•  
  •  
 

Abstract

States shall be sovereign in determining their nationality in accordance with their economic and social policies and circumstances. However, when international courts decide matters relating to their personal competence in international disputes, they may be called upon to rule on preliminary matters such as nationality. However, when these tribunals confer jurisdiction on themselves by this mission, they enjoy a broad discretion based on the general principles of people’s law, treaty law, case law, doctrine and the principle of jurisdiction-jurisdiction in arbitral matters. However, the scope of this recognized power is limited and its authorized investiture must not exceed the primary mission. International courts must do this to ensure that the disputed nationality has been legally obtained and that it has not been lost or forfeited from those who claim to benefit from it as a basis for recourse to international justice: To justify the fact that if the State of nationality organizes as it sees fit the granting and prohibition of its nationality, international justice interprets and applies these rules without being obliged to observe the legislative policy of that State and the decisions of the national authorities. International courts do not have the obligation to assess nationality evidence only according to national law or policy. Being concerned by their own competence, these courts rule on questions of nationality under national law without contradicting international law, the supremacy of which may lead them to the fulfillment of shortcomings or to the replacement of rules deemed inappropriate in national law. This situation may not be so. The error in the application of national law or in its interpretation does not mean that international tribunals, when they have done so, necessarily want to expand their jurisdiction. Decisions in recent cases such as Siag or Sofraki will show the reader how these courts strive to apply national texts as national courts do, and that when their assessment is wrong, this could find explanations in the male acts conducted by concerned litigants!

Download

Share

COinS