Latest News
Back
NOTTEBOHM CASE: LIECHTENSTEIN V. GUATEMALA
This case deals with the citizenship of a person known as Friedrich Nottebohm who was born in Germany. He moved to Guatemala in the year 1905 for the purpose of business related to trade, banking, and plantations. He stayed in Guatemala till 1943 but never became its citizen. Friedrich traveled to a lot of places which included Germany and Liechtenstein, for the purpose of his business. Before the beginning of World War II in the year 1939, he acquired the citizenship of Liechtenstein by way of naturalization. Thus, he lost the German Citizenship by the laws of Germany.
In 1940 he returned back to Guatemala and also informed the government about his change of nationality. In the year 1941, Germany declared war on Guatemala. When the war ended in the year 1945, the Guatemalan Government seized all his property and refused to accept his citizenship of Liechtenstein. He was handed over to the United States of America and all his property in the USA was also confiscated.
The government of Liechtenstein in the year 1951 brought a suit before the International Court of Justice against the Guatemalan government because of the treatment that was meted out to Nottebohm and the unjust confiscation of his property.
The Guatemalan government refused to recognize the absolute and general jurisdiction of the ICJ over the Republic of Guatemala. Its main contention was that the jurisdiction of ICJ over Guatemala had ended and it would be against domestic laws of Guatemala. The Ministry however showed willingness in holding negotiations with Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein however contended that Guatemalan communications are based on assumptions and are presenting objections that are preliminary. The Guatemalan declaration as well as the submission to the jurisdiction of ICJ for five years is enough to hold themselves under the jurisdiction of the Court. Apart from that, the Guatemalan government was liable under some principles of the international law which meant ICJ had jurisdiction over Guatemala.
The other issue that arose was with regard to the nationality of Mr. Nottebohm that was granted to him by Liechtenstein. According to Guatemala, the Nationality that was conferred by Liechtenstein was not according to the provisions of the law and there were fraudulent intentions involved on part of Mr. Nottebohm in acquiring citizenship. Guatemala also contended that it was not violating any law by not regarding Nottebohm as a citizen of Liechtenstein. In addition to all this Nottebohm still had some remedies that he could use with regard to Guatemala which he had not yet exhausted. Liechtenstein, on the other hand, contended that Nottebohm’s citizenship by naturalization in Liechtenstein was valid according to the domestic laws of Liechtenstein and was also in accordance with the laws at the international level and as Germany had withdrawn the citizenship conferred to Nottebohm, now it was Liechtenstein that had to confer it to Nottebohm and it was valid if Liechtenstein protected Nottebohm at the ICJ level. According to Liechtenstein, Nottebohm had exhausted all remedies under the municipal law of Guatemala as well as under the municipal law.
The ICJ in 1953 gave the decision in the favor of Liechtenstein’s claim that and rejected the Guatemalan objection on the citizenship of Mr. Nottebohm and proceedings were continued on a merit basis. Then again in 1955, The Court held that citizenship was not acquired for international law and thus Liechtenstein’s claim was held inadmissible by invoking the effective nationality principle.
The Court held that every state is free to decide who is it going to confer the citizenship upon but at the same time when the question of the diplomatic protection arises the process would be subject to international scrutiny. A new principle was recognized at the international level which is known as the ‘Nottebohm principle’ which states that there ought to be a meaningful connection presented by the national in question with regard to the state.
The Court opined that Nottebohm did not acquire the citizenship of Liechtenstein because he had some genuine concern for the traditions and interests of Liechtenstein but Nottebohm just wanted to protect himself by acquiring the citizenship of a neutral nation instead of a belligerent one to protect himself in the time of war and thus Liechtenstein was not to put forward claims against Guatemala on the behalf of Nottebohm at the international level because there was lack of a strong link between Nottebohm’s citizenship and his connection with the country.
According to the principles of international law, there has to be a link between the one who acquires the nationality and the state, the nationality of which the person acquires and this link is based on the sentiments, attachment in social ways, as well as a relation of rights and duties. This is known as the ‘principle of effectiveness’ there ought to be certain when it comes to a citizen and the matter of the state to which he owes his allegiance and this is closely related to the matter of protection at the diplomatic level. Thus, although it’s the State which confers nationality whether the nationAL is entitled to diplomatic protection at the international level or not is dependent upon the international law.
