Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
NOTTEBOHM CASE (SECOND PHASE)
Judgmentof6April1955
TheNottebohmcasehadbeenbroughttotheCourtby an andinconsequenceheldLiechtenstein's clatobeinadmis-
Applicationby the Principalityofchtensteinagainstthe sible.
RepublicofGuatemala. The Judgmentwasgivenbyelevenvotesto three. Judges
Liechtensteinclaimedrestitutionandcompensationthe Klaestad and Read, and M. Guggenheim, Judgead be,
groundthatthe GovernmentofGuatemalahadactedtowards appended to the Judgment statementsof their dissenting
Mr. FriedrichNottebohm,a citizen of Liech.tenstein,in apinions.
manner contrary to internationallaw. Guatemala, for its
part, contendedthatthe claimwasadmissibbonanumber
of grounds, oneof whichrelatedtothe nationalityofe-
bohm, for whose protectionLiechtensteinhad seised the
Court.
InitsJudgmenttheCourtaffirmed thefundamentalimpor-
In its Judgmentthe Courtacceptedthis latterplea in barnceofthepleainbarreferredtoabove.Inputtingforward
Continued on next pagethis plea, Guatemalareferreilto thewell-establislledprincof Nationality wasalso producedto the effectthat Notte-
plethatit isthebond ofnatio~nalyetweentheStateandthe bohmhad beennaturalizedby a SupremeResolutionof the
individualwhichalone confersupon the Statethe right of Princeof 13thOctober, 1939.Nottebohm then obtained a
diplomaticprotection.Liechtensteinconsidereditselfto be Liechtensteinpassportand haditvisa-edbytheConsulGen-
actingin conformitywith thisprincipleandcontendedthat eral of Guatemalain Zurich on 1st December, 1939,and
Nottebohm was,infact, itsniittlonlyvirtu: ofthe natural- returnedto Guatemalaat the beginningof 1940,wherehe
izationconferreduponhim. resumedhis formerbusinessactivities.
TheCourtthenconsideraithe facts. Nonebohm,bornat Thesebeing thefacts, the Court consideredwhether the
Hamburg, was still a Ckrmm national whn, in October naturalizationthus granted couldbe validly invokedagainst
1939,heappliedfornaturali;zatiinLiechtc:nstein.n 1905 Guatemala,whetherit bestoweduponLieclltensteina suffi-
he wenttoGuatemala,whichhemadethecentreofhisbusi- cienttitleto exerciseprotectionin respectof Nottebohmas
ness activities,which increitsedand prospered.He some- againstGuatemala and thereforentitledittoseisetheCoun
timesWenttoGermanyonbusinessandto0tllercountriesfor of a claimrelatingto him. TheCourtdid not proposeto go
holidays,andalsopaid afew visitsto Liechtensl:ei, here beyondthelimitedscopeofthisquestion.
oneofhis brothershad lived:since1931;buthe continuedto In order to establishthat the Application mustbe held
havehisfixedabodeinGuatr:malauntil 1943,that isto say, admissible,Liechtensteinargued that Guatemalahad for-
untiltheeventswhichconstihJtedthebasisojfthepresentdis- merly recognized the which it chal-
pute. In 1939heleftGuatemalaat approximlateltheendof lenged.ExaminingGuatemala'sattitude towardsNottebohm
~ ~ ~ h; eseemstohave gonr:to~~b~~~ tohavepaida sincehisnaturalization,theCourtconsiderehatGuatemala
few briefvisitsto~i~~h~~~~~ w:~ee,he was thebegin- had not recognizedLiechtenstein's titleto exerciseprotec-
,,ingofoctokr 1939.It was then, on9th~)~~~b1 ~~3,9,a tion in respecttoNottebohm.Itthenconsideredwhether the
littlmore thana month der the openinpof he second grantingof nationalityby Liechtenstein direentailed an
appliedfornaturalization in:I,iechtenstein.md, thathe obligationonthepartofGuatemalatorecognize itseffect;in
otherwords,whetherthat unilateralctbyLiechtensteinwas
Thenecessaryconditionsforthenaturalizationofforeign- onewhichcouldbe=lied uponagainst~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ nael ~rd
ersin Liechtensteinarlaidclown bytheLiechtensteinLaw tother,xerciseofprotection.~h~cour dealtwiththisques-
thatthe applicantfornaturalizationmustprovechataccept- tionwithoutconsideringthatofthevalidityofNottebohm's
ance into the Home Corporation(Heirnu]!verband) of a naturdizationaccordingto theLawof~iechtenstein.
Liechtensteincommunehashn promisedtohimincaseof Nationalityiswithin thedomesticjurisdictionoftheState,
acquisitionof the nationalifvof the State;that, subjecttowhichsettles,byitsownlegislation,therulesrelatingtothe
waiverof thisrequirementunderstatedconditions,hemust acquisitionof itsnationality.Butthe issue whichthe Court
provethat hewilllose his formernationalityastheresultof mustdecideisnotonewhichpertainsto thelegalsystemof
naturalization;thathehasbeenresidentinth,ePri~lcipforty Liechtenstein;toexerciseprotectionistoplaceoneselfonthe
at least three years, althoul~hthis requirennentcan be dis-ane of internationallaw. Internationalpracticeprovides
pensed with in circumstancesdesehng specid consider- manyexamplesofactsperformedbyStatesintheexerciseof
ation and by way of excer,tion;that he h:~concludedan theirdomesticjurisdiction whichdonotnecessarilyorauto-
agreementconcerningliabilityto taxationwiththecompe- matically haveinternational effect.When two Stateshave
tent authoritiesandhas paid a naturalizationfee. The Law conferredtheirnationality upon thesameindividualandthis
revealsconcernthat naturalizationshouldonly be granted situationisnolongerconfinedwithinthelimitsofthedomes-
withfullknowledgeofall&pertinent factsandaddsthatthe ticjurisdictionofoneoftheseStatesbutextendstotheinter-
grantofnationalityisb-d wherecircumstances = suchs nationalfield,internationalarbitratorsortheCourtsofthird
tocauseapprehensionthatprejudicemayenureto the State Stateswhicharecalledupontodealwiththissituationwould
theGovernmentexaminesgartheapplication.obtainsinfoma-, totheviewthat nationalityisexclusivelywiththedomestic
tionconcerningtheapplica~;t,ubmitstheiipplicationto the jurisdictionofthe State.In ordertoresolvethe conflictthey
Diet, and,ifthisapplicationisapproved,submitsarequestto have,onthecontrary,soughttoascertainwhethernationality
theReigningPrincewhoaltr.neisentitledtc,confernational- hs beenconferredincircumstancessuch togiverisetoan
ity. obligationonthepartoftherespondentStatetorecognizethe
effectof that nationality.In orderto decide this question,
appliedfor the previouscoufermentof citizenshipofMau- they have evolvedcemin crimia. They have given tbcir
ren, a communeof Liechtznstein.He soughtdispensation plefnence tothe real andeffectivnationality,that which
from the conditionof threeyears'priorresider~ce,without accordedwiththe facts that basedon strongerfactual ties
betweentheperson andone oftheseStues
waiver. He undertooktopay(in Swissfrancs)25.000fnursa is involved Differentfactors sen ino con-
tothecommuneand 12,500francstotheState9thecostsof and theiimpm willvary onecnse to
Iheproceedings*and an laxof '9°00 thenext:thereisthehabitualresidencoftheindividualcon-
francs-subject totheprovisothatthepaymentd thesetaxes cernedbutalsothecenm ofhisinterests,Iliafamilyties,his
was tobe setoffagainsorclinarmes which falldue participationin public life, attachmentshownby himfor a
if the applicanttook upresidence in Liechtenstein-andto givencountryand inculcatedinhischildren,etc.
depositassecuritythesumof30,000Swis!rfrancs. A Docu- Thesametendency prevails among writers.Moreover,the
mentdated15thOctober, 1939certifiesthton thatdatethe practiceof certainStates,whichrefrainfromexercisingpro-
citizenshipofMaurenhadIken conferreduponhim. ACer- tectioninfavourofanaturalizedpersowhenthelatterhasin
tificateof 17thOctober,1939evidencesthepaymentof the factseveredhislinkswithwhatisnolongerforhimanything
taxesrequiredto bepaid.(In20th OctoberNottebohm took buthisnominalcountry,manifests theviewthat, inorderto
the oathof allegianceandon 23rdOctoberan arrangement be invoked againstanother State, nation~almust com-
concerningliabilitytotaxationwasconclutiedA Certificate sponclwithafactualsituation.
33 Thecharacterthusrecognizedontheintern~ationa llvelas hand,he had beensettledfor 34yearsinGuatemala, which
pertainingto nationalityis in no way inconsistentwith the wasthecentreofhis interestsandhis businessactivities.He
factthat internationallawleavesit to eacStateto lay down stayedthere until hisremoval asaresultof warmeasuresin
therules governingthe granotfitsown nationalityT. hisisso 1943,andcomplainsofGuatemala'srefusal to readmit him.
failinganygeneralagreementonthe rulesrelatingtonation- MembersofNottebohm's family had,moreover,assertedhis
ality.Ithasbeenconsideredthatthe bestwayofmakingsuch desire to spend his old agein Guatemala.In contrast, his
rules accord with the varying demographicconditions in actual connectionswithLiechtensteinwereextremelytenu-
different countries isto leave thefixingofuchrules to the ous. If Nottebohmwent to that countryin 1946,this was
competenceof each State. But, on the other hand,a State becauseof the refusalof Guatemalato admit him.Thereis
cannotclaimthattherulesit haslaiddown areentitledtorec- thus the absenceof any bond ofattachmentwithLiechten-
ognitionby anotherState unless it hasactedin conformity stein, but there is a long-standingand close connection
with this general aim of making the nationality granted betweenhim andGuatemala,alinkwhichhisnaturalization
accordwith aneffective linkbetweenthe Stateand theindi- in no way weakened.That naturalizationwas notbased on
vidual. anyreal priorconnect:ionwithLiechtenstein,nordiditinany
AccordingtothepracticeofStates,nationalityconstitutes wayalterthe manner 'oflifeofthepersonuponwhomitwas
thejuridical expressionofthe factthatan individualismore conferredinexceptio~iac lircumstancesof speedandaccom-
closely connectedwiththe populationof a particular State. modation.Inbothrespects,itwaslackinginthegenuineness
Conferredby a State, it only entitlesthatStiiteto exercise requisitetoanactofsuchimportance,ifit is tobeentitledto
protectionifitconstitutesatranslationintojuridical termsof be respectedbya Stateinthe positionof Guatemala. Itwas
the individual's connectiowiththatState.Is thisthecaseas grantedwithoutregmi tothe conceptof nationality adopted
regardsMr. Nottebohm?At the timeof his naturalization, ininternationalrelations. Naturalizatinasaskedfornotso
doesNottebohmappearto havebeenmore cboselyattached muchforthepurposeofobtainingalegalrecognitionof Not-
by his tradition,his establishment,his interests,his activi- tebohm's membership in factinthe populationof Liechten-
ties, his family ties, his intentionsfor the near future, to stein, asit wasto enablehim tosubstituteforhis status asa
Liechtensteinthantoany otherState? nationalof a belligerent Statethatof the subjectof a neutral
State,withthe soleairnofthus comingwithinthe protection
InthisconnectiontheCourtstatedtheessentia flactsofthe of Liechtensteinbut iiot of becomingweddedto its tradi-
case and pointedout that Nottebohm a1way.sretained his tions, its interests, its way of life or of assuming the
family and businessconnections with Gerrr~anyand that obligations-other than fiscal obligations-and exercising
thereisnothingtoindicatethat hisapplication]Fonraturaliza- therights pertainingo'thestatusthusacquired.
tion in Liechtensteinwasmotivatedbyanydesireto dissoci- ForthesereasonsthcCourtheldtheclaimofLiechtenstein
atehimself fromtheGovernmentofhiscountry.Ontheother tobe inadmissible.
Summary of the Judgment of 6 April 1955