Abstract
The Soviet government has, from the outset, shown keen awareness of the grave tensions that disputes over dual nationality have habitually engendered on the diplomatic scene.1 Typical responses from Soviet quarters range from sweeping assertions that Soviet law rejects the very notion of dual citizenship2 to grudging admissions that “Soviet constitutional law takes the attitude that a person’s concurrent possession of the citizenship of two states is abnormal and can only have a temporary character”.3 Or, in the same negative tone, “in contemporary international law the principle is generally recognized that each person must be the citizen of some state and, to boot, of one only; from that perspective, the statelessness of apatrides and dual or multiple citizenship are equally undesirable”.4 Or, again, “in contemporary international law it is generally recognized that every person must be the citizen of some one country. In the event a physical person has two or more citizenships, it must choose one.”5
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
This is well illustrated by the discussions which unfolded already in connection with the passage of the RSFSR decree “On the Acquisition of Rights of Soviet Citizenship” of 1918, as reported in Protokoly zasedanii Vserosiisskago Tsentral’nago Ispolnitel’nago Komiteta 4–go sozyva, Moscow, 1920, 64–66, and the comments by Chicherin in his capacity as rapporteur on the draft Regulation on Union Citizenship of 1924 at the morning meeting of the 2nd session of the CEC of the USSR, 2nd convocation, on October 24, 1924, reproduced in S.S. Kishkin, Sovetskoe grazhdanstvo, Moscow, 1925, pp. 74–88, at 80–83.
V. Durdenevskii, “Zakon o grazhdanstve Soiuza Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik”, Problemy sotsialisticheskogo prava, 1938, No.6, p.65; idem, in V.N. Durdenevskii & S.B. Krylov, eds., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow, 1947, p.187; O.E. Polents, in E.A. Korovin, ed., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow, 1951, pp. 231–232; K.Ia. Chizhov, in F.I. Kozhevnikov, ed., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow 1957, p.145; V.I. Menzhinskii, in F.I. Kozhevnikov, ed., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow, 1964, p.288; N.T. Samartseva, in D.B. Levin & G.P. Kaliuzhnaia, eds., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow, 1964, p.159; D.L. Zlatopol’skii, Gosudarstvennoe ustroistvo SSSR, Moscow, 1960, pp.258–259; A.I. Lepeshkin, Kurs sovetskogo gosudarstvennogo prava, Moscow, 1961, Vol.1, p.471; V.S. Shevtsov, Sovetskoe grazhdanstvo, Moscow, 1965, pp.25, 47; idem, in Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ pravovykh znanii (Sovetskoe pravo), Moscow, 1965, p.91; L. D. Voevodin, in S.S. Kravchuk, ed., Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo, Moscow, 1980, p.215.
A.I. Lepeshkin, op. cit., p.471.
E.Ia. Chernomordik, “K voprosu o dvoinom grazhdanstve v inostrannom i mezhdunarodnom prave”, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1947, No.1, p.57 (hereafter abbr. as SGiP).
V.I. Lisovskii, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Kiev, 1955, p.101.
These option experiments are analyzed in greater detail in my “Option of Nationality in Soviet Treaty Law: The War–Time and Post–War Record”, Iowa Law Review, 1964, No.4, p.1130–1176, and Soviet Citizenship Law, Leyden, 1968, Chapter IV. See, too, the excellent work on the option experience of the Baltic states by D.A. Loeber, Diktierte Option, Die Umsiedlung der Deutsch–Balten aus Estland and Lettland 1939–1941, Neumünster, 1972.
For a fuller discussion of this series of measures, see my Soviet Citizenship Law, Chapter IV. Some new materials have now been released and published in the collections Sovetskii Soiuz — Narodnaia Pol’sha 1944–1974, dokumenty i materialy, Moscow, 1974, and Dokumenty i materialy po istorii Sovetsko–polskikh otnoshenii,Moscow, 1974–1976, Vols.8 and 9. Several extensive and detailed studies on the subject have also been published in Poland recently, with copious references to local literature and archival materials. See, for instance, M. Motas, “Niektóre kwestie dotyczace przesiedlienia ludno§ci polskiej z USSR do Polski w latach 1944– 1946”, Z dziejów stosunków Polsko–Radzieckich, studia i materialy, Warsaw, 1975, Vol.11–12, pp.221–234, and K. Kersten, Repatriacja ludnosci polskiej po 11 wojnie swiatowej (studium historyczne), Wroclaw, 1974, and the sources cited therein. The number of individuals of Polish origin remaining in the USSR continues to be hotly disputed and considerable concern has been expressed as of late in unofficial Polish circles about their status and the lack of personal and social contact with members of the Polish community in the Soviet Union. Cf., Radio Free Europe Research, Poland/40, December 20, 1974.
D.L. Zlatopol’skii, op. cit., p.264; A.I. Denisov & M.G. Kirichenko, Sovetskoe gosudarstvennoe pravo, Moscow, 1957, p.139; L.D. Voevodin, in S.S. Kravchuk, ed., op. cit., p.223.
Texts in Sbornik zakonov SSSR i ukazov Presidiuma Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR (1938g.—noiabr 1958g.), Moscow, 1959, pp.78–84.
Ibid., pp.76–77, 84–85.
See the author’s “the Soviet Union and the Problem of Refugees and Displaced Persons, 1917–1956”, American Journal of International Law, 1957, No.2, pp.325— 361, and O.U. Meliksetian, Deportatsiia zapadnykh armian i repatriatsiia zarubezhnykh armian v Sovetskuiu Armeniiu 1915–1940, Erevan, 1975, in Armenian. The citizenship policy of the Soviet Armenian regime in the early years is analyzed by A.A. Esaian, Nekotorye voprosy teorii i istorii mezhdunarodnogo prava, Erevan, 1977, pp.265–271.
A.A. Esaian, Nekotorye voprosy sovetskogo grazhdanstva (Voprosy naseleniia v praktike Sovetskoi Armenii), Erevan, 1966, pp.8–20.
Ibid., p.20. Cf., Yaacov Roi, From Encroachment to Involvement, A Documentary Study of Soviet Policy in the Middle East, 1945–1973, Jerusalem, 1974, pp.45–46.
Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta SSSR, 1946, No.39 (hereafter abbr. as VVS SSSR).
Decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet of June 15, 1979, VVS SSSR, 1979, No.24, Art.437.
VVS SSSR, 1956, No.16, Art.353; Sbornik deistvuiushchikh dogovorov, soglashenii i konventsii, zakliuchennykh SSSR s inostrannymi gosudarstvami, Moscow, 1960, vyp.18, pp.271–274 (hereafter abbr. as SDD); United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 259, pp.155–167 (hereafter abbr. as UNTS).
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.1, Art.2; SDD, Moscow, 1961, vyp.20, pp.212–214, UNTS, Vol.318, pp.35–51.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.5, Art.103; SDD, vyp.20, pp.224–227: UNTS, Vol.318, pp. 89–101.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.9, Art.205; SDD, vyp.20, pp.205–208; UNTS, Vol.307, pp. 251–263.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.17, Art.289; SDD, vyp.20, pp.227–230; UNTS, Vol.320, pp. 111–127.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.7, Art.141; SDD, vyp.20, pp.208–211; UNTS, Vol.302, pp. 3–19.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.4, Art.84; SDD,vyp.20, pp.215–217; UNTS, Vol.292, pp. 107–119; Supplement to the Volume on Laws Concerning Nationality 1954, New York, 1959, United Nations Legislative Series, ST/LEG/SER.B/9, pp.100–101.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.9, Art.209; SDD, vyp.20, pp.221–224; UNTS, Vol.319, pp.277–289.
VVS SSSR, 1958, No.35, Art.426; SDD, vyp.20, pp.218–220; UNTS, Vol.322, pp.202–213. Concurrently, several such conventions were signed by the East European states between themselves. For an analysis of the provisions of the latter documents and the USSR’s set of bilateral agreements with these countries, see I. Sipkov, “Settlement of Dual Nationality in European Communist Countries”, American Journal of International Law, 1962, No.4, pp.1010–1019.
Vneshniaia politika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia Kitaiskoi Narodnoi Respubliki, Moscow, 1974, vol.1, p.232.
VVS SSSR, 1970, No.6, Art.50; SDD,Moscow, 1973, vyp.26, pp.96–99; UNTS, Vol.777, pp.144–167. Presumably, the tardiness in concluding the agreement with the GDR was occasioned by the latter’s delay in enacting a citizenship law and reluctance to spell out its citizenship policy in light of the continuing controversy with West Germany over the issue. A statute defining the citizenship of the GDR was finally adopted on February 20, 1967. Text in English in International Legal Materials,1967, No.3, pp.466–467.
VVS SSSR, 1979, No.18, Art.331.
D.L. Zlatopol’skii, op. cit., p.260. Cf., A.I. Lepeshkin, op. cit., p.473: “From what has been said, one can see that Soviet constitutional law considers the status of dual citizenship abnormal, temporary and transitional. Accordingly, our state, guided by humane and democratic aims, strives to solve the question of liquidation of that condition on the basis of strict respect for the principle of full freedom of will of the individuals in choosing their citizenship”. See, too, L.D. Voevodin, in S.S. Kravchuk, ed., op. cit., p.227. For brief analysis of the main clauses of the treaties, see A.I. Lepeshkin, op. cit., p.472; V.I. Menzhinskii, in F.I. Kozhevnikov, ed., op. cit., pp.288–291; N.T. Samartseva, in D.B. Levin & G.P. Kaliuzhnaia, eds., op. cit., p.160; Kurs mezhdunarodnogo prava, Moscow, 1967, Vol.3, pp.77–79; P.I. Savitskii, in G.V. Ignatenko & D.D. Ostapenko, eds., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo, Moscow, 1978, pp. 187–188.
G.E. Vilkov, “Mezhdunarodno—pravovoe regulirovanie voprosov dvoinogo gra- zhdanstva”, Sovetskii ezhegodnik mezhdunarodnogo prava 1959, Mocow, 1960, p.360. Likewise, V.V. Polianskii, “Printsipy sovetskogo grazhdanstva”, SGiP, 1980, No.5, pp.125–126, fn.8; B. Nepesov, “`Dvoinoe grazhdanstvo’: chto eto takoe?”, Chelovek i zakon, 1979, No.11, pp.16–18.
A.N. Makarov, “Le droit d’option en cas de double nationalité dans les conventions internationales”, Varia Juris Gentium, Leyden, 1959, p.199.
North Korea: A Case Study in the Techniques of Takeover, Washington, D.C., 1961, Department of State Publication 7118 (Far Eastern Series 103), p.3.
See some of the revelations regarding the role of Soviet citizens in Yugoslavia and Yugoslav anti—Tito emigrés in the USSR in the course of the Soviet—Yugoslav dispute following Yugoslavia’s expulsion from the Cominform, in Livre Blanc sur les procédés agressifs des Gouvernements de l’URSS, de Pologne, de Tchécoslovaquie, de Hongrie, de Roumanie, de Bulgarie, et d’Albanie envers la Yougoslavie, Belgrade, 1951, pp.110–131.
G.E. Vilkov, op. cit., pp.370.
It is interesting to note that in all of these treaties, except the one between the USSR and Yugoslavia, the signatories heavily emphasized in the preamble that they were motivated “by the desire to liquidate possible cases of dual citizenship on the basis of free choice of citizenship by the persons involved”. The preamble to the Soviet—Yugoslav agreement merely referred back to the Joint declaration signed in Belgrade on June 2, 1955, and confirmed the parties’ desire to “liquidate unresolved questions of citizenship and repatriation”. The relevant passage in the Joint declaration reads: “The two Governments have agreed to take steps to conclude treaties with the aim of settling questions relative to citizenship or, correspondingly, relative to the repatriation of citizens of one Contracting Party who are located on the territory of the other Party. The two Governments agree that the treaties must be based on respect for principles of humaneness, as well as on generally recognized principles of freedom of choice by said individuals. The two Governments also agree to guarantee the right to ensure protection to the citizens of the other side on their territory, understanding by that the right of citizens to retain the citizenship they had before arriving on the territory of the other Contracting Party too.” The text of the declaration may be consulted in lzvestiia, June 3, 1955, and Deklaratsii, zaiavleniia i kommiunike Sovetskogo pravitel’stva s pravitel’stvami inostrannykh gosudarsty 1954–1957gg., Moscow, 1957, pp.297–302. At the time of the Joint Declaration, the signatories made no reservations regarding “freedom of choice by the interested persons” and left the impression that the entire “option” program would be conducted in accordance with that formula. The decision to limit it and exclude a designated category of individuals from the “election proceedings” must then have come later.
Novaia Mongoliia,Ekonomiko—politicheskoe i kul’turnoe sostoianie strany, Protokoly pervogo Velikogo Khuruldana Mongol’skoi Narodnoi Respubliki, Ulan— Bator— Khoto, 1925, p.206.
Tretii s”ezd Mongol’skoi Narodnoi Partii, Urga, 1924, p.12.
V.V. Egorev, G.N. Lashkevich, M.A. Plotkin, B.D. Rozenblium, Zakonodatel’stvo i mezhdunarodnye dogovory Soiuza SSR i soiuznykh respublik o pravovom polozhenii inostrannykh fizicheskikh i iuridicheskikh lits, Moscow, 1926, pp.14–15.
Novaia Mongoliia, p.206.
Text in Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR, Moscow, 1967, Vol.13, pp.276–277; Sovetsko—Mongol’skie otnosheniia 1921–1974, dokumenty i materialy, Moscow—Ulan Bator, 1975, Vol.1, pp.226–228.
Text in SDD, Moscow, 1955, vyp.10, pp.20–22; Sovetsko—Mongol’skie otnosheniia 1921–1966, Sbornik dokumentov, Moscow, 1966, pp.103–105.
S.V. Chernichenko, Mezhdunarodno—pravovye voprosy grazhdanstva, Moscow, 1968, p.123.
Mongolia operated till recently without a citizenship statute. However, B.V. Shchetinin, in I.P. Ilinskii & B.V. Shchetinin, Gosudarstvennoe pravo stran narodnoi demokratii, Moscow, 1964, p.192, indicated that: “In the Mongolian People’s Republic a child becomes a Mongolian citizen if both parents are citizens of the MPR. In the event one of the parents is a foreigner, the child born to the couple may become a Mongolian citizen by agreement of the parents. In the absence of the parents’ agreement, the child is assigned the citizenship of the mother.” See, too, E. Tomson, Das Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht der ostasiatischen Staaten, Frankfurt— am—Main/Berlin, 1971, pp.285–289. A Law on Citizenship was confirmed on Dec. 30, 1974, which revises the above formula on acquisition of citizenship by birth. According to Art.3(a), a child born on the territory of the MPR or on the territory of another state, one of whose parents is a Mongolian citizen shall be deemed a citizen of the MPR. The new rule enhances the chances of dual citizenship occurring at birth through conflict of Soviet and Mongolian citizenship legislation. For text, translated by W.E. Butler, see International Legal Materials, 1981, No.5, pp.1203–1206 (with instructions on application of the Law).
Hereafter, mention of the USSR—Romania treaty practice in this domain without indicating a date refers to both the 1957 and 1978 agreements.
Stranger still is the fact that S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.130, specifically lists Romania as one of the countries whose mutual relations with the USSR in citizenship matters were governed by this “custom”. The statement was printed in 1968, i.e., eleven years after the signature of the 1957 convention which was silent on this point and ten years before a corresponding norm was enunciated expressis verbis in the 1978 convention, with a view to its prospective application.
Exchange of notes of August 22, 1957, and August 29, 1957, prolonging the deadline for submitting declarations until July 31, 1958.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.128, points out that the drafting of these clauses displays considerable stylistic differences. For example, in some of the conventions (with Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary) a literal reading of the corresponding clauses might suggest that these rules would here apply to the children of just those persons who had dual citizenship before the convention entered into force. In his opinion, “such an interpretation would be too narrow” and he considers the formulation editorially more felicitous in the conventions with Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Mongolia, etc., which, inter alia, allowed the parents with different citizenships (but not hitherto dual citizens) to exercise a choice on behalf of their minor children who did happen to be dual citizens.
Again, S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.127, considers that the corresponding clause was better drafted in the USSR-Hungary edition than in the USSR-Romania (1957), USSR-Yugoslavia and USSR-Albania versions in that the former left no doubt that only the requested state had the right to reject a petition, whereas the language of the latter could give the impression that both signatories had the right to do so - the result, according to him, of not “altogether successful” articulation.
In addition, the USSR-Bulgaria, 1978 USSR-Romania and USSR-GDR treaties contained a clause explaining that any questions arising in connection with the execution and interpretation of the respective convention would be resolved through diplomatic channels. The rest of the conventions do not feature a similar caveat - probably because that is the standard operating procedure anyway.
Cf., I.K. Gorodetskaia, Mezhdunarodnaia zashchita pray i interesov detei, Moscow, 1973, p.39.
VVS SSSR, 1963, No.30, Art.340; G.E. Vilkov, comp., Zakonodatel’stvo SSSR i mezhdunarodnye soglasheniia po voprosam grazhdanstva (sbornik), Moscow, 1964, pp.111–114.
VVS SSSR, 1966, No.15, Art.225; SDD, Moscow, 1971, vyp.24, pp.73–76.
VVS SSSR, 1967, No.7, Art.78; SDD, Moscow, 1972, vyp.25, pp.122–125. A supplementary protocol to the convention repealed Art.5 of the treaty of December 12,1957. The latter had dealt briefly with prospective cases of dual citizenship at birth; its substance was absorbed into the latest agreement.
VVS SSSR, 1970, No.6, Art.50; SDD, vyp.26, pp.96–99.
VVS SSSR, 1979, No.18, Art.331, and 1981, No.32, Art.950.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., pp.132–133. The principal features of the USSR’s latest agreements with Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria, plus the accord with the GDR, are reviewed in I.K. Gorodetskaia, “Grazhdanstvo detei”, SGiP, 1971, No.4, p.41.
Except, of course, that the provisions of the old Soviet-Bulgarian and Soviet-Czechoslovak conventions seeking to abort the future occurrence of dual citizenship between the parties involved concentrated exclusively on the type engendered at birth and paid no attention to the variety produced by naturalization.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.132.
I.K. Gorodetskaia, op. cit., pp.45–46.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.130.
G.K. Dmitrieva, “Mezhdunarodnyi god zhenshchin”, SGiP, 1975, No.3, p.7. For text of the Convention, see VVS SSSR, 1958, No.28, Art.373; SDD, vyp.20, pp. 438–442; Supplement…, pp.91–99.
Idem, “O mezhdunarodnoi zashchite pray zhenshchin”, Pravovedenie, 1975, No.6, p.7.
S.I. Rusinova, “Zakon o grazhdanstve SSSR”, Pravovedenie, 1980, No.1, pp.6–7.
G.K. Dmitrieva, Mezhdunarodnaia zashchita pray zhenshchiny, Kiev, 1975, p.113.
Idem, “Nekotorye aspekty mezhdunarodnoi zashchity pray zhenshchin”, Pravovedenie, 1969, No.6, p.114.
Idem, op. cit. (note 63 above), pp.114–115. The author then adds: “Real equality is possible where are not only proclaimed the equal rights of women with men to citizenship, but is also applied an identical procedure of naturalization for both spouses. The principle of equal rights of the parties to marriage, notes S.V. Chernichenko [op. cit., p.104], is not contradicted by a relaxed procedure of naturalization of foreigners entering into marriage with citizens of the given state. However, it is necessary to stress that this proposition is accurate only in the event the relaxed procedure is applied uniformly both to the alien wife and the alien husband.” In that respect, the sense of Article 9 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which the USSR ratified on Dec.19, 1980, is superior inasmuch as it mandates that: “State Parties shall grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality. They shall ensure in particular that neither marriage to an alien nor change of nationality by the husband during marriage shall automatically change the nationality of the wife, render her stateless or force upon her the nationality of the husband.” If a common citizenship for the family unit is still desired, presumably it can be attained by giving each partner the same opportunity to convert to the other’s nationality, whether through regular or special privileged procedures. One also assumes that the bar against the woman’s exposure to involuntary conversion and statelessness in connection with marriage enunciated in the second sentence is not meant in absolute terms, but only insofar as these handicaps affect only the wife and not the husband: as long as the consequences are identical for both spouses, the substance of the treatment here seems to be immaterial. By contrast, the 1957 Convention on the Nationality of Married Women sought to prevent certain negative results per se, without concerning itself with the problem of the equal status of the principals in a matrimonial setting or implying that these results might be acceptable if they were fully shared by the husband and wife.
Ibid., p.115.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.125.
Soviet News, 1980, No.6024, p.183.
See the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China, adopted on September 10, 1980, in Beijing Review, 1980, No.40, pp.17–18, and for comments on this point, Gong Qiuxiang, “On the Nationality Law”, ibid., 1980, No.45, p.24. For an analysis of the provisions of the latest law, see the author’s “The 1980 Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China”, American Journal of Comparative Law, 1982, No.3, pp.459–498.
S.V. Chernichenko, op. cit., p.137.
Pravda and Izvestiia, December 5, 1966.
Soviet News, 1980, No.6024, p.183.
The legal connections between emigration, immigration and citizenship will be explored more fully below in the special chapter on the subject.
SDD, vyp.25, pp.78–80.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ginsburgs, G. (1983). Dual Nationality and Soviet Diplomatic and Treaty Practice. In: The Citizenship Law of the USSR. Law in Eastern Europe, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1184-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-1184-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-1186-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-1184-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive