Reviews on the principle of effective nationality
孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.
References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992
关于进出口经营资格管理的有关规定
对外贸易经济合作部
外经贸部《关于进出口经营资格管理的有关规定》的通知
为加快外贸经营体制改革，促进和规范各类企业从事进出口业务，我部制定了《关于进出口经营资格管理的有关规定》，现将该文印发给你们，请遵照执行。
特此通知
附件：关于进出口经营资格管理的有关规定
中华人民共和国对外贸易经济合作部
二〇〇一年七月十日
附件
关于进出口经营资格管理的有关规定
为加快外贸经营体制改革，促进和规范各类企业从事进出口业务，现对企业进出口经营资格管理的有关问题规定如下：
一、进出口经营资格实行登记和核准制，遵循自主申请、公开透明、统一规范、依法监督的原则，各类所有制企业（外商投资企业、商业物资、供销社企业、边境小额贸易企业，经济特区、浦东新区企业除外，下同）进出口经营资格实行统一的标准和管理办法。
外经贸部授权各省、自治区、直辖市、计划单列市及哈尔滨、长春、沈阳、西安、成都、南京、武汉、广州、珠海、汕头市外经贸委（厅、局），新疆建设兵团外经贸局（以下统称受权发证机关）负责办理进出口经营资格登记并核发《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》。
二、对企业的进出口经营资格，按登记或核准的经营范围实行如下分类管理：
（一）外贸流通经营权（经营各类商品和技术的进出口,但国家限定公司经营或禁止进出口的商品及技术除外）。
（二）生产企业自营进出口权（经营本企业自产产品的出口业务和本企业所需的机械设备、零配件、原辅材料的进口业务，但国家限定公司经营或禁止进出口的商品及技术除外）。
外经贸部和受权发证机关在核准或登记企业进出口经营范围时，不再单列贸易方式，企业可以按国家规定以各种贸易方式从事进出口业务。
三、申请进出口经营权的企业资格条件和要求提交的材料
(一) 申请外贸流通经营权的企业资格条件和要求提交的材料
1、资格条件
（1）企业应具备企业法人资格，成立一年以上，经工商行政管理部门登记注册领取《企业法人营业执照》，按国家规定办理工商年检并通过年检。
（2）注册资本（金）不低于500万元人民币（中西部地区不低于300万元人民币，币别下同）。
（3）已办理税务登记，依法纳税，按国家规定办理税务年检并通过年检。
（4）该企业法定代表人或负责人，在3年内未曾担任过被撤销对外贸易经营许可的企业的法定代表人或负责人（指在其担任法定代表人或负责人期间，企业违法违规被撤销对外贸易经营许可）。
2、要求提交的材料
（1）企业书面申请。
（2）经年检的《企业法人营业执照》副本复印件（经工商行政管理部门签章）。
（3）经年审的《税务登记证》复印件。
（4）《企业法人营业执照》登记的法定代表人身份证复印件。
（5）其他需要申报的材料。
(二) 生产企业申请自营进出口权的资格条件和要求提交的材料
1、资格条件
（1）企业应具备企业法人资格或为依法设立的个人独资企业、合伙企业（以下统称企业），经工商行政管理部门登记注册领取《企业法人营业执照》或《营业执照》。
（2）企业注册资本（金）不低于300万元（中西部地区、少数民族地区不低于200万元，科研院所、高新技术企业和机电产品生产企业不低于100万元）。
（3）已办理税务登记，依法纳税。
（4）该企业法定代表人或负责人，在3年内未曾担任过被撤销对外贸易经营许可的企业的法定代表人或负责人（指在其担任法定代表人或负责人期间，企业违法违规被撤销对外贸易经营许可）。
2、要求提交的材料：
（1）企业书面申请。
（2）经年检的《企业法人营业执照》或《营业执照》副本复印件（经工商行政管理部门签章）。
（3）经年审的《税务登记证》复印件。
（4）《全国组织机构代码证书》复印件。
（5）《企业法人营业执照》登记的法定代表人或《营业执照》登记的负责人身份证复印件。
（6）个人独资企业、合伙企业要提交会计事务所、审计事务所或其他具有验资资格的机构出具的验资报告。
（7）高新技术企业、机电产品生产企业，要提交科技主管部门或有关部门的证书复印件。
(8) 其他需要申报的材料。
四、办理进出口经营资格登记和核准，应符合规定的程序和要求。
（一）企业申请办理进出口经营资格，到所在地省市受权发证机关办理。企业提交的申报材料齐备后，受权发证机关予以受理。
申请自营进出口权，受权发证机关应自收到申请之日起10个工作日内，作出准予登记或不准予登记的决定。对准予登记的，发给《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》。不准予登记的，应当说明理由。
申请外贸流通经营权，由外经贸部核准。地方企业由受权发证机关报外经贸部核准；中央企业及其所属企业，由中央企业报外经贸部核准。外经贸部在收到受权发证机关或中央企业报告之日起10个工作日内，作出准予核准或不准予核准的答复。受权发证机关自收到外经贸部的核准文件后5个工作日内，发放《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》。
（二）办理进出口经营资格登记后，受权发证机关要将企业提交的材料连同《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》复印件存档，并将所发《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》内所载的有关数据通过网络报送外经贸部。
（三）企业凭《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》到工商、海关、质量监督检验检疫、外汇管理、税务部门办理开展进出口业务所需的有关手续。
五、规范各类进出口企业经营行为。企业取得进出口经营资格后，应当遵守法律、法规和有关规定从事进出口业务，依照国家有关规定报关、报验、结汇、用汇和办理出口退税。
（一）各类进出口企业不得以挂靠、借权经营方式让其它企业以自己名义对外签订进出口合同，办理报关、报验、结汇、用汇和出口退税。企业要强化内部管理，建立和健全权责分明、有效制约的经营机制，防止出卖或变相出卖进出口经营资格，防范走私、逃套汇和骗取出口退税等违法违规行为。
（二）从事国家实行配额、许可证管理商品的进出口业务，应依据法律、法规和有关规定的规定申请办理配额、许可证。
（三）按规定加入进出口商会。
六、各受权发证机关要加强与工商、海关、质量监督检验检疫、外汇管理、税务等部门的沟通，建立相应的联系制度，完善《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》年审办法，积极配合有关部门的工作。
（一）每年1月1日至4月30日，受权发证机关进行《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》年审。有条件的地方，可以与有关部门实行联合年审。
（二）受权发证机关根据企业提交的年审材料，以及海关、质量监督检验检疫、外汇管理、税务等部门提供的该企业依法经营的材料，确认该企业是否具备继续从事进出口业务的资格。
（三）完善对企业的信用管理和档案管理，对受到行政处罚的企业，受权发证机关要在其《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》上记载违法违规经营行为和受到的行政处罚，并将有关数据通过网络报送外经贸部。
受权发证机关要及时向海关、税务、工商、外汇等有关部门通报受罚企业名单，对有不良记录企业的经营活动实施预防性管理。
（四）企业的名称、经营场所、法定代表人或负责人、进出口经营范围变更，应到受权发证机关办理《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》变更手续。受权发证机关应将有关数据通过网络报送外经贸部。
（五）《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》不得伪造、涂改、出租、出借、转让、出卖。企业使用《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》复印件，须加盖受权发证机关印章方有效。
七、进一步加强和完善监管体系，严格依法对违法违规企业实施行政处罚，建立有准入有退出的进出口经营资格管理体制。
（一）对构成走私和违反海关监管的进出口企业，依据《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》和《对违规、走私企业给予警告、暂停或撤销对外贸易、国际货运代理经营许可行政处罚的暂行规定》（ [1998]外经贸政发第929号,外经贸部和海关总署联合发布,以下简称《暂行规定》）给予相应的行政处罚。
（二）对构成逃套汇的进出口企业，依据《国务院关于坚决打击骗取出口退税严厉惩治金融和财税领域违法乱纪行为的决定》（国发[1996]4号,以下简称《决定》）和《对外贸易经济合作部对逃、套汇外经贸企业给予行政处罚的暂行规定》（[1998]外经贸计财发第713号）给予相应的行政处罚。
（三）对构成骗取出口退税的进出口企业，依据《决定》和《关于对骗取出口退税企业给予行政处罚的暂行规定》（[2000]外经贸发展发第513号，外经贸部和国家税务总局联合发布）给予相应的行政处罚。
（四）对伪造、变造、买卖进出口许可证、配额、进出口原产地证明文件的进出口企业，依据《中华人民共和国对外贸易法》和《暂行规定》给予相应的行政处罚。
（五）对本企业出口产品被控倾销而不参加应诉的企业，依据外经贸部《关于鼓励和督促企业参加国外反倾销案件应诉的若干规定》（[1999]外经贸法字第3号）给予相应的行政处罚。
（六）对出口伪劣商品的企业，经海关、工商行政管理部门、质量监督检验检疫部门或司法部门认定后，给予以下行政处罚：首次出口伪劣商品且出口额在50万美元以下的，给予警告行政处罚；首次出口伪劣商品在50万美元以上、100万美元以下的，给予暂停一年对外贸易经营许可行政处罚；首次出口伪劣商品在100万美元以上，或受到处罚后两年内仍有出口伪劣商品行为的，给予撤销对外贸易经营许可行政处罚。
（七）对有商标侵权行为的企业，给予以下行政处罚：因商标侵权行为被海关或工商行政管理等部门处罚，但尚未构成犯罪的，给予暂停一年对外贸易经营许可的处罚；对发生严重侵权行为、给商标所有人造成重大经济损失并经司法部门认定或经仲裁机构裁定的，给予撤销对外贸易经营许可行政处罚。
（八）被撤销对外贸易经营许可的企业，自被撤销之日起三年内不予重新办理进出口经营资格的登记或核准。
（九）对未按规定办理《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》申领和年审的企业，视同自动放弃并注销其进出口经营资格，自注销之日起一年内不得重新办理进出口经营资格的登记或核准。
八、外经贸部和受权发证机关工作人员违反本规定，弄虚作假、严重失职、滥用职权、营私舞弊、索贿受贿的，应当根据情节给予行政处分；触犯刑法的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
九、受权发证机关发现企业法定代表人或负责人有《企业法人法定代表人登记管理规定》中规定的不得担任企业法定代表人的情形，又未按有关规定办理法定代表人或负责人变更的企业，应向工商行政管理部门检举。属于已获得进出口经营资格的，应注销其进出口经营资格；属于申请办理进出口经营资格的，不予办理。
十、商业物资、供销社企业、边境小额贸易企业，经济特区、浦东新区企业的进出口经营资格的资格条件和管理办法，以及外商投资企业从事进出口业务，仍按现行规定办理。
十一、生产企业已经成立的进出口公司获得进出口经营权的，视同获得外贸流通经营权，企业应在规定时间内到原受权发证机关办理《中华人民共和国进出口企业资格证书》"企业类型"等项变更手续。
本规定自下发之日起实行。凡与本规定不符的规定，自本规定发布之日起废止。
中华人民共和国对外贸易经济合作部
二OO一年七月十日
