We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 June 2017
In the vast field of international relationships, one of the intricate problems is that which has centered around the question of nationality. No uniform rules have been laid down either by conventional or by customary international law for the determination of nationality. Unfortunately the whole matter is regulated by municipal law, and in consequence of the diversity of regulations many conflicts have resulted. There are additional complications encountered in that phase of the problem which deals with the relation of state succession and nationality. When a state acquires new territory by gift, cession, conquest, or by whatever means, the political status of the inhabitants of the territory must be determined.
1 The term is herein used in its juridical and not in its ethnological sense
2 See articles by Flournoy in Yale and Colombia Law Jour, of recent years. See Gamer, this Journal , July 1925, p. 547, for a discussion of conflicts of Nationality
3 Fauchille, Droit International Public (1922), Vol. 1, Sec. 427, p. 856; Westlake, InternationalLaw (1913), Part 1, p. 70; Hall, International Law (1924), pp. 685-686; Cogordan,La Nationalilé (1890), p. 317; Phillipson, Termination of War and Treaties of Peace (1916),pp. 35-36.
4 * Several exceptions-to this general practice have been made, one of the most outstandingof which is found in the Treaty of Paris of December 10,1898, by which Porto Rico and thePhilippines were ceded to the United States. The treaty provided that “the civil and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United Statesshall be determined by Congress.” (See Hill, Leading American Treaties, p. 343.) Congressional legislation was enacted whereby the inhabitants of Porto Rico and the Philippines respectively were declared to be citizens of the islands and entitled to the protection of the American Government. Later (1917), United States citizenship was conferred upon the citizens of Porto Rico.
5 Discussed below, p. 270.
6 See footnotes 27-30, inclusive, infra, p. 271.
7 Phillipson, op. cit., p. 294; Despagnet, Cours de Droit International Public (1905), pp.368-369.
8 , Niboyet,,“La nationalité d'après les traitdés de paix qui ont mis fin à la guerre de 1914-1918,” Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée ,1921, p. 287; Google Scholar , Engeström,, Les ChangemenU de Nationalité d'aprbèles traités de paix de 1919-1980 ( p. 8.(1920.)Google Scholar
9 There was a single instance in which none of the inhabitants of the territories ceded after the World War acquired ipso facto the nationality of the annexing state. The Treaty of Sevres, Art. 117, Treaty of Lausanne, Art. 21, provided that upon the annexation of Cyprus by Great Britain, British nationality would be acquired only under the conditions prescribed by the local laws. See Niboyet, op. cit., p. 295.
10 Nouv, Martens,,Recueil Génirai De Traiés, 3 Ser., XI, pp. 323ff.; Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 13, p. 151.Google Scholar
11 Arts. 36,91,84,105,112 of the Treaty of Versailles provide that Germans domiciled in the territories assigned to Belgium, to Poland, to Czecho-Slovakia, to Danzig, and to Denmark should lose their German nationality and acquire ipso facto the nationality of these states. In certain cases, however, if nationality had been acquired after a certain date, nationality was granted only upon the authorization of the state concerned. See Fauchille, op. cit. p. 865; Audinet,“Les changements de Nationalité Résultant des Récents Traiés de Paix,”1 Journal du Droit International, 1921, p. 370.
12 Audinet, op. cit., p. 379.
13 Treaty of Versailles, Art. 79, Annex, par. 1.
14 Ibid., par. 2.
15 Ibid., par. 3.
16 , Fauchille, op. cit., p. 866; Audinet, op. cit., p. 379; Pillaut,“Les questions de nationalité dans les traité de paix de 1919-1920,” Revue de Droit International Privé, 1921, p. 5.Google Scholar
17 Text, Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 14, pp. 1 jf.
18 Text, Martens, op. cit., Vol. XII.
19 Treaty of St. Germain, Art. 70.
20 Treaty of Trianon, Art. 61.
21 Exceptions were made where indigenat had been acquired after a certain date in territories transferred to Czecho-Slovakia and to the Serb-Croat-Slovene State (Treaty of St. Germain, Art. 76, Treaty of Trianon, Art. 62), and to Italy (Treaty of St. Germain, Art. 72). n Fenwick, International Law (1924), pp. 239 ff.) Phillipson, op. cit., p. 285.
22 , Fenwick,International Law (1924), pp. 239ff.;Google Scholar. Phillipson, ,p. 285. Google Scholar
23 Boyd v. Thayer (1891), 143 U. S. 162.
24 For diverse views see Willoughby, The American Constitutional System (1904), p. 257; Lawrence, International Law (1923), pp. 92-93; Phillipson, op. cit., p. 38; Oppenheim, International Law (1921), Vol. I, p. 274; Westlake, Collected Papers on International Law (1914), pp. 486-487; and Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gem (1896), Vol. II, pp. 438-439.
25 Oppenheim, op. cit., p. 274.
26 In Alsace-Lorraine. Discussed below, pp. 272-273.
27 See Treaty of Paris, December 10,1898; Treaty of New York, August 4,1916; Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, February 19, 1848; Treaty of March 30, 1867, between United States and Russia.
28 See Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, February 19, 1848; Treaty of Berne, December 8, 1862; Anglo-French Treaty, April 8, 1904; Convention between Great Britain and Germany, July 1, 1890; Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898; Treaty of New York, August 4, 1916
29 See Treaty of Zurich, November 10, 1859; Treaty of Turin, March 24, 1860; Treaty of Paris, February 2, 1861; Treaty between Austria, Prussia, and Denmark, October 30, 1864; Treaty of Frankfort, May 10,1871; Treaty of Constantinople, September 29,1913; Treaty of Athens, November 14, 1913; and the Treaty of Constantinople, March 14, 1914.
30 See Treaty of Paris, November 20, 1815; Treaty of Constantinople, February 8, 1879; Treaty of Shimonoseki, April 17, 1895; Treaty of Portsmouth, September 5, 1905.
31 Fauchille, op. tit,., pp. 869#.; Despagnet, op. tit., p. 370.
32 Phillipson, op. tit., p. 290.
33 Treaty of Constantinople, September 29, 1913, Treaty of Athens, November 14,1913, and Treaty of Constantinople, March 14, 1914, contained this provision
34 Arts. 37, 85, 91, 106, 113.
35 Arts. 40, 45.
36 “Art. 124.
37 ” Art. 30.
38 Art. 78.
39 Art. 63.
40 Audinet, op. cit., p. 383.
41 The Treaty of Constantinople of March 14, 1914, by which Turkey ceded territory to Serbia, allowed persons bom in the ceded territory but who were domiciled in a foreign country, to opt not for their old Turkish nationalité, but for the nationalité of Serbia the annexing state. For the text of this treaty, see Martens, op. cit., Vol. VIII, Art. 4, p. 643.
42 Fauchille, op. cit., p. 868; Audinet, op. cU., p. 384.
43 Arts. 85, 91, 113.
44 Art. 40.
45 Art. 80.
46 Art. 64.
47 Niboyet, op. cit., p. 299.
48 Art. 32.
49 Niboyet, op. cit., p. 298; Audinet, op. cit., p. 385.
50 Niboyet, op. cit., p. 304.
51 Comments by the German Delegation on the Conditions of Peace, International Conciliation, October, 1919, p. 1236.
52 Philiipson, op. cit., pp. 298-299.
53 Treaty of Versailles, Arts. 37, 85, 91, 106, 113; Treaty of Neuilly, Art. 45; Treaty of Sevres, Art. 130; Treaty of Lausanne, Art. 36; Treaty of St. Germain, Art. 78; Treaty of Trianon, Art. 63.
54 Niboyet, op. dt., pp. 297-298.
55 See Protocol of October 31, 1877 to the Treaty of Paris of August 10, 1877; Treaty of Constantinople, September 29,1913; Treaty of Athens, November 14,1913; and the Treaty of Constantinople, March 14, 1914.
56 Anglo-French Convention, April 8, 1904, and the Treaty of New York, August 4, 1916.
57 See footnote 53.
58 Cogordan, op. dt., p. 398.
59 , Larson,“ Prueaamsm in North Sleswick,” American Historical Review, 24 pp. 233 ff.; De Jessen, Manuel Historique de la Question du Schlesvig, pp. 230 ff. Google Scholar
60 FauchiUe, op. cit., p. 863.
61 Martens, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 632
62 Larson, op. cit., p. 238.
63 Cogordan, op. cit., p. 358
64 Ibid., p. 359; May, Le Traité de Francfort (1909), p. 141.
65 , Martens,, Nouveau Recueil Général, Vol. XIX, Art. II, p. 689 Google Scholar
66 Cogordan, op. cit., pp. 360-361; May, op. dt., p. 149.
67 Martens, op. cii., Vol. XX, Art. I, p. 848; May, op. cit., p. 181.
68 Cogordan, op. cit., p. 361.
69 Ibid., p. 362.
70 Ibid., p. 364.
71 Ibid.
72 Cogordan, op. dt., p. 365; May, op. dt., p. 146.
73 Ibid. pp. 371 ff.
74 , Hazen,, Alsace-Lorraine under German Kule (1917), p. 97. Google Scholar
75 Cogordan, op. ctt., p. 385.
76 Ibid., pp. 389 ff.
77 See Art. 6 of each treaty.
78 Publications de la Com Permanente de Justice Internationale, Série C, No. 2, Deuxième Session Extraordinaire, pp. 66 ff.
