Given current political realities and Israel’s emphasis on having a Jewish majority, any obligation to grant citizenship to Palestinians in the West Bank will be ignored. Furthermore, given the stratification of Israeli citizenship, grant of citizenship that does not guarantee equality will not satisfy the right to self-determination of Palestinians.
Ariel Zemach suggests that Israel is required, under IHRL, to grant citizenship to residents of territories of the West Bank that were annexed to Israel. I would like to highlight three difficulties that arise from this argument: its contribution to the entrenchment of the settlements as a permanent reality, its dire implications for self-determination, in the substantive sense, of the Palestinian people, and its presumption that the granting of citizenship would result in adhering to IHRL obligations, in particular with respect to equality, towards Palestinian citizens of Israel.
The legal significance of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination justifies allowing Israel a reasonable time period to secure its Jewish character in a manner that is consistent with the emerging right to citizenship and its application to cases of annexation.
A recent case in the Netherlands on repatriation of children of ‘foreign fighters’ from conflict ridden areas provides an opportunity to reflect on the urgency of repatriation. The authors recommend that there is no need to assess each child’s best interests and groups of children, who are currently abandoned by their governments, should be immediately repatriated.
Amongst the current concern and drama around COVID-19, what room is there for the ordinary functioning of electoral democracy? Must elections be held, and if so when? How are they to be conducted, practically and fairly?
Early planning and preparation and thorough sanitary procedures on election day ensured that Koreans could exercise their electoral rights as the April 2020 parliamentary elections went under way during the Coronavirus pandemic.
In 2020 Russia passed three amendments that have simplified the naturalisation requirements for several categories of migrants. While these amendments on the surface create a more inclusive policy, they also serve specific domestic and geopolitical interests.
In South Africa an amended Citizenship Act has left some born outside of the country to a South African parent without access to citizenship. This is despite having a vested right to citizenship under previous legislation. The Constitutional Court recently heard a case seeking to confirm a High Court order to ‘read in’ to the legislation to rectify this seemingly inadvertent deprivation. But the Department of Home Affairs argues such deprivation is intentional and justified.
Concerned about the growing instrumentalisation of nationality and deterioration of the institution of citizenship, the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion presents two new resources to learn about more about the practice of citizenship stripping and relevant international standards which limit state power to do so: the World’s Stateless 2020 – Deprivation of Nationality; and the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure.
Migrant voters face four distinct options: immigrant voting, emigrant voting, dual transnational voting, and abstention.
