Abstract
Abstract
The Nottebohm judgment from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recently come under attack in the context of the European Commission's position on “golden passports” programmes. The judgment has long received intense criticism from a consensus of scholars. This article challenges the conventional wisdom of Nottebohm. The ICJ did not, as critics argue, depart from international law on nationality, nor did it seek to create an international rule based on a “genuine link” requirement. A closer look at the majority's reasoning reveals that the ICJ's conception of nationality as something more than a mere formal classification was prompted by problems that can arise precisely from the phenomenon of globalization, including the instrumentalization of nationality. It further shows that the “substance-over-form” approach adopted by Nottebohm may, or already does, operate in more contemporary contexts.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference14 articles.
1. Nationals Abroad
2. International Citizenship: The Future of Nationality in a Globalized World;RUBENSTEIN;Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies,2000
3. Nottebohm's Nightmare: Have We Exorcized the Ghosts of WWII Detention Programs or Do They Still Haunt Guantanamo?;BUYS;Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law,2011