The High Court of Australia ruled that the country’s deputy Prime Minister and four senators were ineligible to sit in Parliament as “subjects or citizen of a foreign power”. Two other Australian senators who had inherited foreign citizenship (Italian and Read More …
Ignazio Cassis’ renunciation of his Italian citizenship has re-launched the debate on the meaning of political rights – and, in particular, the right to run for political office – in Switzerland. According to Cassis, his decision was necessary – politically, although not legally – in order to be elected to the Federal Council. At the same time, Cassis did not see dual citizenship as an obstacle to vote or to run as a candidate to the Federal Parliament. This episode shows that the right to vote and the right to run for political office are not necessarily aligned. Read More …
On Wednesday, 1 November, Ignazio Cassis formally replaces outgoing federal councilor Didier Burkhalter as the seventh member of the Federal Council of Switzerland. Born to Italian parents in the Swiss canton of Ticino, Cassis gave up his Italian citizenship just weeks before being elected. His decision sparked a heated debate on whether elected politicians should surrender their foreign passports and renounce their dual citizenship, once elected to a post. In Switzerland, there is no legal obligation to do so. Read More …
As foreshadowed in our earlier post, the High Court of Australia has now delivered its judgment in a case concerning the eligibility of dual nationals to serve in the Australian parliament. At issue was section 44(i) of Australia’s Constitution which renders ineligible any person who (in addition to being an Australian citizen) is a citizen of a ‘foreign power’. Seven federal parliamentarians faced the Court. Some of them denied that they were foreign citizens and some conceded that they were; most had acquired their non-Australian citizenship Read More …
As reported by Singapore media (Straits Times) on 8 October 2017, the country celebrated the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Singapore citizenship through the 1957 Singapore Citizenship Ordinance. The ordinance was significant because it laid the foundation of the single citizenship regime in the country, which has remained in force in contemporary Singapore. Since the end of the 1990s, the single citizenship principle has been widely debated due to increased pressure from both immigrant and emigrant communities. Read More …
The Emergency Government Order 65/2017 amending the law on Romanian citizenship came into force on 25 September 2017. The main reason for the modification was to clarify the procedure with regard to the citizenship status of children of persons who acquire or Read More …
The story of the Australian citizenship regime – told fully and eloquently in the second edition of Kim Rubenstein’s book Australian Citizenship Law – offers an intriguing insight into how citizenship regimes emerge and evolve in the case of new states, and then reach maturity over decades of intense contestation between different political and legal actors across a federal state.
As reported by Dutch media on the 22nd of August, the Dutch Minister for Security and Justice is about to apply the provisions on reactive expatriation for the first time to an individual convicted of a terrorist offence in the Netherlands. Under article 14(2)(b) of the Dutch Nationality Act, the individual will consequently lose his Dutch Citizenship and be expelled from the country and lose his right to return.
Under the Australian Constitution, a dual citizen of – or anyone with allegiance to – a ‘foreign power’ is not qualified to be elected to or sit in the national parliament. This provision, which has caused some inconvenience to candidates and MPs in the past, has erupted in 2017. At the time of writing, five current MPs have been referred to the High Court of Australia for breach of the provision, with two more references anticipated and potentially more to be uncovered.
A recent drama concerning the citizenship status of seven members of the Australian Parliament has drawn attention to the complex legal landscape surrounding multiple nationality, as well as the specific meaning of a provision of the Australian Constitution that governs eligibility to stand for, or serve in, the Australian Parliament. The provision – section 44 – sets out a range of grounds of ineligibility. Section 44(i) specifically provides …
