Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conferral of Nationality of the Kin State – Mission Creep?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law

Abstract

Nationality is a surprisingly complex and emotive issue. At a time when global events appear increasingly threatening, the individual desire to align with a solid State is stronger than ever. While the acquisition of nationality is commonly not subject to much controversy, this chapter looks at Russia’s escalating process of conferring nationality on individuals in States that used to form part of the Soviet Union. In order to be able to discuss whether such conferral of nationality is a permissible course of action to consequently justify the forcible protection of nationals abroad, this chapter discusses to what extent the conferral of nationality is an absolute exercise of State sovereignty and looks at the means and methods by which nationality may be acquired and/or conferred, both in general and in the Russian context. This allows the chapter to then explore the consequences of nationality and to what extent, if any, an individual or a group of individuals can expect protection from their ‘home’ State when abroad. It would appear that such State protection is entirely discretionary and subject to political and other considerations. What, then, is Russia’s objective in declaring individuals in its near abroad as nationals? By exploring its activities, the chapter takes particular note of the experiences in the Baltics, Georgia, and Ukraine to conclude that Russia is in the process of attempting to rewrite the rules carefully crafted post-1945 to revive kin-State activism and so allowing for interference in neighbouring States to become an established international custom.

The author is a Senior Lecturer at the Bristol Law School of the University of the West of England, Bristol. sabine2.hassler@uwe.ac.uk.

The author is an Associate Professor in International Law at the Bristol Law School of the University of the West of England, Bristol. noelle.quenivet@uwe.ac.uk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Koessler 1947, p. 63. For an instructive overview of traditions, see European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016a. Also European Convention on Nationality, opened for signature 6 November 1997, ETS No. 166 (entered into force 1 March 2000), (European Convention on Nationality), Article 2a.

  2. 2.

    For a discourse on the meaning behind ‘nationality’, see Bisschop 1942, p. 151.

  3. 3.

    European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016a.

  4. 4.

    Fawcett as cited by Bisschop 1942, p. 154. Of course, ethnically, a national of a State living within its territory may have different origins, be that because of cultural, religious and/or linguistic traditions but while ‘nationality’ is a legal concept, ‘ethnicity’ defines a group by way of certain characteristics which may confer specific rights under a State’s internal or domestic laws, for example as part of anti-discrimination legislation.

  5. 5.

    European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016a.

  6. 6.

    As Koessler noted, the ‘distinctions between personal and territorial sovereignty are flexible and not clearly delineated.’ While the former is a matter of domestic law, the latter is one of international law. Koessler 1947, p. 70.

  7. 7.

    ILC 2006a, Article 1. See also ILC 2006b, Article 1, para 8.

  8. 8.

    There is a clear delineation between internal struggles for independence and a State’s perspective on conferring or extending ‘nationality’. We are concerned with the latter and will not look at or explore self-determination.

  9. 9.

    Note that the discussion of nationality has ‘consequences on both the international and the municipal planes of law’. See e.g. Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws, opened for signature 13 April 1930, LNTS vol. 179 (entered into force 1 July 1937), Article 1; European Convention on Nationality, above n. 1, Chapter II, Article 3(1).

  10. 10.

    E.g. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217A (III), Article 15; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, UNTS vol. 999 (entered into force 23 March 1976), Article 24(3); United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, UNTS vol. 1577 (entered into force 2 September 1990) (hereinafter UNCRC), Article 7; Helsinki Document 1992, 9–10 July 1992, VI: The Human Dimension (Helsinki Document 1992), paras 55–56; OSCE Istanbul Document 1999, Charter for European Security: III. Our Common Response (Istanbul Document 1999), para 19.

  11. 11.

    See Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, opened for signature 30 August 1961, UNTS vol. 989 (entered into force 13 December 1975), Preamble: ‘considering it desirable to reduce statelessness by international agreement’.

  12. 12.

    Helsinki Document 1992, above n. 10, paras 55–56; Istanbul Document 1999, above n. 10, para 19.

  13. 13.

    All these principles are contained in European Convention on Nationality, above n. 1, Chapter II, Article 4.

  14. 14.

    ICJ, Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment, 6 April 1955, ICJ Reports 1955 (Nottebohm 1955), p. 20.

  15. 15.

    Bisschop 1942, p. 152.

  16. 16.

    Pre-WWII the State exercised its absolute sovereignty with regard to the removal of nationality (as well as citizenship) such as the reprehensible and shameful Nürnberger Gesetze that stripped German Jews of their citizenship and relegated them to ‘Staatsangehörige’ without political rights in 1935. Die Nürnberger Gesetze 1935. Contemporary instances such as the Israeli government revoking Nahad Abu Kishaq’s, a native-born Israeli of Arab descent, nationality in 2002 for his alleged involvement in suicide bombings are rare and controversial. See M. Mualem and J. Bana, ‘Yishai revokes citizenship of Israeli Arab’, Ha’aretz, 10 September 2002.

  17. 17.

    PCIJ, Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Advisory Opinion, 7 February 1923, Ser. B. No. 4, p. 23.

  18. 18.

    Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion, 19 January 1984, OC-4/84, Series A No. 4.

  19. 19.

    ILC 1976, p. 31 (emphasis added); and commentary on pp. 33–34.

  20. 20.

    Butcher 2006, p. 10. Butcher refers to the case of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico v. Dominican Republic, Judgment, 8 September 2005, Series C No. 130.

  21. 21.

    For a comprehensive overview see European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship, Comparative Typology of Modes of Acquisition and Loss of Citizenship.

  22. 22.

    European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016b.

  23. 23.

    See Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality and on Military Obligations in Cases of Multiple Nationality, opened for signature 6 May 1963, ETS 43 (entered into force 28 March 1968). There are instances of allowing naturalisation of individuals of a particular ethnic background without losing their original nationality, e.g. ethnic Turks in Germany. See Boll 2005, p. 37.

  24. 24.

    Protocol Relating to Military Obligations in Certain Cases of Double Nationality, opened for signature 12 April 1935, LNTS vol. 178, no. 4117 (entered into force 25 May 1937), Article 1.

  25. 25.

    Butcher 2006, p. 16.

  26. 26.

    See European Convention on Nationality, above n. 1, Article 6(3).

  27. 27.

    Note that this is a non-exhaustive list and varies from State to State.

  28. 28.

    The person ‘is an emigrant of German ethnic origin from Eastern Europe who has suffered from discrimination due to his or her descent, who has admission to Germany and has obtained a special certificate’. Based on StAG (Staatsangehörigkeitsgesetz) 1913, as amended 13 November 2014. See also European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016b.

  29. 29.

    Where the person ‘is a citizen from another area in Europe (not Eastern Europe) where German is the official or colloquial language and has been resident in Germany for 4 years, or person is an emigrant of German ethnic origin and resident abroad’. Ibid.

  30. 30.

    Where the person ‘is a citizen from another area in Europe (not Eastern Europe) where German is the official or colloquial language and has been resident in Germany for 4 years, or person is an emigrant of German ethnic origin and resident abroad’. Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Canadian Citizenship Act 1985.

  32. 32.

    Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Law of Return 5710-1950 (as amended).

  33. 33.

    Eligibility for Aliyah 2014.

  34. 34.

    See Article 8 UNCRC, and a child’s right to preserve its identity. The inclusion of this particular provision is due to Argentina’s experience of ‘disappeared children’: Doek 2006, p. 29.

  35. 35.

    The symbolic value of citizenship as a ‘signal of common belonging on the part of both the holder and the granter of citizenship’ has been acknowledged. See OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2012, Principle 32.

  36. 36.

    Boll 2005, p. 37.

  37. 37.

    International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, Prosecutor v. Duso Tadic, Judgment, 15 July 1999, IT-94-1-A, para 166.

  38. 38.

    Parry et al. 1986, p. 16. Also, Koessler 1947, p. 68.

  39. 39.

    For a more detailed discussion see Boll 2005, p. 37. In law, the duty of obedience is expressed in legislation that criminalises treason, see e.g. 18 U.S. Code § 2381. Disloyalty or treason are among potential reasons for the non-voluntary loss of citizenship. See ‘New head of Ukraine’s navy defects in Crimea’, BBC Europe, 2 March 2014.

  40. 40.

    While an individual’s obligation of loyalty to the State is firmly anchored in domestic law it is accepted that it does have a role to play in international law. Boll 2005, p. 37.

  41. 41.

    Koessler 1947, p. 68.

  42. 42.

    See Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship (No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002).

  43. 43.

    The Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted at national voting on 12 December 1993).

  44. 44.

    Article 6(1); and a citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deprived of his or her citizenship or of the right to change it (Article 6(3)).

  45. 45.

    European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship 2016a. Also, Koessler noted that nationality ‘has at least two accepted denotations: (1) the status of belonging to a state; (2) the quality of membership in an ethnological group.’ Koessler 1947, p. 61.

  46. 46.

    It is estimated that ‘persons of Russian heritage constitute a substantial proportion of the population’ in Ukraine: about 17.3 per cent. See ‘Ukraine’, CIA World Factbook 2017. Moreover, Russian’s profound attachment to Ukraine is rooted in Russian civilisation having older roots in Ukraine than in Russia. House of Commons Library 2014, p. 31.

  47. 47.

    While Vykhovanets and Zhuravsky assert that ‘no ethnic considerations are or can be applicable here’, Biersack and O’Lear refer to ‘ethnicity’ as an identification factor. Vykhovanets and Zhuravsky 2013. Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 250.

  48. 48.

    Chepurin 2009, p. 68.

  49. 49.

    For an analysis of the legal scope of ‘compatriot’ as part of crafting a Russian identity, see Kozin 2015, p. 286.

  50. 50.

    Articles 1 and 3(3), About the state policy of the Russian Federation concerning compatriots abroad, Federal Law of the Russian Federation of 24 May 1999 (No. 99-F3) as amended on 24 July 2010. See Vykhovanets and Zhuravsky 2013.

  51. 51.

    Amendment to the law on state policy towards compatriots living abroad (24 July 2010).

  52. 52.

    Ibid. See President of Russia 2014 and V. Timkiv, ‘New citizenship shortcut for Russian-speakers of Soviet’, RIA Novosti, 21 April 2014.

  53. 53.

    Vykhovanets and Zhuravsky 2013.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Article 3, Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship (No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002). While dual citizenship is possible, interestingly this is interpreted as the individual having ‘allegiance’ of a foreign State. Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., Article 7(1).

  59. 59.

    Ibid., Article 11.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., Article 13.

  61. 61.

    Ibid., Article 14.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., Article 14(1)(b).

  63. 63.

    Ibid., Article 17.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., Article 32(1) and (2).

  65. 65.

    Ibid., Article 32(3).

  66. 66.

    Ibid., Article 10. See also Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 232 of March 13, 1997 on the Main Document Serving as the Personal Identity Document of a Citizen of the Russian Federation on the Territory of the Russian Federation.

  67. 67.

    Articles 29 and 35(1), Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship (No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002).

  68. 68.

    ‘Russia to make citizenship easier for native Russian speakers’, Reuters, 7 March 2014. Also P. Kenyon, ‘Russia may expedite passports for Ukraine’s ethnic Russians’, NPR, 6 May 2014.

  69. 69.

    See A. Blomfield, ‘Russia ‘distributing passports in the Crimea’, The Telegraph, 17 August 2008. Also V.M. Artman, ‘Annexation by passport’, AlJazeera America, 14 March 2014.

  70. 70.

    V.M. Artman, ‘Annexation by passport’, AlJazeera America, 14 March 2014.

  71. 71.

    ‘Poroshenko proposes bill to ban dual citizenship in Ukraine’, RadioFreeEurope, 14 March 2017.

  72. 72.

    Spiro 2014.

  73. 73.

    In this regard, it is important to keep the consequences of nationality in international law separate from those rights and duties derived from domestic law.

  74. 74.

    Nottebohm 1955, above n. 14, p. 23.

  75. 75.

    British-Mexican Claims Commission, Lynch Claim (Great Britain v. Mexico), Decisions and Opinions, 8 November 1929, Vol. V RIAA 1929, p. 18.

  76. 76.

    Ibid., p. 19.

  77. 77.

    Nottebohm 1955, above n. 14, p. 22.

  78. 78.

    Ibid., p. 23.

  79. 79.

    See e.g. Gulati 2014, p. 559; Van Panhuys 1968, p. 942.

  80. 80.

    In Mergé the Italian-United States Conciliation Commission also dealt with a case of dual nationality and stressed the principle of ‘effective nationality’ and ‘dominant nationality’. Italian-United States Conciliation Commission, Mergé Case, Decision, 10 June 1955, Vol. XIV RIAA 1955, pp. 241–242. It should be noted that in cases of dual nationalities tribunals are required to balance the strengths of competing nationalities (Report of the International Law Commission, 58th session (1 May–9 June and 3 July–11 August 2016), UN Doc A/31/10, page 46).

  81. 81.

    ILC (1976), p. 31. See commentary on pp. 32–33.

  82. 82.

    See discussion on Russians in South Ossetia, see in Natoli 2010, pp. 412–413.

  83. 83.

    ‘Poroshenko proposes bill to ban dual citizenship in Ukraine’, RadioFreeEurope, 14 March 2017.

  84. 84.

    See Boll 2005, p. 37.

  85. 85.

    Kesby 2012, p. 142.

  86. 86.

    See Higgins 1973, p. 341.

  87. 87.

    See Perruchoud 2012, p. 147.

  88. 88.

    See the German constitution that does not allow for the extradition of nationals: Grundgesetz, Article 16(2). The supremacy of this article was underlined by the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) in 2005: BVerfG, Urteil des Zweiten Senats vom 18. Juli 2005 - 2 BvR 2236/04 - Rn. (1-201). Also Article 4(5), Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship (No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002).

  89. 89.

    See ILC 1976, p. 522.

  90. 90.

    For example, in the United Kingdom, War Crimes Act 1991, s 1, Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 72 and Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010, s 4(3) apply to British nationals abroad. See also Arnell 2012.

  91. 91.

    In strict terms, States can only be held liable for acts of its agents and not of private persons or entities. Tomuschat argues that States cannot assume ‘full accountability for the actions of their citizens who, in the exercise of their human rights, are not subject to governmental control.’ Tomuschat 1999, p. 274.

  92. 92.

    In exceptional circumstances, States may exercise diplomatic protection for non-nationals. See ILC 2001, Article 39, para 6; and PCIJ, Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway Case (Estonia v. Lithuania), Judgment, 28 February 1939, PCIJ Rep Ser A/B No. 76, p. 16.

  93. 93.

    Oppenheim 1912, para 291.

  94. 94.

    Peters 2016, p. 390.

  95. 95.

    United States-Mexican Special Claims Commission, Naomi Russell Case (United States v. Mexico), Decision, Vol. IV RIAA 1931, p. 811.

  96. 96.

    Weis 1979, p. 4; Lie 2004, p. 131.

  97. 97.

    See ICJ, Diallo Case (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Rep 2007, para 44. As Künzli explains, ‘[a]fter exhaustion of local remedies [diplomatic protection] is no longer a dispute between an individual and a state but between two states. It is thus not an internal affair but an international dispute’. Künzli 2006, p. 333.

  98. 98.

    ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, para 78. On the different ways to make representations, see Künzli 2006, pp. 321–350.

  99. 99.

    See Künzli 2006, p. 337.

  100. 100.

    Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation v. United Kingdom (App 7597/76) (1978) 14 DR 117; R (Abassi & Anor) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 1598; Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr [2010] 1 SCR 44; See discussion in Prochaska 2009.

  101. 101.

    See discussion in Wellens 2014, pp. 19–151.

  102. 102.

    In Nottebohm, the ICJ distinguished between ‘diplomatic protection and protection by means of international judicial proceedings’. Nottebohm 1955, above n. 14, p. 24.

  103. 103.

    ICJ, Diallo Case (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment, 30 November 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 639; ICJ, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, 31 March 2004, ICJ Reports 2004 (Avena 2004), p. 12; and ICJ, LaGrand case (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001 (LaGrand 2001), p. 466.

  104. 104.

    Nottebohm 1955, above n. 14, p. 23.

  105. 105.

    It is acknowledged that individuals are increasingly able to assert their rights in person without having to rely on the State. Leys 2016, pp. 1–2.

  106. 106.

    Leys 2016, p. 4.

  107. 107.

    For a discussion on this assumption, see Boll 2005, p. 37.

  108. 108.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, ETS No. 005 (entered into force 3 September 1953).

  109. 109.

    Ireland v. United Kingdom, Application No. 5310/70, 18 January 1978.

  110. 110.

    See e.g. Avena, above n. 103, p. 12.

  111. 111.

    Künzli 2006, p. 350.

  112. 112.

    See e.g. LaGrand, above n. 103, p. 466.

  113. 113.

    See discussion in Bauböck 2007, pp. 2293–2447.

  114. 114.

    Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 255.

  115. 115.

    Vykhovanets and Zhuravsky 2013.

  116. 116.

    See Article 116 Abs. 2, Grundgesetz and StAG (Staatsangehoerigkeitsgesetz) 1913, as amended 13 November 2014.

  117. 117.

    Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Law of Return 5710-1950 (as amended).

  118. 118.

    See Krūma 2015, p. 1.

  119. 119.

    Patsiuko and Wallace 2014, p. 187.

  120. 120.

    See Krūma 2015.

  121. 121.

    NATO has made it clear that the alliance is on alert to a possible Russian military operation. See Warsaw Summit Communiqué 2016, para 40. However, it should be noted that the RAND Corporation assessed NATO’s chances of successfully defending the territories of its most exposed members as low to bad. See Shlapak and Johnson 2016.

  122. 122.

    Patsiuko and Wallace 2014, p. 188.

  123. 123.

    See Krūma 2015, p. 2.

  124. 124.

    See Lottmann 2008, pp. 503–521.

  125. 125.

    R. Milne, ‘Latvia’s Russians express dissatisfaction’, The Financial Times, 30 March 2014; Tsybulenko and Amorosa 2012, pp. 85–90.

  126. 126.

    Roudik 2013.

  127. 127.

    See Krūma 2015, p. 1.

  128. 128.

    See discussion in Zinchenko 2014, pp. 19–20.

  129. 129.

    ‘Moscow concerned over statelessness in Baltics’, The Voice of Russia, 6 October 2012.

  130. 130.

    UN Human Rights Council 2013. See Kohn 2012.

  131. 131.

    There is an implicit expectation that Russia exercises its superior power. Thus, ‘[T]his perception of a forceful Russia is particularly prevalent in the states of the former Soviet Union, wherein Russia is widely seen as a having a prerogative to intervene in and influence’. Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 251. See also Kozin who posits that forging the Russian national identity through ‘the Law of Compatriot, demonstrated its allegiance to the paternalistic model of a strong state which considers compatriots as its juridical subjects’. Kozin 2015, p. 298.

  132. 132.

    Whilst there is no internationally agreed definition as to the concept of minority, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities refers to their ‘national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity’ in its Article 1. General Assembly 1992. A probably more elaborate definition is part imparted by Francesco Capotorti, the then Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities: ‘A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members - being nationals of the State - possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.’ United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities 1979, para 568.

  133. 133.

    General Assembly 1992, Article 6.

  134. 134.

    Roudik 2008.

  135. 135.

    Ibid.

  136. 136.

    Ibid.

  137. 137.

    A. Osipovich, ‘Controversial passport policy led Russians into Georgia: Analysts’ Agence France Press, 21 August 2008.

  138. 138.

    Pellet 1992, p. 184.

  139. 139.

    See discussion in Natoli 2010, pp. 408–409.

  140. 140.

    OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2008.

  141. 141.

    Ibid., para 9.

  142. 142.

    General Assembly 1965; General Assembly 1970.

  143. 143.

    OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2008, para 9. This is reflected in Principle 36 in The Ljubljana Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies, OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2012.

  144. 144.

    OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities 2012, Principle 36.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., Principle 33.

  146. 146.

    Protocol to the Agreement Establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (1991) signed at Minsk on 8 December 1991, paras 3 and 4. It should be noted that Georgia did not ratify the Protocol.

  147. 147.

    It should be noted that in fact it was not until Georgia’s more hostile attitude towards the South Ossetian authorities that the inhabitants of this territory decided to adopt Russian nationality. Natoli 2010, p. 409.

  148. 148.

    Brubaker 1996, p. 145.

  149. 149.

    The media, and access to media outlets, is used by all sides as part of an ‘informational propaganda struggle’. See Biersack and O’Lear 2015, pp. 249 and 253.

  150. 150.

    As cited in Royal Institute of International Affairs 2000, p. 95.

  151. 151.

    President of Russia 2008b. Elsewhere Medvedev further argued that Russia’s actions were necessary to ‘protect […] the Russian citizens living in [South Ossetia]’. President of Russia 2008a.

  152. 152.

    Human Rights Watch 2009, p. 20.

  153. 153.

    As cited in Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect 2008, p. 1.

  154. 154.

    Brubaker 1996, p. 145.

  155. 155.

    See Solomon and Salako 2016, p. 152.

  156. 156.

    J. Rubin, ‘Russia’s poor excuse for invading Georgia’, The New Republic, 8 November 2008.

  157. 157.

    See for example Lott 2012, pp. 4–21.

  158. 158.

    Brownlie 1973, p. 146.

  159. 159.

    Schrijver refers to Article 2(4) as the ‘mother of all use of force provisions in the Charter.’ Schrijver 2005, p. 34.

  160. 160.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 301. Yet, it must be recalled that the possibility of abuse is not unique to the right to protect nationals abroad but is endemic to any use of force.

  161. 161.

    Bowett 1958, p. 87; Henkin 1979, p. 137.

  162. 162.

    At the 2005 World Summit. See General Assembly 2005.

  163. 163.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 278.

  164. 164.

    Henkin 1979, p. 145.

  165. 165.

    Bowett 1958, p. 92. The US has been a strong proponent of this position. Sofaer 1991, p. 286. For example, it was the violence committed upon American citizens in Panama that led to the American intervention in 1989. Franck 2002, p. 92.

  166. 166.

    ‘[T]here may be occasions when the threat of danger is great enough, or wide enough in its application to a sizable community abroad, for it to be legitimately construed as an attack on the state itself.’ Bowett 1958, p. 93. Elaraby also argues that ‘[t]hese actions can be justified only if one agrees that because population is an essential element of a state, a massive attack on one’s nationals aboard is equal to an attack on one’s territory.’ Elaraby 2003, p. 50.

  167. 167.

    Danish Institute for International Studies 2005, p. 57.

  168. 168.

    See discussion in Wingfield 1999–2000, pp. 441–444.

  169. 169.

    Bowett 1958, p. 91. See also ‘Under our system of government, the citizen abroad is as much entitled to protection as the citizen at home. The great object and duty of government is the protection of the lives, liberty and property of the people composing it, whether abroad or at home; and any government failing in the accomplishment of the object, or the performance of the duty, is not worth preserving.’ US Circuit Court of Appeals, Durand v. Hollins, 4 Blatch, p. 454.

  170. 170.

    Danish Institute for International Studies 2005, p. 59. For example the ICJ referred to the taking of US embassy staff as hostages in Iran as an armed attack (ICJ, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Merits, 24 May 1980, ICJ Reports 1980, paras 57 and 91) and also qualified an attack on US merchant and warships as armed attack (ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, paras 51–62). See contrary opinion by Gray 2004, pp. 118–119, thereby implicitly recognising that it may trigger the right of self-defence.

  171. 171.

    ‘A State has the right to use limited force to rescue its nationals where the territorial state is unable or unwilling to do so.’ Wood 2005, p. 82. See also Bowett 1957, p. 117; Schrijver 2005, p. 38.

  172. 172.

    Bowett 1957, p. 116.

  173. 173.

    See Statement by Foreign Secretary Lloyd, Parliamentary Debates (Hanson), 5th series, vol. 199, House of Lords Official Report (31 October 1956); Statement of the US Ambassador to the United Nations in U.N. SCOR, 1196 mtg., para 14 (1965) as cited in Arend and Beck 1993, pp. 97–98; Statement by the US in the Security Council in UN SCOR, 1941 mtg, at 31 U.N. Doc. S/p.v. 1941 (1976); Department of State Bulletin, vol. 80, No. 2039 (1980). See also discussion in Henkin 1991, p. 297.

  174. 174.

    See discussion in Margo 1977, pp. 317–318.

  175. 175.

    See d’Angelo 1981, p. 487.

  176. 176.

    Brownlie 1963, p. 278.

  177. 177.

    See discussion in Ruys 2008, pp. 235–236.

  178. 178.

    Simma 2012, p. 133.

  179. 179.

    Brownlie 1973, p. 146.

  180. 180.

    See Franck 2002, pp. 76–77. See Elaraby 2003, p. 46.

  181. 181.

    International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (‘Tagliavini Report’), Council of the European Union, 2009, p. 18.

  182. 182.

    Natoli 2010, p. 413.

  183. 183.

    Ibid., p. 416.

  184. 184.

    Article 2(4), UN Charter. See also General Assembly 1970.

  185. 185.

    In the Crimean context, the strategy was described as ‘political technology of non-occupation’. Alexei Yurchak 2014 as cited in Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 249.

  186. 186.

    Looking at the wider strategy, Biersack and O’Lear posit that while there is undoubtedly a rationale for reunifying the Soviet Union, there is a ‘concomitant shift to the “east”’, which however is effected rather more silently and in an effort to foster energy politics. Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 247.

  187. 187.

    It should also be added that Crimea has a unique history and relationship with Russia as it used to be part of the Russian Republic and was gifted in 1954 to Ukraine. See Churkin in UN General Assembly 2014, p. 3.

  188. 188.

    Indeed, language is a unifying factor. Kozin notes that ‘[I]n the Soviet Union, native languages of the republics other than the Russian SSR were neither promoted, nor excluded, which created a strong impression of diversity amidst cohesion, which in a great part, was based on the national language – Russian.’ Kozin 2015, p. 290.

  189. 189.

    As Biersack and O’Lear describe it: it is predicated on ‘an essentialist belief in civilizational uniqueness and a penchant for reclaiming lost prestige’. Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 251.

  190. 190.

    See discussion in Mastroianni 2016, p. 642 and Burke-White 2014, p. 6.

  191. 191.

    President of Russia 2014.

  192. 192.

    Franck 2002, p. 79.

  193. 193.

    See discussion in Franck 2002, pp. 79–81.

  194. 194.

    Menon and Rumer 2015, p. 4.

  195. 195.

    Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia 31 May 1997.

  196. 196.

    See Churkin in UN General Assembly 2014, pp. 3–4.

  197. 197.

    General Assembly/Security Council 2014, pp. 7 and 9. See also Trenin 2009, p. 11.

  198. 198.

    Walter 2014, p. 309; Grant 2015, pp. 73–75.

  199. 199.

    General Assembly/Security Council 2014, p. 5; see Burke-White 2014, p. 7.

  200. 200.

    OHCHR 2014, Report on the Human Rights Situation in Ukraine, para 73.

  201. 201.

    Kondrashev 2015, and S. Walker, ‘Putin admits Russian military presence in Ukraine for first time’, The Guardian, 17 December 2015.

  202. 202.

    In February-March 2014 unidentified uniformed troops appeared throughout Crimea. Whilst Russia denied any involvement prior to the referendum there are reports that Russian forces (additional to the ones already posted as part of the Black Sea Fleet Agreement between Ukraine and Russia) were in fact present on the territory. See discussion in Mastroianni 2016, p. 645; Walter 2014, p. 302.

  203. 203.

    The Russian Duma authorised President Putin to deploy Russian troops. ‘Russian parliament approves troop. deployment in Ukraine’ BBC News, 1 March 2014. See also General Assembly/Security Council 2014, p. 5.

  204. 204.

    Oeter 2014, p. 51.

  205. 205.

    Mastroianni 2016, p. 647.

  206. 206.

    General Assembly 2017. It is not the purpose of this chapter to offer a full examination of the legal situation in Crimea, rather it is only teasing out the elements relating to nationality and the protection of nationals abroad. To this effect, see Grant 2015, p. 68.

  207. 207.

    See Grant 2015, p. 85.

  208. 208.

    General Assembly 1970.

  209. 209.

    It is not the purpose of this chapter to elaborate on the lawfulness and legality of the referendum and its consequences. In that regard, see General Assembly 2014 and McDougal 2015. On the link between the right of self-determination and referenda, see Cavandoli 2016.

  210. 210.

    Burke-White 2014, p. 8.

  211. 211.

    Menon and Rumer 2015, pp. 85–86.

  212. 212.

    See OSCE Parliamentary Resolution 2015.

  213. 213.

    ICJ, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.A.), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

  214. 214.

    Burke-White 2014, p. 4.

  215. 215.

    ICJ, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Order, 19 April 2017, para 75.

  216. 216.

    UN Charter, Preamble.

  217. 217.

    Mastroianni 2016, p. 656.

  218. 218.

    Burke-White 2014, p. 8.

  219. 219.

    Ibid., p. 1.

  220. 220.

    Mastroianni 2016, pp. 601 and 629.

  221. 221.

    Goldsmith and Posner 2005, p. 13.

  222. 222.

    Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation 2008.

  223. 223.

    Quoted in Toomey 2009, p. 473.

  224. 224.

    Russell 2012, p. 112.

  225. 225.

    As Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister at the time explained ‘Georgia’s and Ukraine’s membership in [NATO] is a huge strategic mistake which would have most serious consequences for pan-European security’. As cited in Mearsheimer 2014, p. 79; see also Mastroianni 2016, p. 655.

  226. 226.

    Mastroianni 2016, p. 634.

  227. 227.

    Fichtelberg 2008, p. 120.

  228. 228.

    Borgen 2009, p. 19.

  229. 229.

    Natoli 2010, p. 416.

  230. 230.

    Ibid., p. 417.

  231. 231.

    For example, the Baltic States’ fears, especially in light of the 2008 intervention in Georgia and the annexation of Crimea, concern a potential Russian campaign against them based on claims that the ethnic Russian communities within their borders are suffering from human rights abuses such as linguistic discrimination. T. Barber, ‘Baltic states fear Kremlin focus on ethnic Russians’, Financial Times, 2 September 2014.

  232. 232.

    Sabanadze 2006, p. 245.

  233. 233.

    Ibid., p. 244.

  234. 234.

    Brubaker 1995, p. 110.

  235. 235.

    Sabanadze 2006, p. 247.

  236. 236.

    Biersack and O’Lear 2015, p. 255.

  237. 237.

    Letter dated 19 March 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/68/803-S/2014/202, 20 March 2014, p. 10.

  238. 238.

    For a discussion on the different types of kin-State activism, see Sabanadze 2006, pp. 248–250.

  239. 239.

    Venice Commission 2001, p. 49.

References

  • Amendment to the law on state policy towards compatriots living abroad (2010) 24 July 2010. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/8429. Accessed 28 February 2017

  • Arend AC, Beck RJ (1993) International law and the use of force. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnell P (2012) Law across borders: The extraterritorial application of United Kingdom law. Routledge, Oxon

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauböck R (2007) Stakeholder citizenship and transnational political participation: A normative evaluation of external voting. Fordham Law Review 75: 2293–2447

    Google Scholar 

  • Biersack J, O’Lear S (2015) The geopolitics of Russia’s annexation of Crimea: Narratives, identity, silences, and energy. Eurasian geography and economics 55(3): 247–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisschop WR (1942) Nationality in international law. Transactions Grotius Soc’y 28: 151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Boll AM (2005) Nationality and obligations of loyalty in international and municipal law. Australian Yearbook of International Law 24: 37–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgen C (2009) The language of law and the practice of politics: Great powers and the rhetoric of self-determination in the cases of Kosovo and South Ossetia. Chicago Journal of International Law 10: 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett D (1957) The use of force in the protection of nationals. Transactions of the Grotius Society 43: 111–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett D (1958) Self-defence in international law. Praeger, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by States. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1973) Thoughts on kind-hearted gunmen. In: Lillich R (ed) Humanitarian intervention and the United Nations, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp 139–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker R (1995) National minorities, nationalizing states and external national homelands in the new Europe. Daedalus 124: 107–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Brubaker R (1996) Nationalism reframed: Nationhood and the national question in the new Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke-White WW (2014) Crimea and the international legal order. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Law: Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1360

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher CA (2006) Transforming international legal principles into national law: The right to a nationality and the avoidance of statelessness. Refugee Survey Quarterly 25(3): 8–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Citizenship Act (1985). http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/index.html. Accessed 1 March 2018

  • Cavandoli S (2016) The unresolved dilemma of self-determination: Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk. International Journal of Human Rights 20(7): 875–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Chepurin A (2009) Approaching the far away: Russian policy toward Russian communities abroad. Russia in Global Affairs 7(3): 68–80

    Google Scholar 

  • CIA World Factbook (2017) http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/up.html. Accessed 17 March 2017

  • Constitution of the Russian Federation (adopted at national voting on 12 December 1993) (1993). http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm. Accessed 28 February 2017

  • D’Angelo J (1981) Resort of force by states to protect nationals: The U.S. rescue mission to Iran and its legality under international law. Virginia Journal of International Law 21: 485–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Danish Institute for International Studies (2005) New threats and the use of force. http://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/27176/new_threats_whole_web.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • Die Nürnberger Gesetze (1935) Lebendiges museum online. http://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/ns-regime/ausgrenzung-und-verfolgung/nuernberger-gesetze-1935.html. Accessed 14 February 2017

  • Doek JE (2006) The CRC and the right to acquire and to preserve a nationality. Refugee Survey Quarterly 25(3): 26–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Elaraby N (2003) Some reflections on the role of the Security Council and the prohibition of the use of force in international relations: Article 2(4) revisited in light of recent developments. In: Frowein J et al (eds) Verhandeln für den Frieden: liber amicorum Tono Eitel, Springer, Berlin, pp 41–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Eligibility for Aliyah, The Jewish Agency for Israel, January 2014. http://www.jewishagency.org/first-steps/program/2016. Accessed 6 May 2017

  • European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship (2014) Comparative typology of modes of acquisition and loss of citizenship, July 2014. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/images/docs/EUDO%20CITIZENSHIP%20Modes%20Typology.pdf. Accessed 22 December 2016

  • European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship (2016a) Citizenship or nationality? http://eudo-citizenship.eu/databases/citizenship-glossary/terminology. Accessed 22 December 2016

  • European Union Democracy Observatory on Citizenship (2016b) The EUDO glossary on citizenship and nationality. http://eudo-citizenship.eu/databases/citizenship-glossary/glossary#Acqity. Accessed 22 December 2016

  • Federal Law on Russian Federation Citizenship (No. 62-FZ of 31 May 2002) (2002). http://ww.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4189. Accessed 11 March 2017

  • Fichtelberg A (2008) Law at the vanishing point. A philosophical analysis of international law. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Franck T (2002) Recourse to force: State action against threats and armed attacks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (1965) Declaration on the inadmissibility of intervention in the domestic affairs of states and the protection of their independence and sovereignty, UN Doc. A/RES/20/2131

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (1970) Declaration on principles of international law concerning friendly relations and co-operation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UN Doc. A/RES/25/2625

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (1992) Declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, UN Doc. A/RES/47/135

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (2005) World summit outcome, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (2014) Territorial integrity of Ukraine, UN Doc. A/RES/68/262

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly (2017) Situation of human rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (Ukraine), UN Doc. A/RES/71/205

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly/Security Council (2014) Letter dated 19 March 2014 from the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/68/803-S/2014/202

    Google Scholar 

  • Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (2008) The Georgia-Russia crisis and the responsibility to protect: Background note, New York, 19 August 2008. http://www.globalr2p.org/publications/132. Accessed 6 May 2017

  • Goldsmith JL, Posner E (2005) The limits of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant TD (2015) Annexation of Crimea. American Journal of International Law 109: 68–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2004) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R (2014) The relevance of nationality in the age of Google, Skype and Facebook, In: Jenkins F, Nolan M, Rubenstein K (eds) Allegiance and identity in a globalised world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 542–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1979) How nations behave, 2nd edn. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkin L (1991) The invasion of Panama under international law: A gross violation. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 29(2): 293–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1973) The right in international law of an individual to enter, stay and leave a country. International Affairs 49: 341–357

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons Library (2014) Ukraine, Crimea and Russia, Research Paper 14/16. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP14-16/RP14-16.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • Human Rights Watch (2009) Up in flames: Humanitarian law violations and civilian victims in the conflict over South Ossetia. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/georgia0109web.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • ILC (1976) Report, UN Doc. A/31/10

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC (2001) Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, UN Doc. A/56/10

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC (2006a) Draft articles on diplomatic protection, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.684

    Google Scholar 

  • ILC (2006b) Draft articles on diplomatic protection with commentaries. http://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_8_2006.pdf. Accessed 11 March 2017

  • Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Law of return 5710-1950 (as amended). http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfa-archive/1950-1959/pages/law%20of%20return%205710-1950.aspx. Accessed 31 January 2017

  • Kesby A (2012) The right to have rights: Citizenship, humanity and international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Koessler M (1947) ‘Subject,’ ‘citizen,’ ‘national,’ and ‘permanent allegiance’. Yale Law Journal 56: 58–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn S (2012) Russia and the Baltics: The great statelessness game. European Network on Statelessness, 25 October 2012. http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/russia-and-baltics-great-statelessness-game. Accessed 9 February 2017

  • Kondrashev A (2015) Crimea. The way home (Documentary) Poccия 24, 15 March 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t42-71RpRgI. Accessed 28 May 2017

  • Kozin A (2015) The law of ‘compatriot’: Toward a new Russian national identity. Russian Journal of Communication 7(3): 286–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Krūma K (2015) Country report on citizenship law: Latvia, EUDO Citizenship Observatory, January 2015. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/34481/EUDO_CIT_2015_06-Latvia.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 9 February 2017

  • Künzli A (2006) Exercising diplomatic protection. The fine line between litigation, demarches and consular assistance. Zeitschrift für ausländisches und öffentliches Völkerrecht 66: 321–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Leys D (2016) Diplomatic protection and individual rights: A complementary approach. Harvard International Law Journal Online 57: 1–14. http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/January-2016_Vol-57_Leys1.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2018

  • Lie J (2004) Modern peoplehood. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lott A (2012) The Tagliavini report revisited: Jus ad bellum and the legality of the Russian intervention in Georgia. Merkourios 28: 4–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Lottmann A (2008) No direction home: Nationalism and statelessness in the Baltics. Texas International Law Journal 43: 503–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Margo RD (1977) The legality of the Entebbe raid in international law. South African Law Journal 94(3): 306–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastroianni M (2016) Russia running rogue? How the legal justifications for Russian intervention in Georgia and Ukraine relate to the U.N. legal order. Seton Hall Law Review 46(2): 599–659

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougal T (2015) A new imperialism? Evaluating Russia’s acquisition of Crimea in the context of national and international law. Brigham Young University Law Review 6:1847–1887

    Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer J (2014) Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. Foreign Affairs 93: 77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Menon R, Rumer E (2015) Conflict in Ukraine: The unwinding of the post-cold war order. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (2008) Transcript of speech of Sergey Lavrov on 24 September 2008, Council on Foreign Relations. http://www.cfr.org/world/sergey-lavrov/p34440. Accessed 17 March 2017

  • Natoli K (2010) Weaponizing nationality: An analysis of Russia’s passport policy in Georgia. Boston University International Law Journal 28(2): 389–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Oeter S (2014) The role of recognition and non-recognition with regard to secession. In: Walter C, von Ungern-Sternberg A, Abushov K (eds) Self-determination and secession in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 45–67

    Google Scholar 

  • OHCHR (2014) Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 April 2014. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/UA/Ukraine_Report_15April2014.doc. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • Oppenheim L (1912) International law, a treatise, Vol. 1, 2nd edn. Longmans, Green and Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (2008) The Bolzano/Bozen recommendations on national minorities in inter-state relations and explanatory note, June 2008. http://www.osce.org/hcnm/33633. Accessed 11 March 2017

  • OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (2012) The Ljubljana guidelines on integration of diverse societies. http://www.osce.org/hcnm/integration-guidelines?download=true. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (2015) Resolution on the continuation of clear, gross and uncorrected violations of OSCE commitments and international norms by the Russian Federation. Helsinki, 8 July 2015. https://www.oscepa.org/meetings/annual-sessions/2015-annual-session-helsinki/2015-helsinki-final-declaration/2282-07. Accessed 29 May 2017

  • Parry C, Grant JP, Parry A, Watts AD (eds) (1986) Encyclopaedic dictionary of international law. Oceana Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Patsiuko N, Wallace C (2014) Citizenship, Europe and ethnic boundary making among Russian minorities in Latvia and Lithuania. Migration Letters 11: 187–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (1992) Opinions of the Badinter arbitration committee: A second breath for the self-determination of peoples. European Journal of International Law 3: 178–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Perruchoud R (2012) State sovereignty and freedom of movement. In: Opeskin B, Perruchoud R, Redpath-Cross J (eds) Foundations of international migration law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 123–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights: The legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • President of Russia (2008a), Joint press conference with Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel, 15 August 2008. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/1102. Accessed 17 March 2017

  • President of Russia (2008b) Opening address at the meeting of the State Council on the situation around South Ossetia and Abkhazia, 6 September 2008. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/1314/print. Accessed 2 March 2018

  • President of Russia (2014), Address, 18 March 2014. http://en.special.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20603. Accessed 24 February 2017

  • Prochaska E (2009) Testing the limits of diplomatic protection: Khadr v the Prime Minister of Canada. EJIL Talk!. https://www.ejiltalk.org/testing-the-limits-of-diplomatic-protection-khadr-v-the-prime-minister-of-canada/. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • Roudik P (2008) Russian Federation: Legal aspects of war in Georgia, Library of Congress, August 2008. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/russian-georgia-war.php. Accessed 17 March 2017

  • Roudik P (2013) Latvia: Extension of citizenship to emigrants, Global Legal Monitor, 25 October 2013. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/latvia-extension-of-citizenship-to-emigrants/. Accessed 9 February 2017

  • Royal Institute of International Affairs (2000) Russian peacekeeping strategies in the CIS: The cases of Moldova, Georgia and Tajikistan. Palgrave Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell J (2012) Whose ‘near abroad’? Dilemmas in Russia’s declared sphere of privileged interests. In: Freire MR, Kanet RE (eds) Russia and its Near Neighbours. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 109–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2008) The ‘protection of nationals’ abroad doctrine revisited. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 13: 233–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabanadze N (2006) Minorities and kin-states. Helsinki Monitor 17: 244–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrijver NJ (2005) Challenges to the prohibition to use force: Does the straitjacket of Article 2(4) UN Charter begin to gall too much? In: Blokker NM, Schrijver NJ (eds) The Security Council and the use of force. Brill, Leiden, pp 31–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Shlapak DA, Johnson MW (2016) Reinforcing deterrence on NATO’s Eastern flank: Wargaming the defense of the Baltics. RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1253/RAND_RR1253.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2017

  • Simma B (ed) (2012) The Charter of the United Nations: A commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sofaer A (1991) The legality of the United States action in Panama. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 29(2): 281–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon E, Salako SE (2016) Forcible protection of nationals abroad and humanitarian intervention: Might or right? International Law Research 5(1): 152–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiro P (2014) Russia’s citizenship power-play in Ukraine is pretty weak. Opinio Juris, 7 March 2014. http://opiniojuris.org/2014/03/07/russias-citizenship-power-play-ukraine-pretty-weak/. Accessed 17 March 2017

  • Tomuschat C (1999) International law: Ensuring the survival of mankind on the eve of a new century. Recueil des Cours 281, Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomey M (2009) The August 2008 battle of South Ossetia: Does Russia have a legal argument for intervention? Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 23: 443–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Trenin D (2009) Russia’s spheres of interest, not influence. Washington Quarterly 32: 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsybulenko E, Amorosa P (2012) National minorities in Estonia: 20 Years of citizenship policies. L’Europe unie/United Europe, Revue d’études européennes 6: 85–90

    Google Scholar 

  • UN Human Rights Council (2013) Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/25/28

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (1979) Study on the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Panhuys HP (1968) The ‘genuine link doctrine’ and flags of convenience. American Journal of International Law 62: 942–943

    Google Scholar 

  • Venice Commission (2001) Report on the preferential treatment of national minorities by their kin-state, Venice, 19–20 October 2001, CDL-INF(2001)019-e. http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-INF(2001)019-e. Accessed 7 May 2017

  • Vykhovanets O, Zhuravsky A (2013) Compatriots: Back to the homeland, Russian International Affairs Council, 31 May 2013. http://russiancouncil.ru/en/inner/?id_4=1908#top-content. Accessed 28 February 2017

  • Walter C (2014) Postscript: Self-determination, secession and the Crimean crisis 2014. In: Walter C, von Ungern-Sternberg A, Abushov K (eds) Self-determination and secession in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 293–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Warsaw Summit Communiqué (2016), issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8–9 July 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm. Accessed 9 February 2017

  • Weis P (1979) Nationality and statelessness in international law, 2nd edn. Sijthoff and Noordhoff International Publishers B.V., Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellens K (2014) Negotiations in the case law of the International Court of Justice: A functional analysis. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingfield TC (1999–2000) Forcible protection of nationals abroad. Dickinson Law Review 104: 439–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood MC (2005) Towards new circumstances in which the use of force may be authorized? The cases of humanitarian intervention, counter-terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction. In: Blokker NM, Schrijver NJ (eds) The Security Council and the use of force. Brill, Leiden, pp 75–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinchenko E (2014) Passportisation policy of Russia and new old concerns of the Baltics. Cultural Relations Quarterly Review 16. http://culturalrelations.org/Review/CRQR_01_03/CRQR_01_03_Ekaterina-Zinchenko_Passportisation-policy-of-Russia-and-new-old-concerns-of-the-Baltics.pdf. Accessed 2 March 2018

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bristol Law School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Sabine Hassler & Noëlle Quénivet

Authors
  1. Sabine Hassler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Noëlle Quénivet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sabine Hassler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, KIMEP University, Almaty, Kazakhstan

    Sergey Sayapin

  2. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn Law School, Tallinn, Estonia

    Evhen Tsybulenko

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hassler, S., Quénivet, N. (2018). Conferral of Nationality of the Kin State – Mission Creep?. In: Sayapin, S., Tsybulenko, E. (eds) The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-222-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-221-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-222-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation