 (concluded)..........
Commentary to article 10 (concluded)..........
1. Text of the draft articles ..................................
Chapter V. Reservations to treaties .................................
A. Introduction ............................................................
B. Consideration of the topic at the present session ....
2518th meeting
Friday, I8 July 1997, at 10 a.m.
session (concluded)
Chapter V. Reservations to treaties (concluded)
(concluded).............................................................
Mr. Enrique CANDIOTI
Mr. Christopher John Robert DUGARDSouth Africa
Mr. Constantin ECONOMIDES
Mr. Nabil ELARABY
Mr. Luigi FERRARI
Mr. Zdzislaw GALICKI
Mr. Raul Goco
Mr. Qizhi HE
Mr. Ernrnanuel Akwei ADDO
Mr. Husain AL-BAHARNA
Mr. Awn AL-KHASAWNEH
Mr. Joiio Clemente BAENA
Mr. Mohamed BENNOUNA
Mr. Ian BROWNLIE
Mr. Mochtar KUSUMA-ATMADJA Indonesia
Mr. Igor Ivanovich LUKASHUK
Mr. Teodor Viorel MELESCANU
Mr. Vaclav MIKULKA
Mr. Didier OPERTTI
Mr. Guillaume PAMBOU-TCHIVOUNDA
Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa RAO
Mr. Victor RODR~GUEZ
Mr. Robert ROSENSTOCK
Mr. Bernardo SEPULVEDA
Mr. Bruno SIMMA
Mr. Doudou THIAM
Mr. Mauricio HERDOCI
Mr. Jorge ILLUECA
Mr. Peter KABATSI
Mr. James Lutabanzibwa KATEKA
Chairman: Mr. Alain PELLET
First Kce-Chairman: Mr. Joiio BAENA
Second Uce-Chairman: Mr. Peter KABATSI
Chairman of the Drafting Committee: Mr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa RAO
Rapporteur: Mr. Zdzislaw GALICKI
Mr. Hans Corell, Under-Secretary-General , the Legal Counsel, represented the
Secretary-General and Mr. Roy S. Lee, Director of the Codzjkation Division of the
Ofice of Legal Affairs, acted as Secretary to the Commission and, in the absence of the
Legal Counsel, represented the Secretary-General.
The Commission adopted the following agenda at its 2474th meeting, held on
Organization of work of the session.
International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
Reservations to treaties.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States.
Unilateral acts of States.
Programme, procedures and working methods of the Commission, and its
Cooperation with other bodies.
Date and place of the fiftieth session.
I. C.J. Reports
R C.I.J., Series A
ICJ, Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders
PCIJ, Collection of Judgments (Nos. 1-24: up to and including
PCIJ, Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions (Nos. 40-80:
beginning in 1931)
RC.I.J., Series A/B
NOTE CONCERNING QUOTATIONS
Unless otherwise indicated, quotations from works in languages other than English have been
translated by the Secretariat.
cited in the present volume
Sorrrce
Genocide (New York, 9 December 1948)
United Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. 78, p. 277.
Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) (Rome,
4 November 1950)
Ibid., vol. 2 13, p. 22 1.
Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedom, restructuring the control
machinery established thereby (Strasbourg, l l May 1994)
European Eeaty Series,
Racial Discrimination (New York, 2 1 December 1965)
Series, vol. 660, p. 195.
(New York, 16 December 1966)
Ibid., vol. 993, p. 3.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York,
16 December 1966)
Ibid., vol. 999, p. 17 1.
Political Rights (New York, 16 December 1966)
Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty (New York, 15 December 1989)
General Assem bly, Fortyfourth
Session, Supplement No. 49, resolution 441128, annex.
American Convention on Human Rights: "Pact of San Jose, Costa
Rica" (San Jose, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969)
Series, vol. 1 144, p. 123.
against Women (New York, 18 December 1979)
Ibid., vol. 1249, p. 13.
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Nairobi, 27 June
Ibid., vol. 1520, p. 243.
28 January l98 1)
Ezmpean E e a g Series,
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 December
OSJicial Records of the
General Assemb[v, Thirtyninth
Supylenzent No. 51, resolution 39/46, annex.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 November
Ibid., Forty-fourth Session,
Supplement No. 49, resolution 44/25, annex.
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (New York,
18 December 1990)
Ibid., Forty--fth Session,
No. 49 A,
resolution 451158, annex.
(Strasbourg, 1996)
European Treaty Series,
Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and
Medicine (Oviedo, 1997)
Ibid., No. 164.
Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses (New York, 2 1 May 1997)
OBcial Records of the
General Assembly, Fiftyfirst session, Supplement
No. 49, resolution 5 lI229,
AND STATELESSNESS
Convention on Private International Law (Havana, 20 February
League of Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. LXXXVI,
p. 1 1 1 .
Convention on Certain Questions relating to the Conflict of
Nationality Laws (The Hague, 12 April 1930)
Ibid., vol. CLXXIX, p. 89.
Protocol relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness
Ibid., p. 1 15.
Protocol relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of
United Nations, Legislative
Series, Laws concerning
(ST/LEG/
SER.B/4) (Sales No.
1954.V.l), p. 572.
Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (New York,
28 September 1954)
United Nations, Peat?,
Series, vol. 360, p. 1 17.
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (New York,
30 August 1961)
Ibid., vol. 989, p. 176.
Convention on reduction of cases of multiple nationality and
military obligations in cases of multiple nationality (with
annex) (Strasbourg, 6 May 1963)
Ibid., vol. 634, p. 221.
A N D IMMUNITIES, DIPLOMATIC
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Vienna, 18 April
Ibid., vol. 500, p. 95.
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna, 24 April 1963)
Ibid., vol. 596, p. 26 1.
Geneva Conventions on the Law of the Sea (Geneva, April 1958)
Convention on the Continental Shelf (Geneva, 29 April 19%)
Ibid., vol. 499, p. 3 11.
(Geneva, 29 April 1958)
Ibid., vol. 5 16, p. 205.
Ibid., vol. 450, p. l l .
Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living
Resources of the High Seas (Geneva, 29 April 1958)
Ibid., vol. 559, p. 285.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay,
10 December 1982)
Oflcial Records of the Third
United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea, vol. XVII (United
No. E.84.V.3),
document AlCONF.621
Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and
Germany (Treaty of Versailles) (Versailles, 28 June 1919)
British and Foreign State
Papers, 1919, vol. CXII
(London, H. M. Stationery Oflice, 1922), p. 1.
Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and
Poland (Versailles, 28 June 1919)
Austria (Peace Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye) (SaintGermain-en-Laye, 10 September 1919)
Ibid., p. 3 17.
Czechoslovakia (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 September 1919)
the Serb-Croat-Slovene State (Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10
Ibid., p. 5 15.
Bulgaria (Neuilly-sur-Seine, 27 November 1919)
Ibid., p. 78 1.
Roumania (Paris, 9 December 1919)
Series, vol. 5 , p. 335.
Treaty of Peace (together with declarations and protocols relative
thereto) [between Finland and Soviet Government of Russia]
(Dorpat, 14 October 1920)
Ibid., vol. 3, p. 5.
Treaty of Peace [between the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan,
Greece, Roumania and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and
Turkey] (Lausanne, 24 July 1923)
Ibid., vol. XXVIII, p. 11.
Treaty of Peace with Italy (Paris, l 0 February 1947)
Series, vol. 49, p. 3.
Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims (Geneva,
12 August 1949)
Ibid., vol. 75, pp. 3 1 et seq.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
Ibid., p. 3 1.
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international
armed conflicts (Protocol I) and Protocol Additional to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the
(Protocol 11) (Geneva, 8 June 1977)
Ibid., vol. 1125, pp. 3 and
LAWOF TREATIES
Ibid.., vol. 1 155, p. 33 1.
(Vienna, 23 August 1978)
Oflcial Records of the
United Nations Conference on Succession of
States in Respect of
Tkeaties, Eenna, 4 April6 May 1977 and 31 July23 August 1978, vol. 111
(United Nations publication, Sales No. E.79.
v. 10).
Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State
Property, Archives and Debts (Vienna, 8 April 1983)
United Nations, Juridical
Yearbook 1983 (Sales No.
E.9O.V. l), p. 139.
International Organizations or between International
Organizations (Vienna, 2 1 March 1986)
Document A1CONF. 129115.
Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty) (Maastricht,
7 February 1992)
Council of the Europe an
Communities/Commission of the European
Communities (Ofice for
the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1992).
29 March 1996)
Document E/1996/99.
AlCN.41479 and Add. l
Topical summary, prepared by the Secretariat, of the discussion in the
Sixth Committee on the report of the Commission during the fifty-first
AICN .4/480 and Add. I
[and Add. l ICorr. I]
Third report on nationality in relation to the succession of States, by
Mr. Vaclav Mikulka, Special Rapporteur
Reproduced in Yearbook . . .
1997, vol. 11 (Part One).
AICN .4/48 1 and Add. 1
International liabitliy for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
prohibited by international law: comments and observations received
AICN .4/482
Mimeographed. For agenda as
adopted, see p. ix above.
AlCN.4lL.535 [and Corr.11
and Add. I
Nationality in relation to the succession of States. Titles and texts of draft
articles adopted by the Drafting Committee: articles I to 18 (Part I),
articles 19 to 26 (Part II), text of preamble and revised title of Part I
See summary records of the
2495th meeting (para. 4) and
2504th meeting (para. 28).
AlCN.4lL.537
Report of the Working Group on diplomatic protection
AICN .4/L.538
Report of the Working Group on State responsibility
AlCN.4lL.539 and Add. 1-7
Draft report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fortyninth session: chapter IV (Nationality in relation to the succession of
Idem. For the adopted text see
Official Records of the General Assemblv, Fifv-second
session, Supplen~ent No. l 0
(A/52/10). The final text
appears in Yearbook . . . 1997,
vol. 11 (Part Two).
AICN .4/L.540
Reservations to treaties. Texts of a draft resolution and draft conclusions
adopted by the Drafting Committee on first reading
A/CN.4/L.54 1
Draft report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fortyninth session: chapter V1 (State responsibility)
ldem. For the adopted text see
Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifiv-second
session. Supplement No. 10
(AI52110). The final text
Idem: chapter V11 (International liability for injurious consequences aris-
ing out of acts not prohibited by international law)
AICN .4/L.543
Report of the Working Group on unilateral acts of States
A/CN.4/L.544 and Add. 1-2
[and Add.21Corr. I ]
Draft report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fortyninth session: chapter V (Reservations to treaties)
Official Records of lhe General Assemb!~ Fifiv-second
session. Srrpplement No. l O
(A152110). The final text
I (Organization of the session)
AlCN.4lL.545 [and Corr. l ]
Idem: chapter
AICN .4/L.546
Idem: chapter 11 (Summary of the work of the Commission at its forty-
ninth session)
Idem: chapter 111 (Specific issues on which comments would be of par-
ticular interest to the Commission)
AlCN.41L. 548
Idem: chapter V111 (Diplomatic protection)
Idetlz.
AKN.4L.549
fdenz: chapter IX (Unilateral acts of States)
AlCN.4lL.550
Idem: chapter X (Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission)
Idenz.
AICN .4/L.55 1
Report of the Planning Group: Programme, procedures and working methods of the Commission, and its documentation
Provisional summary records of the 2474th to 25 18th meetings
Idem. The final text appears in
Held at Geneva from 12 May to 18 July 1997
Monda-v, 12 May 1997, at 3.30p.m.
Acting Chairman: Mr. Robert ROSENSTOCK
Present: Mr. Addo, Mr. Baena Soares, Mr. Bennouna,
Mr. Brownlie, Mr. Candioti, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Dugard,
Mr. Economides, Mr. Ferrari Bravo, Mr. Galicki,
Mr. Goco, Mr. Hafner, Mr. He, Mr. Herdocia Sacasa,
Mr. Illueca, Mr. Kabatsi, Mr. Kateka, Mr. Lukashuk,
Mr. Melescanu, Mr. Mikulka, Mr. Opertti Badan,
Mr. Pambou-Tchivounda,
Mr. Rodriguez Cedeiio, Mr. Simrna, Mr. Thiam,
1. The ACTING CHAIRMAN declared open the
forty-ninth session of the International Law Commission
and welcomed members to Geneva. The Commission had
just completed an extraordinarily productive quinquennium which, he hoped, would set a standard for the future.
Mr: Pellet was elected Chairman bv acclamation.
Mr. Pellet took the Chair.
2. The CHAIRMAN expressed his thanks for the
honour conferred upon him and said he hoped that he
would prove worthy of the confidence placed in him.
Extending a warm welcome to members, both old and
new, he observed that, once again, there was not a single
woman among the entire 34 members. Indeed, there had
never been one throughout the 49 years of the Commission's existence, a regrettable state of affairs which contrasted with the situation at ICJ and which would need to
be remedied before too long.
3. He paid tribute to his predecessor in the Chair,
Mr. Mahiou. That the forty-eighth session had been so
fruitful had been due in large part to his efforts. Mr.
Mahiou's decision not to seek a new mandate had
deprived the Commission of one of its wisest and most
respected members.
4. The Commission was at a turning point. On the eve of
its fiftieth anniversary, the time had come to take stock
and to prepare for new challenges. As he saw it, the task
of the current session would be to give fresh impetus to
the Commission's work.
5. It was customary for the outgoing Chairman to brief
members on the discussion of the Commission's report in
the Sixth Committee. In the absence of Mr. Mahiou, he
invited Mr. Rosenstock, as first Vice-Chairman at the
forty-eighth session, to make that presentation.
6. Mr. ROSENSTOCK, noting that communication
between the Commission and the Sixth Committee was an
area in which there was much room for improvement, said
that the debate in the Sixth Committee during the fiftyfirst session of the General Assembly in 1996 had touched
upon most of the main issues and was sultllnarized in the
topical summary (AICN.41479 and Add. 1).
7. As to the topic of State responsibility, the issues
which had divided the Commission had also split the
Sixth Committee (A/CN.4/479/Add. l , sect. A). On
delicts and crimes, some in the Sixth Colrunittee had
thought that the distinction was well-founded and had
supported its retention, whereas others had felt that it
required further consideration and still others that it was
unhelpful and should be deleted. With regard to countermeasures, some had agreed with the Commission's posi tion, others had taken the view that the Commission had
placed too many limitations and constraints on the notion,
Summary records of the meetings of the forty-ninth session
while still others had implicitly or explicitly questioned
the Commission's recognition of their legitimacy. Lastly,
some had endorsed the provisions on dispute settlement in
their current form, whereas others had found them too
rigid and still others had had reservations about the need
to include any provisions in that regard, urging instead
reliance on Article 33 of the Charter of the United
Nations. It was to be hoped that States would submit written comments on that important topic over the next six or
ics of diplomatic protection and unilateral acts of States
(AICN.41479, sect. E). In sum, the Commission had
received a positive response from the Sixth Committee.
8. With reference to the draft Code of Crimes against
the Peace and Security of Mankind, the Sixth Committee
had welcomed the achievement of the Special Rapporteur
and the draft Code adopted by the Commission on second
reading.' A decision on further action had been deferred
to the fifty-third session of the General Assembly, but
there had been widespread recognition of the draft Code's
relevance to the work on an international criminal court.
Mr. Baena Soares was electedfirst Ece-Chairman by
9. Concerning the topic of State succession and its
impact on the nationality of natural and legal persons (AI
CN.41479, sect. B), the Commission's recommendations
and proposals had all been approved with regard to scope,
form and substance, subject to a few matters of detail well
covered in the exhaustive second report of the Special
Rapporteur, Mr. ~ i k u l k aThe
. ~ sound foundation for the
work contained in the third re ort of the Special Rapporteur (AlCN.41480 and Add. 1) could not have been made
13. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the meeting
should be suspended in order to give members more time
for consultations concerning the membership of the
The meeting was suspended at 3.50 p m . and resumed
at 4.IOp.m.
M]: Kabatsi was elected second Ece-Chairman by
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao was elected Chairman of the
Drafting Committee by acclamation.
Mr. Galicki was elected Rapporteur by acclamation.
Programme, procedures and working methods of
the Commission, and its documentation
(AlCN.41479, sect. E, and AlCN.4lL.551)
[Agenda item 81
10. On the topic of international liability for injurious
consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law (AICN.41479, sect. C), some representatives
in the Sixth Committee had favoured the basic approach
underlying the Coinmission's draft, whereas others had
not thought it feasible to establish a single liability regime
for all parties. Some of those holding the latter view had
urged that the focus should be limited to ultrahazardous
activities. The United States of America, and Sweden on
behalf of the Nordic countries, had responded to an invitation for comments, and it was to be hoped that other
countries would follow suit in order to help the Commission decide how to proceed with its work on the subject.
14. The CHAIRMAN said that the Enlarged Bureau
proposed that the Planning Group should be composed as
follows: Mr. Baena Soares (Chairman of the Planning
Group), Mr. Bennouna, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Ferrari Bravo,
Mr. Goco, Mr. He, Mr. Lukashuk, Mr. Mikulka, Mr.
Opertti Badan, Mr. Pambou-Tchivounda, Mr. Pellet, Mr.
Sepulveda, Mr. Simma, Mr. Thiam and, as an ex officio
member, Mr. Galicki.
1 1. As to the topic of reservations to treaties (AlCN.41
479, sect. D), the Sixth Committee, endorsing the draft
resolution the Special Ra porteur, Mr. Pellet, had proposed in his second report, supported his approach of not
destabilizing the "Vienna regime" and his view that the
regime did and should apply to all treaties. Different opinions had been expressed on whether treaty bodies should
have the authority to determine the acceptability of reservations. Once again, a sound basis existed for pursuing
work along the lines proposed by the Special Rapporteur
at the forty-eighth session, in 1996.
15. The CHAIRMAN suggested that the provisional
agenda (AlCN.41482) should be adopted on the understanding that it would in no way prejudice the order in
which the various items were taken up.
12. In respect of future activities, the Commission had
been invited by the General Assembly to examine the top-
' For the text of the draft articles adopted on second reading, see
Yeathook . . . 1996, vol. I 1 (Part Two), para. 50.
Yearbook . . . 1996, vol. I1 (Part One), document AICN.41474.
Reproduced in Yeat-hook. . . 1997, vol. I I (Part One).
Yeathook . . . 1906. vol. I 1 (Part One), documents AlCN.41477 and
Add. l and AlCN.41478.
Adoption of the agenda (AlCN.41482)
[Agenda item l ]
16. The CHAIRMAN said that the Commission must
make the best of a new and unique situation. Much had
17. During its previous term, the Commission had completed the second reading of the draft articles on the law
of the non-navigational uses of international water-
2475th m e e t i n e 1 3 May 1997
courses: which he understood was to be adopted very
soon as a convention, and the draft statute for an international criminal court," and he believed there was a good
chance that it too would become a draft convention by the
end of the century. During the very productive fortyeighth session, it had adopted on second reading the draft
Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankindm7In addition, the draft articles on State responsibility, a text of exceptional importance despite its
imperfections had been adopted by the Commission on
first reading! and the Commission was duty-bound to
finalize it, regardless of the difficulties posed. There
would be no detailed report on the subject at the current
session, but opinions should be voiced on how to proceed
with the second reading. Lastly, the topic of international
liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not
prohibited by international law had been the subject of a
comprehensive report produced by the Working Group on
the to ic at the forty-eighth session of the Commission, in
1996. The Commission might want to consider where to
take the topic from there.
18. The two remaining topics formally on the agenda,
namely nationality in relation to the succession of States
and reservations to treaties, were not enough to keep the
Commission busy for the entire session. However, two
other projects lay close at hand. Pursuant to paragraph 13
of General Assembly resolution 5 1/ 160, the Commission
further should examine the topics "Diplomatic protection" and "Unilateral acts of States" and indicate their
scope and content. The Commission might wish to create
a working group to that end. It would also need to consider whether to hold split sessions in the future.
See Yearbook . . . 1994, vol. 11 (Part Two), p. 88, para. 2 1 9.
"bid., p. 26, para. 90.
'See footnote I above.
X See Yearbook . . . 1996, vol. 11 (Part Two), chap. 111, sect. D.
Ibid., annex I.
Tuesda-y,13 Mawy1997, at 10.05 a.m.
Mr. Pambou-Tchivounda, Mr. Rodriguez Cedeiio,
Mr. Rosenstock, Mr. Simma, Mr. Thiam, Mr. Yamada.
1. The CHAIRMAN, reporting to the Commission o n
the proposals made by the Enlarged Bureau, said that,
with regard to the topics "Nationality in relation to the
succession of States" and "Reservations to treaties", the
Enlarged Bureau had unanimously agreed that high priority should be given to the consideration of the third report
of the Special Rapporteur on nationality in relation to the
succession of States (AlCN.41480 and Add. l)' in order t o
adopt the part of the draft articles on first reading relating
to the nationality of natural persons, if possible by the end
of the current session. That meant that, for at least two
weeks, all plenary meetings would be devoted to examining the text of the draft articles proposed by the Special
Rapporteur and that the Drafting Committee would also
be able to start work very soon. However, given the technical nature of the subject, it was proposed that, once the
Commission had exhausted the discussion in plenary o f
the first part of the third report, namely, the preamble, the
definitions and articles 1 to 16, it should defer its work on
the topic and turn to the second report on reservations t o
treaties (AKN.41477 and Add. l and ~ / ~ ~ . 4 / 4 7under
the chairmanship of one of the Vice-Chairmen. As the
Enlarged Bureau was also of the view that the draft resolution annexed to the second report on reservations to
treaties should also be referred to the Drafting Coinmittee,
it was suggested that the latter should take up the draft
once it had completed its work on part I of the draft on
nationality in relation to the succession of States. After
spending some time on reservations to treaties, the Commission in plenary and the Drafting Committee might
then go on to part I1 of the draft articles on nationality in
relation to the succession of States.
2. As to the draft articles on State responsibility, the
Enlarged Bureau proposed that a working group should be
set up not to review the drafting of the text, but, pending
reactions by States, to hold an exchange of views to determine the main areas of disagreement and possibly to seek
ways and means of overcoming them, thereby facilitating
the work of the Special Rapporteur, whom the Commission must appoint by the end of the session.
3. For the topics "Diplomatic protection" and "Unilateral acts of States", the Enlarged Bureau also suggested
the establishment of a working group which would, pursuant to paragraph 13 of General Assembly resolution 5 l /
160, help indicate their scope and content, thereby
enabling future special rapporteurs to set out on a wellmarked path and would be in keeping with the spirit of the
' Reproduced in Yearbook . . . 1997, vol. I I (Part One).
' See Yearbook. . . 1996, vol. I1 (Part One).
proposals made by the Commission on its working methods, of which the General Assembly had taken note with
appreciation in the above-mentioned resolution.
4. On the topic "International liability for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by international law", the Enlarged Bureau had noted that only two
States, namely, the United States of America, and Sweden
on behalf of the Nordic countries, had sent the comments
and observations referred to in paragraph 6 of General
Assembly resolution 511160. The Commission must
decide by the end of the session on the manner in which it
intended to reply to the Assembly's question on how it
would proceed with its work on the topic, but, in the current circumstances, such a decision was premature. The
Enlarged Bureau did not rule out the possibility of establishing a working group at a later stage.
5 . For its part, the Planning Group had three tasks: the
drafting of the Commission's long-term programme of
work for the forthcoming quinquennium; the discussion
of new topics for the future; and in accordance with paragraph 10 of General Assembly resolution 5 1/ 160, the consideration of whether to split the Commission's sessions
in two. In keeping with past practice, the Planning Group
would set up a working group on the long-term programme of work.
6. Mr. BENNOUNA, supported by Mr. ROSENSTOCK
and Mr. CRAWFORD, said that, in connection with the
topic of State responsibility, it was unusual for the Commission to establish a working group after having sent
States a draft adopted on first reading in order to ask for
their comments. The working group's terms of reference
therefore had to be clearly defined. There was no problem
if the working group was to be entrusted with a task of
pure reflection in the strict framework of the Commission,
but, if those reflections were to be meant for the General
Assembly, an objection on methodological grounds
7. The CHAIRMAN said that, in the view of a number
of members of the Enlarged Bureau, the working group
should proceed with the greatest caution and should not
forward its reflections to the General Assembly. However,
there was no fundamental disagreement on the principle
of establishing the working group.
10. Replying to a question by Mr. Hafner, he said that,
theoretically, the working groups were limited in size. In
reply to Mr. Ferrari Bravo and Mr. Goco, he said that the
sole purpose of the Drafting Committee was, as its name
indicated, to draft; in principle, it was unnecessary for
each of its members to be a specialist on the topic under
11. Replying to a question by Mr. Thiam, he said that
the former chairmen of the Commission who were members of the Planning Group ex officio were not necessarily
excluded from the Drafting Committee.
12. He said that, if he heard no objection, he would take
it that the Commission approved the proposals of the
Enlarged Bureau.
was so decided.
Nationality in relation to the succession of States (AI
CN.41479, sect. B, AICN.41480 and ~ d d . 1 , AlCN.41
L.535 and Corr.1 and Add.1)
[Agenda item 51
THIRDREPORT
13. Mr. MIKULKA (Special Rapporteur) said that, on
the basis of his first and second reports on State succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and legal
the Commission had completed a preliminary
study of the question and had set out to undertake a substantive study of the topic. To do so, it had separated the
question of the nationality of natural persons from that of
the nationality of legal persons and given priority to consideration of the former question. It had also proposed
modalities concerning the form of the results of its work
and the timetable for examining the redefined topic. In
particular, it had considered that draft articles with commentaries should be prepared, without prejudice to the
final decision, in the form of a declaration to be adopted
by the General Assembly and that they should be completed on first reading at the forty-ninth or, at the latest,
fiftieth session of the Commission.
8. With regard to the arrangements for the establishment
of the various working groups, he said that, as the Drafting Committee and the Planning Group were complementary, those members who did not sign up for the Drafting
Committee automatically became part of the Planning
Group. In view of the limited number of topics on the
agenda of the Commission at its forty-ninth session, he
suggested that the Commission should discontinue for the
time being the recent practice of changing the composition of the Drafting Committee according to topic.
14. Those choices of the Commission, which the General Assembly had approved in its resolution 5 11160, had
had direct consequences for the content and dimensions
of his third report (A/CN.4/480 and Add. 1). For example,
the need to complete the first reading at the current session had meant that he had had to submit to the Commission all the requisite elements, namely, a complete set of
25 draft articles and a draft preamble covering the entire
question of the nationality of natural persons in relation to
the succession of States, which read:
9. Working groups were established according to their
own procedures, each member of the Commission being
free either to participate in one or two of them or not to
take part at all.
"irst report: Yearbook . . . 1995, vol. I1 (Part One), document A/
CN.41467; second report: Yearbook . . . 1996, vol. 11 (Part One), document AICN .4/474.
2475th m e e t i n e 1 3 M a y 1997
D R A F T ARTICLES O N NATIONALITY I N RELATION
TO T H E SUCCESSION O F STATES*
Considering that, in connection with recent cases o f succession of
States, problems concerning nationality have again become a matter o f concern to the international community,
Emphazing that, while nationality is essentially governed by
internal law, international law imposes certain restrictions on the
freedom o f action o f States i n this field,
Convinced of the need for the codification and progressive development o f the rules o f international law concerning nationality i n
relation to the succession o f States as a means for ensuring greater
juridical security i n international relations and strengthening
Recafling that the Universal Declaration o f Human Rights proclaimed the right of every person t o a nationality,
1. Each State concerned should enact laws concerning nationality and other connected issues arising i n relation to the succession
o f States without undue delay. I t should take all necessary measures
to ensure that persons concerned will be apprised, within a reasonable time period, o f the impact o f its legislation on their nationality,
o f any choices they may have thereunder, as well as o f the consequences that the exercise o f such choices will have on their status.
2. When providing for the ex lege acquisition o f nationality in
relation t o the succession o f States, the legislation o f the States concerned should provide that such acquisition o f nationality takes
effect o n the date o f the succession o f States. The same would apply
for the acquisition o f nationality following the exercise o f an option,
if the persons concerned would otherwise be stateless during the
period between the date o f the succession o f States and the date o f
the exercise o f such option.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING NATIONALITY IN
RELATION TO THE SUCCESSION OF STATES
1. Every individual who, o n the date o f the succession o f States,
had the nationality o f the predecessor State, irrespective o f the
mode o f acquisition o f that nationality, o r was entitled to acquire
such nationality i n accordance with the provisions o f the internal
law o f the predecessor State, has the right to the nationality o f at
least one o f the States concerned.
2. If a child born after the date o f the succession o f States whose
parent is a person mentioned i n paragraph 1 o f this article has not
acquired the nationality o f at least one o f the States concerned, o r
that o f a t h i r d State, such child has the right to acquire the nationality o f the State concerned on whose territory o r otherwise under
whose jurisdiction (hereafter "on the territory") he o r she was
Obligation of States concerned to take all reasonable
measures to avoid statelessness
The States concerned are under the obligation to take aH reasonable measures to avoid persons who, on the date of the succession
o f States, had the nationality o f the predecessor State becoming
stateless as a result o f the said succession of States.
* For the purposes o f the present draft articles:
Legislation concerning national@
and other connected issues
Granting of nationality to persons having their
habitual residence in another State
1. A successor State does not have the obligation to grant i t s
nationality to persons concerned if they have their habitual residence i n another State and also have the nationality of that State.
2. A successor State shall not impose its nationality on persons
who have their habitual residence i n another State against the w i l l
o f such persons, unless they would otherwise become stateless.
Renunciation of the nationality of another State as
a conditionfor granting nationality
When the person concerned entitled to acquire the nationality of
a successor State has the nationality o f another State concerned, the
former State may make the acquisition o f its nationality dependent
on the renunciation by such person o f the nationality o f the latter
State. However, such requirement shall not be applied in a manner
which would result in rendering the person concerned stateless,
even i f only temporarily.
Loss of nationality upon the voluntary acquisition
of the nationality of another State
1. The predecessor State may provide i n its legislation that persons who, i n relation to the succession o f States, voluntarily acquire
the nationality o f a successor State shall lose its nationality.
2. Each successor State may provide i n its legislation that persons who, i n relation to the succession o f States, voluntarily acquire
the nationality o f another successor State or, as the case may be,
retain the nationality of the predecessor State shall lose its nationality acquired i n relation to such succession o f States o r the entitlement thereto.
(a) "Succession o f States" means the replacement o f one State by another
i n the responsibility for the international relations o f territory;
(6)"Predecessor State" means the State which has been replaced by
another State on the occurrence o f a succession o f States;
(c) "Successor State" means the State which has replaced another State
on the occurrence o f a succession o f States;
(d) "Date o f the succession o f States" means the date upon which the successor State replaced the predecessor State i n the responsibility for the international relations o f the territory to which the succession o f States relates;
(e) "Third State" means any State other than the predecessor State or the
successor State;
V) "Nationality" means nationality o f natural persons;
(g) "State concerned" means the predecessor State(@ or the successor
State(& as the case may be;
(h) "Person concerned" means every individual who, on the date o f the
succession o f States, had the nationality o f the predecessor State, or was entifled to acquire such nationality i n accordance with the provisions o f the
mternal law o f the predecessor State, and whose nationality or the right
thereto may be affected by the succession o f States.
The right of option
1. Without prejudice to their policy i n the matter o f multiple
nationality, the States concerned should give consideration to the
will o f a person concerned whenever that person is equally qualified, either i n whole o r i n part, to acquire the nationality of two o r
several States concerned.
2. Any treaty between States concerned or, as the case may be,
the legislation o f a State concerned should provide for the right o f
option for the nationality o f that State by any person concerned
who has a genuine link with that State if the person would otherwise become stateless as a consequence o f the succession o f States.
3. There should be a reasonable time l i m i t for the exercise o f
any right of option.
Granting and withdrawal of nationality upon option
1. When persons entitled to the right of option have exercised
such right, the State whose nationality such persons have opted for
shall grant them its nationality.
2. When persons entitled to the right of option in accordance
with these draft articles have exercised such right, the State whose
nationality such persons have renounced shall withdraw its nationality from them, unless they would thereby become stateless.
3. Without prejudice to any obligation deriving from a treaty
in force between States concerned, the State concerned other than
the State whose nationality the persons concerned have opted for
does not have the obligation to withdraw its nationality from them
on the basis of the mere fact that they have opted for the nationality
of the latter State, unless those persons have clearly expressed their
will to renounce its nationality. This State may, nevertheless, withdraw its nationality from such persons when their acquiescence to
the loss of its nationality may be presumed in the light of legislation
in force on the date of the option.
Article 13. Prohibition of arbitrary decisions
concerning nationality issues
1. No persons shall be arbitrarily deprived of the nationality of
the predecessor State or denied the right to acquire the nationality
of the successor State, which they were entitled to retain or acquire
in relation to the succession of States in accordance with the provisions of any law or treaty applicable to them.
2. Persons concerned shall not be arbitrarily deprived of their
right of option to which they might be entitled in accordance with
Article 14. Procedures relating to nationality issues
Each State concerned shall ensure that applications relating to
the acquisition, retention or renunciation of nationality or to the
exercise of the right of option in relation to the succession of States
are processed without undue delay and that relevant decisions,
including those concerning the refusal to issue a certificate of
nationality, shall be issued in writing and shall be open to administrative or judicial review.
Article 9. Unity of families
Where the application of their internal law or of treaty provisions concerning the acquisition or loss of nationality in relation to
the succession of States would impair the unity of a family, the
States concerned shall adopt all reasonable measures to allow that
family to remain together o r to be reunited.
Article 10. Right of residence
1. Each State concerned shall take all necessary measures to
ensure that the right of residence in its territory of persons concerned who, because of events connected with the succession of
States, were forced to leave their habitual residence on the territory
of such State, is not affected as a result of such absence. That State
shall take all necessary measures to allow such persons to return to
their habitual residence.
2. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 3, the successor State shall preserve the right of residence in its territory of
all persons concerned who, prior to the date of the succession of
States, were habitually resident in the territory which became the
territory of the successor State and who have not acquired its
3. Where the Iaw of a State concerned attaches to the voluntary
loss of its nationality or to the renunciation of the entitlement to
acquire its nationality by persons acquiring or retaining the nationality of another State concerned the obligation that such persons
transfer their residence out of its territory, a reasonable time limit
for compliance with that obligation shall be granted.
Article 1 l .
Article 15. Obligation of States concerned to consult and negotiate
1. The States concerned are under the obligation to consult in
order to identify any detrimental effects that may result from the
succession of States with respect to the nationality of individuals
and other related issues concerning their status and, as the case
may be, to seek a solution of those problems through negotiations.
2. If one of the States concerned refuses to negotiate, or negotiations between the States concerned are abortive, the State concerned the internal law of which is consistent with the present draft
articles is deemed to have fully complied with its international obligations relating to nationality in the event of a succession of States,
subject to any treaty providing otherwise.
Article 16. Other States
1. Without prejudice to any treaty obligation, where persons
having no genuine link with a State concerned have been granted
that State's nationality following the succession of States, other
States do not have the obligation to treat those persons as if they
were nationals of the said State, unless this would result in treating
those persons as if they were de facto stateless.
2. Where persons who would otherwise be entitled to acquire
or to retain the nationality of a State concerned become stateless as
a result of the succession of States owing to the disregard by that
State of the present draft articles, other States are not precluded
from treating such persons as if they were nationals of the said
State if such treatment is in the interest of those persons.
Guarantees of the human rights of persons concerned
Each State concerned shall take all necessary measures to ensure
that the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons concerned who, after the date of the succession of States, have their
habitual residence in its territory are not adversely affected as a
result of the succession of States irrespective of whether they have
the nationality of that State.
PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE IN SPECIFIC SITUATIONS
OF SUCCESSION OF STATES
Article 12. Non-discrimination
Article 17. Granting of the nationality of the successor
State and withdrawal of the nationality of
the predecessor State
When withdrawing or granting their nationality, or when providing for the right of option, the States concerned shall not apply
criteria based on ethnic, linguistic, religious or cultural considerations if, by so doing, they would deny the persons concerned the
right to retain or acquire a nationality or would deny those persons
their right of option, to which such persons would otherwise be
TRANSFER O F PART O F THE TERRITORY
When part of the territory of a State is transferred by that State
to another State, the successor State shall grant its nationality to
the persons concerned who have their habitual residence in the
transferred territory and the predecessor State shall withdraw its
nationality from such persons, unless otherwise indicated by the
2475th meeting-I3
exercise o f the r i g h t o f option which all such persons shall be
M a y 1997
Grunting of the nationali[s of the srrcc.rDssorStutc
Subject to the provisions of article 25, the successor Statc shall
grant its nationality to the following categories o f pcrsons concerned:
( a ) Persons having their habitual residence i n its territory; and
Granting of the nationality of the successor State
Without prejudice to the provisions o f article 4, when two o r
more States unite and so f o r m one successor State, irrespective o f
whether the succcssor Statc is a new State o r whether its personali t y is identical to that o f one o f the States which have merged, the
successor Statc shall grant its nationality to all persons who, o n the
date o f the succession o f States, had the nationality o f at least one o f
the predecessor States.
(h) Without prejudice to the provisions o f article 4, where the
predecessor State is a State i n which the category o f secondary
nationality o f constituent entities existed, persons not covered h y
paragraph ( a ) who had the secondary nationality o f an entity that
has become p a r t o f that successor State, irrespective o f the placc o f
I . Subject to the provisions o f articlc 25, the prcdccessor Statr
shall not withdraw its nationality from:
( U ) Persons having their habitual residence either i n its territory
o r i n a t h i r d Statc; and
Article 19. Scope of application
The articles o f this section apply when a State dissolves and
ceases to exist and the various parts o f the territory o f the predecessor State f o r m two o r more successor States.
Granting of the nationality ofthe successor States
Subject to the provisions o f article 21, each o f the successor
States shall grant its nationality to the following categories o f persons concerned:
(h) Where the predecessor Statc is a State i n which thC category
o f sccondary nationality o f constituent entities csistcd. persons not
covered b y paragraph ( a ) who had the secondary nationality o f an
entity that remained p a r t o f the predcccssor Statc, irrcspectiw o f
the placc o f their habitual residence.
2. The predecessor State shall withdraw its nationality f r o m
the categorics o f pcrsons entitled to acquire thC nationality o f t l w
succcssor Statc i n accordance with articlc 23. I t shall not. horvcrw.
withdraw its nationality before such pcrsons acquire thC ~ ~ a t i o t t i d i t y o f the succcssor State, unless they have the nationality o f a t h i r d
( a ) Persons having their habitual residence i n its tcrritory; and
(h) Without prejudice to the provisions o f article 4:
Persons having their habitual residence in a t h i r d Statc,
who were b o r n in or, before leaving the prcdecessor
State, had thcir last permanent residence i n what has
become the territory o f that particular successor State;
Where the predecessor State was a State in which the
category o f secondary nationality o f constituent cntities
existcd, persons not covered b y paragraph ( a )who had
the sccondary nationality o f a n entity that has become
p a r t o f that successor State, irrespective o f the place o f
Granting of the right of option by the
srrccLpssorStates
1. The successor States shall grant a r i g h t o f option to all persons concerned covered b y the provisions o f articlc 20 who would
be entitled to acquire the nationality o f two o r more successor
Statcs.
2. Each successor Statc shall grant a right o f option to persons
concerned who have their habitual residence i n a t h i r d State and
who are not covered b y the provisions o f articlc 20, paragraph (h),
irrespective o f the mode o f acquisition o f the nationality of the
predecessor State.
SEE4 K.1 TION 01.' Pil K T 01.' TllE TEK K/TO/( l'
The articles o f this section apply when p a r t o r parts o f the territory o f a Statc separate f r o m that Statc and form one o r more successor States while the prcdccessor Statc continues to exist.
Grunting of tlrc right of option by tlic prcckccwor.
and the srrcccwor Stc~tcs
The prcdcccssor and successor Statcs shall grant a right o f
option to a l l persons concerned covered by the provisions o f articks
23 and 24, paragraph I,who would be entitled to have the nationality o f both the prcdecessor and succcssor Statcs o r o f trro o r more
successor Statcs.
15. The content of the third report had also been dctcrmined by the Commission's latest decisions on its working methods, including the role of special rapportcurs and
thcir reports. That was one of the reasons why all the draft
articlcs had co~nmcntarics.The draft articlcs also incorporated the conclusions of the Working Group on Statc succession and its impact on the nationality of natural and
legal ersons, which had met during the past two scssions,- relating to the main principles or rules which constituted the subject of the draft articlcs and the overall
structure. The draft articlcs were divided into two parts.
Part I (General principles concerning nationality in relation to the succession of Statcs) dcalt with the genesal
principles which applied to all cascs of Statc succession
and Part 11 (Principles applicable in spccitic situations of
succession of Statcs) dcalt with the principles governing
spccitic cascs of Statc succession: transfi.1- of' par1 of' the
tcrritory, unitication of Statcs, dissolution of'it State and
separation of part of the tcrritory.
16. He recalled that, two years previously, the Commission had decided to follow, in that respect, the approach in
the Vienna Convention on Succession of Statcs in Respect
of Statc Property, Archives and Debts (iicrcinaticr
' Scc )iwrhooh . . . 1995, vol. I I (Part Two): anticx: and )c,tr~.llooX
I W ( , , vol. II (I'arl Two), paras. 7 8 lo 8 7 .
referred to as the "1983 Vienna Convention") rather than
that in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in
Respect of Treaties (hereinafter referred to as the "1978
Vienna Convention") and, in view of the current requirements of the international community and the completion
of the decolonization process, to leave aside the category
of newly independent States that had emerged from decolonization. On no account did the latter point mean that the
abundant practice of newly independent States in the area
of nationality would be ignored. On the contrary, it was of
great importance for the formulation of general principles
in that field, so much so that such practice had served as a
source of inspiration, and as practical examples, in the
articles of Part I and Part 11.
ity in the Nottebohm case: it appeared to focus more on
the sociological aspect than the strictly legal aspect of the
concept and in fact to define an effective nationality rather
than nationality as such. Clearly, it would not be easy to
provide an entirely satisfactory definition of nationality;
that was perhaps not necessary in the current case, especially since even conventions regulating questions of
nationality or statelessness did not always define the term.
However, if it was deemed necessary, such a definition
should probably specify that the problems of nationality
dealt with in the draft articles were those relating to natural persons and not to legal persons, the point being to
avoid any confbsion to which the original wording of the
topic might give rise. That was the purpose of the definition contained in subparagraph V).
20. The term "State concerned" (subparagraph (g))
meant the States which, depending on the type of the territorial change, would be involved in a particular case of
"succession of States", that is to say, the predecessor State
and the successor State in the case of a transfer of part of
the territory; the successor State alone in the case of a unification of States; two or more successor States in the case
of a dissolution of States; and the predecessor State and
one or more successor States in the case of a separation of
part of the territory. In all the cases in question, the term
"State concerned" had nothing to do with the concern that
any other State might have about the outcome of a succession of States in which its own territory was not involved.
PREAMBLE A N D DEFINITIONS
17. Before referring to the articles of Part I (draft articles l to 16), he pointed out that the four paragraphs of the
preamble were designed simply to make a number of
points which had emerged from the Commission's discussions of the topic in the past two years, but did not lend
themselves to the formulation of a rule or principle in the
strict sense. The question of definitions was more complex, not so much in terms of their content in most
instances, for which the wording of article 2 of the 1978
and l983 Vienna Conventions ensured uniformity, but
rather in terms of form, namely, the declaratory nature of
the instruments being drafted. Special rapporteurs often
began their work by drafting definitions, but their objective was to produce a draft convention, whereas, in the
case of a draft declaration, definitions were rarely the subject of a separate article. Given that, in any event, working
definitions were needed for fbture work to avoid any misunderstanding about the meaning of the terms used, he
had eventually decided to include those definitions as a
footnote to the title of the draft, on the understanding that
it would be for the Commission to decide whether it was
desirable to include them in the draft articles and how to
go about doing so.
18. In the footnote to the title of the draft articles, the
definitions in subparagraphs (a) to (e) were identical to
those contained in article 2 of the 1978 and 1983 Vienna
Conventions, whereas those contained in subparagraphs
(f) to (h), which dealt with the expressions "nationality",
"State concerned" and "person concerned", had been prepared for the purposes of the draft articles under consideration.
19. The definition of the term "nationality" gave rise to
a substantive problem which the Commission had already
identified and which he had taken up in his first report,
namely, that the function and, hence, the definition of
nationality differed depending on whether the problem
was approached from the perspective of internal or international law. All the aspects of that problem had been
sutmnarized in the colnrnentary to that definition contained in the third report of the Special Rapporteur, but it
should be pointed out that the numerous definitions of
nationality given in writings, while intellectually stimulating, were of limited significance for the purpose of the
draft articles. As an example, when ICJ defined national-
2 1. The term "person concerned" was more difficult to
define. The definition in subparagraph ( h ) encompassed
all individuals who, on the date of the succession of
States, had the nationality of the predecessor State and
whose nationality might, accordingly, be affected by that
succession. It meant all individuals who might lose the
nationality of the predecessor State or, conversely, might
acquire the nationality of the successor State. The uncertainty noted by 0'connel17 as to which categories of persons were susceptible of having their nationality affected
in that way was largely attributable to the fact that the
question was often posed in abstracto, as if there could
exist a unique and simple response which would apply to
all types of territorial change. One thing was certain: the
term "person concerned" included neither nationals of
third States nor stateless persons who were present on the
territory of any of the "States concerned" unless they fell
into the category of persons who, on the date of the succession, were entitled to acquire the nationality of the
predecessor State, in accordance with its legislation (and
of course persons having two nationalities when one of
them was the nationality of the predecessor State).
22. To some extent, the definitions also determined
implicitly the scope of the draft articles. The terms "State
concerned" and "person concerned" delimited the scope
ratione personae, but the latter term also determined the
scope ratione materiae. Accordingly, the draft articles
dealt both with the loss and acquisition of nationality and
with the right of option between the nationalities of the
States involved in the succession, although exclusively in
Nottebohnz, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4, at
D. P. O'Connell, The Law of State Succession (Cambridge, United
Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1 %6), p. 245.
2475th meetin-13
relation to a succession of States. In that latter respect, the
definition also determined the scope of the draft articles
ratione temporis.
PARTI (General principles concerning nationality in relation to the succession of States)
ARTICLEl (Right to a nationality)
23. Article 1 was a key provision of the draft articles and
concerned the right to a nationality in the exclusive context of State succession. Paragraph 1 conferred on every
person concerned the right to the nationality of at least
one of the States concerned. However, the text did not use
the term "person concerned", but its in extenso definition,
which must therefore be reproduced word for word in the
French version. The technical tern was used in all the
other relevant articles. The other element which was
stated expressly only in article 1, although it was implicit
in all the other articles in which reference was made to
"persons concerned", was that the mode of acquisition of
the predecessor State's nationality had no effect on the
scope of the rights of the persons concerned: they might
have acquired such nationality at birth by jus soli or jus
sanguinis or by naturalization or even as a result of a previous succession of States.
24. Nevertheless, the crucial element of paragraph 1
was the assertion of the right of the person concerned to
the nationality of at least one of the States concerned. It
was accordingly the very foundation of the draft articles
or, in other words, the principle from which other rules
would logically and inevitably be derived. The principle
was not a new one. The Working Group had already concluded at the Commission's forty-seventh session that in
situations resulting from State succession every person
whose nationality might be affected by the change of
international status had the right to acquire the nationality
of at least one of the States concerned. And that idea had
found broad support both in the Commission and in the
Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.
25. The use of the phrase "at least one of the States concerned" meant that the principle did not operate independently, except in the case of a unification of Stateethat
is to say, the formation of a single successor S t a t e w h e n
the subjective right of a person concerned could be
derived directly from the unification, since the State on
which such an obligation fell could be directly identified.
In other cases of territorial change, the principle could not
have an immediate effect on the persons concerned. It
could operate satisfactorily only in conjunction with the
obligation of the States concerned to take all reasonable
measures to avoid statelessness, an obligation which itself
gave rise to an even more specific obligation of the States
concerned, namely, the obligation to negotiate so that the
persons concerned could actually acquire a nationality.
Such an obligation was envisaged later, in article 15
(Obligation of States concerned to consult and negotiate).
26. In substance, paragraph 1 applied to the particular
case of the succession of States the general concept of the
"right to a nationality" contained in article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human ~ i ~ h ta sprovision
General Assembly resolution 2 17 A ( I l l ) .
positive character was nevertheless widely disputed in the
doctrine. Even the members of the Commission, in their
discussion of the topic to date, had not all interpreted the
provision in the same way. One of the objections, without
doubt the major objection against the recognition of the
positive character (lex lata) of the "right to a nationality",
was that it was not possible to identiQ the State from
which such nationality should be requested, that is to say,
the addressee of the obligation corresponding to such a
27. It was certainly possible to identify that State in the
case of a succession of States. A "person concerned"
could either acquire the nationality of the successor State,
or of one of the successor States if there were several, or
retain the nationality of the predecessor State if it survived
the territorial changes. Of course the "right to a nationality", stated very generally in paragraph l, must be spelt
out even more concretely. In order to identify from among
the "States concerned" the one which was required to
grant its nationality, it was thus also necessary to take into
consideration the type of succession in question as well as
the nature of the links which the person concerned might
have with one or more of the States concerned.
28. That approach was in harmony with the position of
some members of the Commission, who felt that, for a
right to a nationality to be recognized, there was a need to
identify an effective link between the person concerned
and the State obligated to recognize that person as one of
its nationals. In other words, the best way of deter~nining
within the context of State succession whether a person
could claim the nationality of one of the States was to
apply the criterion of an effective link.
29. It should also be noted that, in most cases of a succession of States, individuals had links with only one of
the States concerned. That was precisely the consideration motivating those who pointed out that the successor
State was under an obligation to grant its nationality to a
core body of its population, For example, when there was
a dissolution, separation or transfer of territory, most of
the inhabitants of the territory concerned in the succession
of States were both residents and natives of that territory,
to which they were also bound by many other links,
including family ties and profession. It was thus possible
to counter the main argument against the "right to a
nationality" in the narrow sense, that is to say, the argument that it was not possible to identify the State which
was the addressee of the corollary obligation to grant its
nationality. There was no reason to deny the right to a
nationality to most of the persons concerned just because
for some others the identification of the State upon which
such obligation fell was difficult, especially on the pretext
that some categories of person could have links with two
or more States. Moreover, even in that particular case, it
would-in principle-be perfectly conceivable to recognize the right to several nationalities of a person falling in
this category, while leaving to the States concerned their
discretionary power to impose on the person the obligation to choose only one of the nationalities.
30. Paragraph 2 dealt with children born to persons
referred to in paragraph l after the date of State succession, but before the nationality of their parents had been
established. The first question to be answered was why
Summarv records of the mcetin~sof thc fortv-ninth session
such a provision should be included in the draft articles.
From a purcly thcorctical standpoint, the answer was that
it should not. The Commission was required to study the
question of' nationality solcly in rclation to Statc succcssion. I 1 should exclude ti-om its deliberations all niattcrs
conlicctcd with the acquisition or loss of nationality after
the date of the succcssion of Statcs unless sucli acquisition
or loss was directly connected with thc succcssion of
3 1. Hut, as was often the casc in practice, the reality
contlictcd with the theory. I t was not always easy to cstablish tlic precise datc of a succcssion of Statcs. Furthcrniore, t lie successor Stat es took time to adopt their laws on
nationality; in the interim, human litk continued. There
~iiiglit tlicrcii~t-cbe problems concerning nationality
which, although they did not rcsult directly from the
change 01' sovereignty as such. ncvcrthclcss deserved the
('onimission's attention. That was the 1-lrison t1Yrl.c. of
p;wagraph 2 .
3 2 . The Working Group had already recognized the
need Ibr an csccptton ti'olii the rigid criterion rairtiolirjtrjnipori.v contained in the draft articles, in order to cover those
children born shortly alicr the Statc succession, during the
ilitcrilii period wlicn the personal status of' their parents
had not yet been cictcrminccl. Given the fact that, in laws
on nationality. the nat ionnliiy of children oticn depended
on that ol'their parents, the fact that their parents' nationality rcmaincd uncertain for some tiliic could have a direct
iuilxict on the nationality of children born during that
period, liw csaliiplc if'a parent died in the nicantimc.
I t had been noted at the Commission's hrty-scvcnth
scssion that intcrnation;il law, as cst;~blishcd in international instruliicliis, sccliicd more inclined to rccognizc ;I
right to a nationality in the casc of'a child than in the casc
ol'nn adult atid that clement must be kept in mind.
the problems arising when there was a legal rclation
between a pcrson concerned and a Statc conccr~~cd.
AIITIC'LI:
2 (Obligation of Statcs conccrncd to take all seasonable nicasurcs to avoid statelessness)
36. Article 2 imposed on the Statcs conccrncd the obligation to take a11 reasonable measures to prevent persons
having the nationality of the prcdcccssor Statc on the datc
of the succcssion of Statcs ti-om bcconiing statclcss as a
rcsult of the succcssion. That obligation was a corollary of
the right of the pcrsons conccsncd to a nationality. I t
applied only to the "pcrsons conccrncd", that is to say, the
pcrsons who, on the datc of tlic succcssion of Statcs, had
been nationals of the prcdcccssor Statc, and i t cscludcd
pcrsons resident in the territory of the successor Statc who
had been stateless under the regime of the prcdcccssor
Statc. The succcssor Statc certainly had a discretionary
power to grant its nationality to such statclcss pcrsons.
But tlic problem would be qualitatively different if it were
envisaged that that Statc had an obligation to do so.
37. In his first report,' he had stated that. in view of the
recent dcvclopmcnt of human rights standards, including
a nutnbcr of obligations regarding nationality, it was no
longer possible to maintain without any reservation the
traditional opinion cxprcsscd by O'Conncll that
That conclusion, which had contradicted an author tbr
whom hc had much respect and admil-ation, hr~dreceived
imliicdiatc su port in suvcral circles, including the Council of Ihlropcf)'and UNIICR.'.'
3s. W h;itcvcr tlic merit ot'O*ConncIl*sevaluation of ICY
Itrtu at the tilnc, lie liad alrcxiy been stressing the urgent
liccd t i coditicatio~i
in that ticld, in particular because "it
is undesiriiblc that, as a rcsult of changc of sovcrcigrit~,
pcrsons shoold he rcndcrcd st:itclcss against their wills"."
In 19-30, the Hague Coditication Conti.rcncc had
adopted 11 ~iuliibcrof provisions aimed at reducing the
pcwsibilit y o t' statclcssncss and liad unani~iiouslyrcco~iimended that, in rcgulat iug questions of nationality. Statcs
should niakc c\cry ctti~-tto rcdilcc insofiir as possiblc
cascs of stntclcssncss. Among tlic multilateral treaties
relating to tliat problctn. mention should be iiindc of the
Con\cntion on Certain Questions relating to tlic Conllict
of' Nationality Laws (hcrcindtcr rcti.rred to as the 1930
Iluguc Con\wtion"), its Protocol relating to ii Certain
Cynscof' StatcIcssncss, and its Special Protocol conccrnitig
Sratclcssncss. as \\.cl1 as the Con\.c~itionrclritirig to the
Status of Stateless Persons and the Convention on the
Reduction of Statelessness. It was true that only very few
provisions of those Conventions directly addressed the
issue of nationality in the context of State succession, but
they providcd usetill guidance to the States concerned by
otiering solutions which could iurrtntis ivrrtmdis be used
by national legislators in search of solutions to probleins
arising ti'oni territorial change.
40. There was a growing awareness among States of the
c o ~ n p c l l i ~need
~ g to tight the plight of statelessness in gencral, and more particularly in the case of State succession.
One of the techniques used by successor States had been
to enlarge the circlc of persons entitled to acquire their
nationality by granting a right of option to that effect to
those who would othe~-wisebecome stateless. That had
bccn the casc in Burma, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and
even Yugoslavia, as indicated in the conmcntaly to the
articlc. The ~nosteffective measure the Statcs co~~ccrncd
could takc was to conclude an agreement by virtue of
which the occurrcncc of statclcssncss would be prccludcd, as provided for in a