The institution of citizenship is one of the main legal institutions that express the legal relationship between the state and the individual. It establishes the affiliation of a person to a certain state and, on the basis of this affiliation, determines his rights and obligations. Citizenship forms the political, social and legal status of a person and ensures his participation in state life. This institution also acts as one of the important elements of the sovereignty of the state and plays an important role in protecting legal stability within the country. The legal foundations of the institution of citizenship are regulated by the constitution and relevant legislative acts. In Azerbaijan, these relations are mainly determined by the Constitution and the Law "On Citizenship". The rules for acquiring, changing and losing citizenship are reflected in these normative acts. The importance of this institution is that it ensures the protection of the rights of individuals, forms mutual responsibility relations with the state and strengthens the legal integration of society. The institution of citizenship is one of the main legal institutions that express the legal relationship between the state and the individual. It establishes a person's belonging to a particular state and, on the basis of this belonging, determines his rights and obligations. Citizenship forms the political, social and legal status of a person and ensures his participation in state life. This institution also acts as one of the important elements of state sovereignty and plays an important role in maintaining legal stability within the country. At the same time, citizenship grants an individual important rights such as legal protection, diplomatic protection and social security from the state, strengthens his integration into society and participation in socio-political processes.

ABSTRACT While citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes are a relatively recent phenomenon, debates regarding the instrumentalisation of nationality have existed ever since this institution became broadly established in the nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that nationality does not only impact the relations between individuals and states, but also between states. As the European Commission noted with respect to CBI schemes, the attribution of nationality by a state carries consequences with respect to other states. Notably, nationality entitles a state to invoke the responsibility of another state through diplomatic protection, and enables individuals to bring direct claims against states under international investment agreements. This article shows how the conferral of nationality upon individuals can have major implications not only for the procedural rights of these individuals, notably as investors, but also for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of states. Placing the restrictive 1955 definition of nationality given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nottebohm within its historical and contemporary context, it explains how the limits occasionally placed by international courts and tribunals on the international effects caused by the attribution of nationality were reactions to the use of the latter as an interventionist tool.

The exploitation and trafficking of Indonesian migrant fishers on Taiwanese fishing vessels remain a persistent challenge in the global fisheries industry. Although Indonesia and Taiwan have implemented various protection measures, these efforts have not yielded effective results. This study analyses why the protection of Indonesian migrant fishers on Taiwanese vessels remains inadequate. Using a deductive qualitative approach and the theory of diplomatic protection as the analytical framework, three key variables are examined: an international wrong, link of nationality, and exhaustion of local remedies. The findings reveal that Indonesia has not effectively exercised diplomatic protection due to fragmented domestic regulations and the lack of structured cooperation with Taiwan. Strengthening national legal frameworks and fostering South-South partnerships are essential to enhance legal protection and advance the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the fisheries sector.

The role of female diplomats on the international stage has increased significantly over the last two decades. However, the role of female diplomats remains limited in some areas, such as human rights, international peace, and climate change. They also play a limited role as negotiators, facilitators, and policy designers. This condition leads to the structural discrimination faced by female diplomats. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) was formulated to grant all diplomats, including female diplomats, the protection of diplomatic functions and the official status of diplomats. This research adopts a normative-empirical approach to analyze how the implementation of the 1961 VCDR eradicates the structural discrimination of the diplomatic corps towards the protection of the rights of female diplomats. The research findings show that women’s involvement in diplomacy still faces a significant gap in terms of numbers and levels assigned. Female diplomats also face the risk of gender violation and harassment. The 1961 VCDR was formulated as a gender-neutral foundation for diplomatic protection, which means it lacks specific provisions on gender-based discrimination or violence. Consequently, addressing issues such as unequal postings and promotions heavily relies on national policies, labor laws, and international human rights instruments such as CEDAW, rather than the 1961 VCDR directly. The empowerment of female diplomats requires a multi-faceted approach involving both normative efforts and structural reforms.

The aim of the present text is to verify whether Polish demands to exhume and provide a civilised burial to the victims of the Volhynia slaughter may be supported by arguments referring to public international law. This slaughter was organised in the 1940s by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army with an intent to kill all persons having the Polish nationality and living in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Their bodies were put into mass unnamed graves the precise location of which remains uncertain. The thesis of the text is that there is a great number of legal titles allowing Poland to demand respect for the bodies of the victims of the Volhynia slaughter. The conditions of the application of those legal rules may differ from each other. The author applies the method of dogmatic and formal analysis of public international law. He applies the norms of written and unwritten international law to the historical facts and the factual state of affairs as it stands nowadays. The main part of the text confronts the situation of the bodies of the victims of the Volhynia slaughter and their mass graves with several branches of public international law. They include the rules of diplomatic protection, the humanitarian law, the law of human rights and new trends of international law theory. The conclusion is that the utility for Poland of those rules is different. On the one hand the applicability of the rules of international humanitarian law should be excluded, as the victims were not participants of any conflict but the victims of mass ethnic cleansing. On the other hand a support for the Polish demands can be found in the field of human rights, although the bases is to be found in the rights of the living persons. The traditional basis of making claims namely diplomatic protection seems to be very promising. It is especially suited to a State taking directly a case of its national– a living one or a dead one. It must be stressed, however, that there is an important trend to fill up the gaps in the traditional law as applied to the treatment of the killed persons. One of those trends refers to mass graves and advocates a set of legal obligations of States with respect to them. Another trend goes as far as to extend the set of human rights so as to attach some of them to the dead people. In this sense the Polish arguments are very well founded not only in the sphere of morality and decency but also in the sphere of law.

The purpose of this article is to examine the directions of codification of international legal norms governing international responsibility, carried out within the framework of the United Nations. The objectives of the article are to identify the main directions of codification, its current state, its outcomes, as well as to determine the regularities in the codification of norms on responsibility in international law and to attempt to define the place of the individual within responsibility-related legal relations. The methods used in the research include: the comparative method, which makes it possible to compare the evolution of norms subject to codification and the objectives pursued by such codification; the logical method, applied to construct conclusions based on assumptions; the method of analysis; and the method of theoretical inquiry, which incorporates a scientific approach to understanding the problem of responsibility in international law and the need for codification of the norms regulating it. The novelty of the study lies in a comprehensive, topic-focused examination of codified norms of international law as a prerequisite for the further development of international law and for the adoption of a universal convention on responsibility in international law. The conclusions of the article are as follows: the codification of norms of international law on responsibility is carried out by the UN International Law Commission; it proceeds in several directions, including: codification of norms governing the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts; codification of norms providing for the responsibility of states for acts that are not prohibited by international law but pose potential risks to individuals, their property, or the environment; codification of «secondary» responsibility — that of international organizations; and codification of related legal institutions such as diplomatic protection, state immunity from civil jurisdiction, and immunity of state officials from criminal jurisdiction. In addition, the International Law Commission codifies norms concerning the principles of unilateral acts of states and responsibility arising from their implementation. At the time of writing, a universal convention on responsibility in international law has not yet been agreed upon. The most significant achievement of codification to date may be considered the codification of norms relating to state immunity in matters of civil responsibility for causing death or injury to an individual, reflected in the 2004 United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, which is open for signature but has not entered into force. A key regularity evident in the codified norms of international law on responsibility is that a state, although invoking sovereignty and enjoying judicial immunity, is no longer positioned above international law; it is responsible for fulfilling the obligations established by international norms, with such responsibility implemented through diplomatic negotiations, international arbitration, or mechanisms of international organizations. Moreover, fault is not a necessary condition for the attribution of international responsibility in cases of non-compliance with international obligations. Furthermore, when responsibility concerns acts not prohibited by international law, the state bears strict (non-fault) responsibility. There is also a clear trend toward the gradual acquisition by individuals of rights and obligations under international law, although it is still premature to assert that the individual has become a full subject of international law. Nevertheless, contemporary practice demonstrates that subjects of international law may incur responsibility for violations of human rights, as reflected in the 2001 Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, the 2006 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, the 2006 Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising Out of Hazardous Activities, and the 2004 Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. This trend is significant because codified recommendatory norms of international law illustrate an overall movement toward increasing the level of state responsibility toward individuals. In particular, the state may be held responsible before an individual for the violation of his or her rights, and the individual has the right to raise the issue of state responsibility before national courts of the offending state, the courts of the individual's state of nationality, or before supranational judicial bodies. Moreover, this very concept forms the basis of the European Court of Human Rights. Current developments in international relations necessitate the adoption of a universal international convention on responsibility in international law — and not solely on state responsibility.

The article is devoted to the analysis of contemporary challenges facing international diplomatic missions and the study of the evolution of their legal status in international law. It is emphasised that contemporary challenges – hybrid threats, abuse of immunities, and the strengthening of the role of international organisations – are causing a transformation of this status. The trend in the development of international law is to seek a balance between protecting diplomats and ensuring accountability for international crimes. A promising direction is the formation of a practice of narrow interpretation of immunities, consistent with the principles of the rule of law and the protection of human rights. It has been established that the modern diplomatic mission is transforming from a classic state representation into a flexible, multi-level instrument of international governance that integrates political, human rights and security components. This evolution requires a renewed interpretation of the legal status of diplomatic institutions, focused on the principles of responsibility and interdependence of international actors in the global legal order. Contemporary conditions require a new understanding of the legal status of diplomats in war zones – not only through the prism of state immunity, but above all from the perspective of international legal standards for the protection of human rights. It is noted that digital diplomatic missions challenge the traditional notion of territorial boundaries of diplomatic protection, as this concept is increasingly out of step with the demands of modern global communication. Artificial intelligence has become part of diplomatic practice not only as an object of regulation, but also as an active tool that influences analytical work, communication and decision-making in diplomatic missions. The emergence of virtual consulates and digital diplomatic missions creates a new range of challenges for international law, in particular the definition of jurisdictional boundaries and forms of immunity in cyberspace. In conclusion, it is emphasised that diplomatic missions in the 21st century are not only instruments of classical diplomacy, but also important actors in the system of international security, justice and global governance.

The article analyzes the formation, essence, and interrelation of the institution of citizenship within the system of international law. It examines the distinctions between the concepts of nationality and citizenship, as well as their role in international legal regulation. The legal consequences of multiple citizenship—particularly issues related to diplomatic protection, military service, and taxation—are also discussed. The policy of the Republic of Uzbekistan, based on the principle of single citizenship, is compared with international trends, and the national legal position is substantiated.

This study analyzes Indonesia's legal efforts against the violation of diplomatic immunity due to the wiretapping of the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia (KBRI) in Yangon, Myanmar in June 2004. The incident violated Article 22 and Article 27 of the 1961 Vienna Convention, as eavesdropping devices were found in the Ambassador's office and diplomatic communication cables, which undermined the principles of inviolability and freedom of communication. This study uses a descriptive qualitative research method used with a juridical-normative approach based on literature studies from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The findings show that Myanmar has neglected to carry out its diplomatic protection obligations, so the recipient country is obliged to be held internationally responsible through compensation, apologies, or improvement of security procedures in accordance with the provisions of the International Law Commission Draft Articles on State Responsibility and the Principle of Responsiveness The Indonesian State chooses a settlement through peaceful diplomatic channels, including formal negotiations and protests, in accordance with the spirit of ASEAN and Article 33 of the UN Charter. However, its effectiveness depends on Myanmar's good faith to improve the protection system of diplomatic facilities and provide assurance that similar incidents do not recur. This study confirms the importance of strengthening international legal mechanisms in maintaining the integrity of bilateral relations and the reputation of global diplomacy.

Abstract Lump sum agreements have been signed since the 17th century and were the most important international law instrument used to settle international claims during the 20th century. As instruments of diplomatic protection, the agreements required governments to make active judgments about how to balance the demands of individual claimants against broader political and economic interests. Based on archival materials and a compilation of almost 400 lump sum agreements, this article shows how they were typically negotiated as alternatives to adjudication and often involved claimant states using frozen assets or market access to induce settlements. In addition to providing a fuller account of this critical piece of international claims infrastructure, the findings are notable in light of the current backlash against international courts and tribunals as well as the resurgence of managed trade where market access is linked to disputes in other areas.

The study examines the Calvo Doctrine and its significance in the development of the institution of diplomatic protection. The first part of the article addresses the fundamental tenets of the doctrine formulated by Calvo in the 19th century, situating it within its historical context and analyzing how Calvo’s ideas regarding the rights of states to protect their nationals abroad became foundational for shaping international practices of diplomatic protection in Latin American countries. The second part of the article focuses specifically on the Calvo Clause, which restricts the application of diplomatic protection and serves as an important element for maintaining a balance between state sovereignty and nationals’ rights. In conclusion, the prospects and challenges facing the institute of diplomatic protection in the context of globalization and changing international relations are dis-cussed. The article highlights the relevance of Calvo’s legacy in the context of modern legal and political reali-ties.

This study is devoted to the issues of diplomatic protection of Russian citizens abroad whose rights have been violated. Individuals located in the territory of a foreign state are often subject to unlawful actions by individuals or authorities of the host state and not always in such situations the legal protection measures provided for by the legislation of the host state are exhaustive in order to achieve full protection and restoration of violated rights. In cases where the violation of the rights and interests of compatriots goes beyond the scope of national legislation and entails a violation of international law, states retain the right to resort to diplomatic protection mechanisms. The scientific significance of the study consists in analyzing the use of the mechanism of diplomatic protection of the rights of Russian citizens, taking into account the current international situation. In addition, the protection of the rights of compatriots is one of the priorities of the state policy of the Russian Federation, accordingly, the work will analyze the activities of state authorities of the Russian Federation to restore violated rights and protect the rights of compatriots. The main conclusions and value of this work is the consideration and derivation of new ways to protect the rights of citizens abroad in the context of international tension. New approaches were found in the protection of citizens abroad with the involvement of top officials of the state.

Background: A state's offer to resort to arbitration is one of the most significant topics that raises numerous issues, as such an offer serves as the legal basis for the arbitration agreement, which is later completed upon the investor’s acceptance. The state's expression of consent to arbitration is no longer limited to cases where it concludes a contract with the investor containing an arbitration clause. Rather, the state's consent is now inferred through legislative offers and international agreements to which the state is a party. Methods: In some cases, arbitration is based on specific international legal obligations, such as bilateral investment treaties, which may bind states to arbitration in disputes with foreign investors. As a result, states have become parties to arbitration claims initiated by investors with whom they have no contractual relationship. This has led to a fundamental shift in the landscape of international arbitration, as investment disputes have moved from the realm of diplomatic protection to the jurisdiction of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). ICSID has, in turn, expanded its jurisdiction to encompass investment disputes even in the absence of an agreement between the disputing parties to resort to arbitration. Results and conclusions: The study has demonstrated that a state's consent to ICSID arbitration may, in certain cases, be inferred from domestic legislation or bilateral investment treaties, thereby establishing a valid legal basis for ICSID jurisdiction even where no directly concluded arbitration agreement exists between the state and the investor.

Abstract This is a substantive revision of an article that appeared in volume 12 of this journal, in which the author questioned the view that the term ‘protection’ figuring in the refugee definition contained in the 1951 Convention and in the Statute of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refuges alludes to ‘internal protection’, that is, to the protection that States may accord to persons within their territory. The aforementioned article contended that the preparatory works of the instruments and the exegetical analysis of the texts demonstrate that, in those instruments, protection means ‘diplomatic protection’, that is, the protection that States may accord to their nationals abroad. The arguments advanced in that article are significantly bolstered in the present work by drawing on several sources and materials that have received little or no attention in the relevant academic literature.

Abstract International investment arbitration is arguably the most important means of international dispute settlement and has significant state immunity dimensions. It has all but replaced diplomatic protection as a means of redress for foreign investors. The delocalization of investment disputes by means of investment arbitration has meant that investors have not had to resort to domestic law or courts to settle their disputes against host states. The system works well so long as awards are honoured, but if domestic law processes become involved state immunity can stand in the way of execution and enforcement. A recent English case has highlighted certain state immunity-related complications that could stand in the way of enforcement. This article focuses on the recent English Court of Appeal decision in Border Timbers / ISL, in which it was recently decided that ICSID member states cannot resist the registration of ICSID awards by invoking principles of state immunity, adopting a teleological construction of the UK State Immunity Act 1978. The ruling ensures adherence to the UK’s treaty obligations, as well as avoiding the re-politicization of investment disputes.

This paper analyses Colombia’s experiences with international arbitration in disputes with foreign investors. Three periods of roughly 30 years were chosen: a) diplomatic protection of great powers’ expatriates in Latin America (Colombia) in the era of Imperialist rivalry: the last decades of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth. This protection (sometimes with naval interventions) was meant to uphold a minimum standard of treatment for foreigners and gave rise to the Calvo doctrine as its counter-current protecting Latin American economic sovereignty; b) interregnum between the 1960s and 1980s: Calvo (prevalent in Latin America) reincarnated in an economic emancipation drive by postcolonial countries at the United Nations. Yet, the doctrine suffered a setback in the World Bank where the Icsid Convention was adopted despite a collective No vote by Latin American members on an earlier draft in Tokyo; c) investor-state arbitration under international investment agreements: expansion and retreat, from 1990 to present. Expansion of such agreements and emergence of a kind of arbitral case-law occurred between the early 1990s (when the Latin American mainstream abandoned Calvo) and the late 2000s. Counter-currents appeared since the early 2000, including treaty clarifications, public policy carve-outs, and withdrawals of Latin American, North American and European states. This periodization allows for comparing Colombia’s international investment arbitration consents, relevant awards, treaties, legislation and constitutional case-law over time.

Maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS) are on the horizon and with them many opportunities, but also challenges. In an attempt to clarify the potential implications for flag states of the concept of MASS controlled from a remote operations center (ROC), this article discusses the law of the sea requirements of “genuine link,” “effective jurisdiction and control,” and “in the charge of a master and officers,” all in light of recent discussions at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The article concludes that the law of the sea does not prohibit some or all aspects of the functions of MASS to be operated, performed, and/or controlled from a ROC, the location of which is remote from MASS and may also be outside the territory of the flag state. To enable effective jurisdiction and control over persons responsible and liable for breach of safety or environmental regulations, the flag state will largely be able to follow the International Safety Management (ISM) Code model. However, in certain instances, such as in cases concerning penal and disciplinary proceedings, the flag state will need a special agreement with the state where a ROC is located, which is what distinguishes MASS from conventional shipping. If the flag state is unable to demonstrate effective jurisdiction and control over a vessel controlled from a ROC located in another country, and the genuine link cannot be demonstrated by any other means, the flag state could run a risk of being deprived of the right to exercise diplomatic protection over its MASS.

The notion of state responsibility in private international law embodies a complex dimension that interweaves traditional public international law principles with the realities of cross-border transactions and disputes involving non-state actors. Historically, the doctrine of state responsibility arose as a mechanism by which one state could hold another accountable for breaches of international obligations, particularly in contexts where diplomatic protection served as the primary avenue for individual claimants seeking remedies for wrongful acts.

Abstract The International Law Commission (ILC) is often praised for successfully codifying key areas of international law, such as the law of treaties, the law of diplomatic and consular relations, and the law of responsibility. However, its contribution to the development of the law on areas that were not directly within its purview is frequently overlooked. International migration law seems to be a case in point. This article assesses the engagements of the ILC with this branch of international law in three main areas. It starts by discussing the early efforts of the Commission to codify the law of asylum, placing especial emphasis on the reasons behind, and the lessons one may learn from its failure to do so. The article then examines the work of the ILC on the law of nationality, including on the elimination and reduction of statelessness, state succession, and finally diplomatic protection. Lastly, it analyses the Commission’s attempts to systematize the law of admission and sojourn of non-nationals in its 2014 Draft Articles on Expulsion of Aliens. While the ILC has been helping to consolidate and clarify the position of international law on migration, its engagements with the field have laid bare the many political sensitivities evoked by any attempts to curb States’ discretion in this domain. The article thus paints a more complicated picture about the tensions between codification and progressive development in such a contested area of the law.

This paper explores the concept of diplomatic protection in international law through a detailed analysis of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings, with a particular focus on the landmark June 19, 2012 judgment in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo). Diplomatic protection, a traditional legal mechanism allowing states to seek redress for their nationals harmed by other states, reflects a nuanced intersection between state sovereignty and individual rights within international law. This study traces the evolution of diplomatic protection in ICJ jurisprudence, assessing how the Court has balanced state responsibility with the protection of individuals abroad. The Diallo judgment is analyzed for its substantive contributions, particularly in recognizing non-material damages and the principles underpinning adequate reparations. Through this case study, the paper examines key requirements for diplomatic protection, such as nationality, exhaustion of local remedies, and the discretionary nature of state action. By evaluating the im plications of this and related ICJ rulings, this research offers insights into the evolving role of diplomatic protection and its effectiveness in modern international law for advancing individual justice within the framework of state sovereignty.