Search

While the normative configuration and further development of Union citizenship is clearly assigned to EU organs, the same applies for legislative and judicial organs of the Member States when it comes to nationality. Nevertheless, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) gradually increased requirements vis-à-vis Member State nationality law by recourse to primary law although the normative relationship and dependency between the two statuses, as enshrined in Union constitutional law itself, is the other way round. According to the thesis of this contribution and notwithstanding the Court's cautionary formula according to which the Member States have to respect or take into account Union law when exercising their sovereign rights, the latest judgment and already visible effects of the Court's previous jurisprudence in Member State law and administrative procedures can be described as a competence fusion through (Union) citizenship. In sum, the requirements it extracts from Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) call into question the principle of conferral and the significance of the constitutional preconditions for the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) as set forth in Article 51 (1) CFR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Mexicana de Politica Exterior is the property of Instituto Matias Romero de Estudios Diplomaticos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper examines the nationality question in India and takes a critical look at the role of the Indian state in dealing with the problems of nationalities primarily by using the unifying ideology of 'national integration ' as a process of state- building. It focuses on the reactions of different nationalities to attempts at assimilation and examines the contradictions arising out of the two parallel processes of national integration and identity assertion by nationalities. The paper concludes by observing that the aspirations of nationalities need not come in conflict with state-building in India, provided the Indian State refrains from all assimilationist moves including a resort to a forced integration which will alienate rather than integrate the emerging nationalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the legality of current practices of extraterritorial naturalizations (i.e. the naturalization of persons retaining their residence abroad), notably the so-called "passportization policy" of the Russian Federation with regard to South Ossetia and Abkhazia (Georgia) and Transnistria (Moldova), as well as other extraterritorial naturalization policies such as those of Romania, Hungary and Germany. The relevant international legal principles are a possible human right to change one's nationality, the prohibition of arbitrariness, the prohibition of an abuse of rights, State sovereignty, friendly relations, good neighborliness, and the stable repartition of jurisdiction. It is argued that these principles should be applied so as to strike a fair balance between the individual, governmental, and global interests at stake. This is achieved by demanding a factual connection between the naturalizing State and the individual concerned. Individual and collective naturalizations must be distinguished, but individual naturalizations on a large scale may, in some circumstances, amount to defacto collective ones. With regard to collective naturalizations, the necessary factual connection can only be provided by residence. Naturalizations overstepping the international legal limits (especially for want of a sufficient factual connection) are exorbitant and, in terms of international law, illegal. They need not, and arguably even must not, be recognized by other States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Neurologia (Grupo ARS XXI de Comunicacion, S.A.) is the property of Grupo ARS XXI de Comunicacion, S.A. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

One in three hiring managers isn't sure what's legal to ask candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]