DOCSLIB.ORG

United Kingdom's Legislation on Citizenship Deprivation Measures

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United Kingdom's Legislation on Citizenship Deprivation Measures United Kingdom’s Legislation on Citizenship Deprivation Measures and its Compatibility with Article 6 and 8 of the ECHR. LLM Thesis Public International Law Renée van den Elsen Student number: 10070850 Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne van Alebeek Second reader: Prof. Yvonne Donders Submitted 15 July 2016 Abstract The recent surge in terror threats on European soil, mainly posed by foreign fighters, has led to an increase in counter-terrorism legislation and policies. The United Kingdom is a noteworthy example of a state that introduced very extensive legislation. It has introduced legislation that allows the Secretary of State to deprive anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism of his or her UK citizenship. This thesis tries to answer whether UK’s legislation on citizenship deprivation measures is compatible with Article 6 and 8 of the ECHR. The British Nationality Act 1981, as amended in 2002, 2006 and 2014, is the statutory legal basis for the deprivation measures. This thesis assesses the amended British Nationality Act 1981 in light of the relevant criteria developed in ECHR jurisprudence. As a general rule Article 6 is not applicable to nationality decisions, however this thesis will show that this is different for cases concerning deprivation measures. When the deprivation order is based on closed material, the procedure will take place before the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission (SIAC). This thesis shows that many elements of the SIAC procedure conflict with the requirements of Article 6 ECHR. Furthermore, since nationality is an intrinsic part of someone’s social identity, which is a part of a person’s private life, the legislation raises an issue under Article 8 ECHR. It is argued that there is a less far-reaching measure available to protect the national security and public safety of the UK. Henceforth, the legislation that provides for deprivation measures cannot considered to be necessary in a democratic society and consequently constitutes a violation of Article 8 ECHR. Lastly, while it is easy to understand the motivation behind the extensive legislation, this assessment illustrates that one must be wary that the importance of protecting human rights is not overlooked when making such extensive legislation. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction 4 1. Legal Problem and Research Question 7 II. Legal Framework 8 1. Article 6 ECHR 8 1.1 Applicability of Article 6 ECHR 8 1.2 Compliance with Article 6 ECHR 12 2. Article 8 ECHR 13 3. Methodological Limitations 13 4. Definitions 14 4.1 Citizenship & Nationality 14 4.2 Loss & Deprivation 15 III. UK’s Legislation on Citizenship Deprivation over the Years 15 1. History of UK’s Nationality Legislation 15 2. Current Nationality Legislation in the UK 16 2.1 The 1981 British Nationality Act 16 2.2 The 2002 Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 16 2.3 The 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 18 2.4 The 2014 Immigration Act 18 IV. The Measure of Deprivation of Nationality in Light of Articles 6 and 8 ECHR 1. Legislation on Deprivation of Citizenship Measures 20 2. Compatibility with Article 6 ECHR 21 3. Compatibility with Article 8 ECHR 27 3.1 Issue of Discrimination under Article 14 ECHR 32 V. Conclusion 33 Bibliography 35 3 I. Introduction In recent times, terrorist attacks on European soil have dominated the news. The world has seen the emergence of global terrorism and states all over the world have reacted with widespread and far reaching security and counter terrorism policies. The terrorist organisation ‘Islamic State’1 claims to be responsible for many of these attacks resulting in the death of innocent civilians. Authorities in Europe have expressed strong concerns about this development and are currently engaged in finding the best solution to this international security problem, by enhancing their intelligence agency capabilities and authorizing the associated institutional and legal reforms needed to support their fight against terrorism. Due to the surge in terrorism, attention has increased for the threat posed by nationals who travel abroad to join IS, Al-Nusra or other terrorist movements as a so-called ‘foreign fighter’2, and consequently, after having received training, instructions or both, can return to their home country. The phenomenon of foreign fighters is hardly new or confined to the civil war in Syria alone.3 The number of individuals that identified with the jihadist mission and have been involved as volunteers between 1960 and 2000 in various conflicts is estimated to lie somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000.4 However, the number of foreign fighters that travelled to Iraq and Syria since the beginning of the conflict in 2011 is estimated between 27,000 and 31,000.5 Among those who travelled to Iraq and Syria since 2011, more than 1 Hereinafter ‘IS’ 2 There exists no clear-cut legal definition of ‘foreign fighter’, but in this thesis the definition formulated by S. Kraehenmann will be adopted: ‘A foreign fighter is an individual who leaves his or her country of origin or habitual residence to join a non-state armed group in an armed conflict abroad and who is primarily motivated by ideology, religion, and/or kinship’ see: S Kraehenmann, ‘Academy Briefing No. 7: Foreign Fighters Under International Law’ (2014) Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Briefings, p.6 available at: http://www.genevaacademy.ch/docs/publications/Briefings%20and%20In%20breifs/Foreign%20Fight ers%20Under%20International%20Law%20Briefing%20no7.pdf Moreover, from a terminological perspective the concept of foreign fighters should not be oversimplified by equating the phenomenon of a foreign fighter to ‘foreign-trained fighter’. In practice, however, it might be difficult to distinguish the two: individuals who travelled abroad with the intention to join the battlefield abroad may be recruited and trained to carry out attacks ‘at home’ without having actually participated in the combat, and vice versa. Ibid, p.6 3 Foreign fighters were also involved for example in the Spanish Civil War in 1936, see D. Malet, ‘Why Foreign Fighters? Historical Perspective and Solution’ 53 (4) Orbis (2010) p. 97, 98. 4 T. Hegghammer, ‘The Rise of Muslim Foreign Fighters: Islam and the Globalization of Jihad’ (2011) 35 (3) International Security (first page article), 53 5 The Soufan Group, ‘Foreign Fighters, An Updated Assessment of the Flow of Foreign Fighters into Syria and Iraq’ (December 2015) available at: http://soufangroup.com/wp - content/uploads/2015/12/TSG_ForeignFightersUpdate3.pdf 4 5,000 individuals were European Union nationals.6 The average rate of returnees to Western countries is around 20-30%.7 The concerns related to foreign fighters are twofold.8 First, it is feared that their participation prolongs and exacerbates the original conflict and that they will engage in acts of barbarian nature abroad. The second concern, which is much higher on the agenda of policymakers in Europe, is the fear of the ‘blowback effect’. The ‘blowback effect’ refers to the threat that foreign fighters pose when they return to their home countries or to a third country after concluding their time abroad. Hegghammer underlines that the majority of them prefers to fight abroad and that only a few have the desire to return and perpetrate acts of a terrorist nature in their home country.9 Yet, as recent history has proven, the acts of a small number of returned fighters can have catastrophic consequences. A significant number of violent incidents that occurred within Western Europe since 2011 are associated with returned jihadist foreign fighters.10 Most well-known examples are the deadly attacks in a Jewish Museum in Brussels, which were perpetrated by a returned foreign fighter from Syria, the Charlie Hebdo attack of which one of the perpetrators was trained in Yemen by Al Qaeda and the Paris attacks in November 2015, multiple perpetrators of these attacks spent time in Syria or were in any other way associated with the Islamic State in Syria.11 These terrible incidents have made it clear to policymakers and legislators that the risk of the ‘blowback effect’ is not an abstract one, and needs an urgent and adequate response. The overarching international legal response to the recent increased terrorism threat and specifically the foreign fighters phenomenon was the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2178 adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Paragraph 6 of that Resolution recalls that: 6 Of which almost 3,700 foreign fighters come from just four countries: France (1,700), United Kingdom (760), Germany (760) and Belgium (470). 7 The Soufan Group, p. 4 8 In Zürich Center for Security Studies, ‘Foreign Fighters: An Overview of Responses in Eleven Countries’ (2014) p. 4. Available at: http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center- for-securities-studies/pdfs/Foreign_Fighters_2014.pdf 9 T. Hegghammer, ‘Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Variation in Western Jihadists, Choice Between Domestic and Foreign Fighting’ American Political Science Review (2013) p. 12 10 E. Bakker and J. de Roy van Zuijdewijn, ‘Jihadist Foreign Fighter Phenomenon in Western Europe: A Low-Probability, High-Impact Threat, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (October 2015), p 5-8. Available at: http://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ICCT-Bakker- DeRoyvanZuijdewijn-Jihadist-Foreign-Fighter-Phenomenon-in-Western-Europe-October2015.pdf 11 International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague, The Foreign Fighters Phenomenon in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by UK Government (CPP0009)
    Written evidence submitted by UK Government (CPP0009) 02 March 2021 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Inquiry into Citizenship and Passport Processes in Northern Ireland Dear Chair, Thank you for the opportunity to provide evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in relation to the Committee’s inquiry into Citizenship and Passport Processes in Northern Ireland. The work of the Committee, including the critical role it plays in Parliamentary scrutiny, is of the utmost importance to the Government. The Government is fully committed to the Belfast Agreement, the constitutional principles it upholds, and the rights it protects. This includes the birthright provision, which protects the rights of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British or both, as they may so choose, and the right to hold both British and Irish citizenship. To support the Committee’s inquiry, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked that I write to you, with the support of the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, Kevin Foster MP, to provide detailed evidence in response to the inquiry’s terms of reference. UKG response to the terms of reference 1. The interaction between UK nationality law and the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement, and any engagement with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The introductory remarks to the Committee’s inquiry1 state that the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement: “guarantees the right of the people of Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both
    [Show full text]
  • British Nationality Act 1981
    Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to British Nationality Act 1981. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) British Nationality Act 1981 1981 CHAPTER 61 An Act to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality, and to amend the Immigration Act 1971 as regards the right of abode in the United Kingdom. [30th October 1981] Annotations: Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 (c. 6, SIF 87), s. 3(1); restricted by British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 (c. 6, SIF 87), s. 3(2); amended by S.I. 1983/1699, art. 2(1) and amended by British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 (c. 34, SIF 87), s. 2(1) C2 Act modified: (18.7.1996) by 1996 c. 41, s. 2(1); (19.3.1997) by 1997 c. 20, s. 2(1) C3 Act applied (19.3.1997) by 1997 c. 20, s. 1(8) C4 Act amended (2.10.2000) by S.I. 2000/2326, art. 8 C5 Act modified (21.5.2002) by British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (c. 8), s. 3(3); S.I. 2002/1252, art. 2 C6 Act modified (21.5.2002) by British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (c. 8), s. 6(2); S.I. 2002/1252, art. 2 Act modified (21.5.2002) by British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2018
    The Government Response to the fifth report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2017-19 (HC 926, HL paper 146): Proposal for a draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2018 January 2019 The Government Response to the fifth report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2017-19 (HC 926, HL paper 146): Proposal for a draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Remedial) Order 2018 Presented to Parliament pursuant to paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 January 2019 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: Home Office Migrant Criminality Policy BICS Policy and International Group 2nd Floor, Peel Building 2 Marsham Street London, SW1P 4DF e-mail: [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-0963-0 CCS0119338728 01/19 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Contents Statement of representations Page 1 Annex A: Letter from the Immigration Minister to the Page 7 Joint Committee on Human Rights Annex B: The Remedial Order Page 11 STATEMENT OF SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS ON THE BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981 (REMEDIAL) ORDER 2019 Introduction 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 12730 Analysis of Law in UK BRX:Layout 1
    Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Prepared for the British Red Cross by The views expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the British Red Cross. This report is part of a wider study on cross-border disaster assistance within the EU, carried out in conjunction with five other European National Societies, under the overall co-ordination of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The wider project received funding from the European Commission, who bear no responsibility for the content or use of the information contained in this report. Front cover photograph © Layton Thompson/British Red Cross Flood relief measures in Oxford, 25 July 2007 Analysis of Law in the United Kingdom pertaining to Cross-Border Disaster Relief Foreword The United Kingdom is in the fortunate position of Fisher (International Federation of Red Cross and Red being less susceptible to large-scale natural disasters Crescent Societies), Mr Tim Gordon (HMRC), Mr than many other countries. Even so, and as recent Gordon MacMillan (Hanover Associates UK), Mr Roy years have shown, our territory may still be subject to Wilshire (Chief Fire Officer, Hertfordshire County) such emergencies as flooding, and the effects of severe and Ms Moya Wood-Heath (British Red Cross). winter weather. We also wish to thank the authors of this report, The purpose of this study, commissioned by the British Justine Stefanelli and Sarah Williams of the British Red Cross, is to examine the extent to which the legal, Institute of International and Comparative Law, administrative and operational framework for disaster who were assisted by Katharine Everett, Frances response within the UK is able to facilitate potential McClenaghan, Hidenori Takai and Payam Yoseflavi.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Constitution for the UK
    Contents Page Mapping the Path towards Codifying - or Not Codifying - the UK Constitution ROBERT BLACKBURN, PhD, LLD, Solicitor Professor of Constitutional Law Centre for Political and Constitutional Studies King's College London PROGRAMME OF RESEARCH Aims This programme of research has been prepared at the formal request1 of the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee chaired by Graham Allen MP to assist its inquiry, and the policy debate generally, on the proposal to codify - or not - the UK constitution. The work been prepared in an impartial way, adopting a pragmatic approach to the issues involved, and does not seek to advocate either codification or non-codification. Its purpose is to inform the inquiry of the issues involved and, in the event that a government in the future might wish to implement such a proposal, it seeks to provide a starting point and set of papers to help facilitate the complex and sensitive issues of substance and process that would be involved. Structure of the Research The content starts (Part I) by identifying, and giving a succinct account of, the arguments for and against a written constitution, prepared in rhetorical manner. It then (Part II) sets out a series of three illustrative blueprints, prepared in the belief that a consideration of detailed alternative models on how a codified constitution might be designed and drafted will better inform and advance the debate on the desirability or not of writing down the constitution into one documentary source. These are - (1) Constitutional Code - a document sanctioned by Parliament but without statutory authority, setting out the essential existing elements and principles of the constitution and workings of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizenship Review
    Lord Goldsmith QC Citizenship Review Citizenship: Our Common Bond Contents Executive Summary 5 1. What is a citizen? 10 2. A short history of British citizenship 13 3. Legal rights and responsibilities of citizenship 20 4. Re-examining the citizenship settlement 72 5. The social bond of citizenship 82 6. Enhancing the bond of citizenship 88 7. Involving newcomers 110 Annex A: Terms of Reference of the Review 124 Annex B: List of individuals and organisations who have contributed to the review 125 Annex C: Rules for the acquisition and loss of the different forms of British citizenship 129 Citizenship: Our Common Bond | Introduction To the Rt Hon. Gordon Brown MP 1. I am pleased to enclose my report on citizenship in accordance with your request to me. My terms of reference are at Annex A. 2. I have set out to consider what it means to be a citizen and to make proposals that enhance the meaning and significance of citizenship as the common bond that binds us together. 3. I start my report by a short history of how citizenship has developed in the UK – both as a political and as a legal concept. I set out the legal rights and responsibilities of citizens and considers how those rights and responsibilities differ from those of others who live in the UK – i.e. people living here with limited leave to remain, permanent residents, EU citizens (under EU law) and refugees (under the Refugee Convention). 4. I consider possible changes that would make the legal status of citizenship clearer, including changes to the right to vote, the category of permanent residence and the duty of allegiance owed by citizens to the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background Information on Nationality
    Historical background information on nationality Version 1.0 Page 1 of 23 Published for Home Office staff on 21 July 2017 Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 About this document................................................................................................... 4 Contacts ................................................................................................................. 4 Published ................................................................................................................ 4 British Nationality law ................................................................................................. 5 Before 1914 ................................................................................................................ 5 The position at common law ................................................................................... 5 Acquisition of British subject status by birth ........................................................ 5 Crown’s dominions .......................................................................................... 5 Extra-territorial jurisdiction ............................................................................... 5 Mandated and Trust territories ..................................................................... 6 Protectorates and protected states .............................................................. 6 Acquisition of British subject status
    [Show full text]
  • Nationality and Borders Bill Explanatory Notes
    NATIONALITY AND BORDERS BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES What these notes do These Explanatory Notes relate to the Nationality and Borders Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 6 July 2021 (Bill 141). • These Explanatory Notes have been provided by the Home Office in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. • These Explanatory Notes explain what each part of the Bill will mean in practice; provide background information on the development of policy; and provide additional information on how the Bill will affect existing legislation in this area. • These Explanatory Notes might best be read alongside the Bill. They are not, and are not intended to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. Bill 141–EN 58/2 Table of Contents Subject Page of these Notes Overview of the Bill 4 Policy background 4 New Plan for Immigration 4 Ending Anomalies in British Nationality Law 4 Illegal Migration and Reforming the Asylum System 5 Streamlining Asylum Claims and Appeals 7 Supporting Victims of Modern Slavery 8 Disrupting Criminal Networks Behind People Smuggling 8 Enforcing Removals 9 Non-legislative programme 10 Legal background 12 Territorial extent and application 16 Commentary on provisions of Bill 18 Part 1: Nationality 18 British overseas territories citizenship 18 Clause 1: Historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship 18 Clause 2: Historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship 18 Clause 3: Sections 1 and 2: related British citizenship 19 Clause 4: Period for registration of person born outside the British overseas territories 20 British citizenship 20 Clause 5: Disapplication of historical registration requirements 20 Clause 6: Citizenship where mother married to someone other than natural father 21 Powers of the Secretary of State relating to citizenship etc.
    [Show full text]
  • (Good Friday) Agreement 1998
    Proposal for legal analysis on incorporating into UK law the birthright commitment under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 June 2019 Introduction 1. One of the founding principles of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 (‘the 1998 Agreement’) was the recognition by the two Governments and all participants, on a ‘no detriment’ basis, of: the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.1 2. The Joint Committee is seeking research to identify and make recommendations on the legislative steps required to incorporate this commitment into UK nationality and immigration law. Context 3. Recognition in the 1998 Agreement, of the right to identify and be accepted as Irish or British or both, was part of a suite of equality and ‘parity of esteem’ commitments underpinning the new settlement. The birthright provision is one of several aspects of the 1998 Agreement, however, that have not led to changes in UK legislation, though the focus here is on nationality. Under section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981: (1) A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement, or in a qualifying territory on or after the appointed day, shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother is— (a) a British citizen; or (b) settled in the United Kingdom or that territory. The Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland 1998, included, at Annex B, draft legislation to amend the Irish Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slow Death of Citizenship Rights
    (2007) 18 KLJ 95–118 The Slow Death of Citizenship Rights Satvinder S Juss* It was once observed by Professor Richard B Lillich, a leading authority on international law, that the decision of the European Commission on Human Rights on the Admissibility of the East African Asians Case showed that ‘a state’s absolute right under traditional international law to decide whether to admit aliens onto its territory is becoming obsolete. Under contemporary international law the right should be deemed to be an important proviso that a state cannot exercise its right of admission in a fashion which is racially discriminatory in effect’.1 Professor Lillich was wrong. Deprivation of citizenship rights is today occurring alongside the denial of citizenship rights. Moreover, there seems to be little that anyone can do about it. States these days do not just deny admission to citizens in ways that are arbitrary and capricious (including racially so). They also have laws on their statute books which enable them to expel their citizens to other territories, with all the consequent implications this has for stability in the international system. Indeed, the doctrine of the ‘margin of appreciation’ in international and European law means that states have a much freer hand in what they do—even (or especially) where their own citizens are concerned. Yet, citizenship was historically a serious matter, much more so than the law relating to domicile. In the United Kingdom, birthright citizenship had territorial underpinnings. This was the basic law of the land for over 700 years. In the mid-20th century a process of denudation of citizenship rights began, spanning a number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Nationality Policy: General Information – All British Nationals
    Nationality Policy: general information – all British nationals Version 2.0 This guidance covers cross cutting elements of Nationality applications Page 1 of 35 Published for Home Office staff on 19 February 2021 Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 About this guidance .................................................................................................... 4 Contacts ................................................................................................................. 4 Publication .............................................................................................................. 4 Changes from last version of this guidance ............................................................ 4 Nationality law ............................................................................................................ 5 Birth on a ship or an aircraft ....................................................................................... 6 Nationality applications ............................................................................................... 8 Appropriate receiving authorities ............................................................................ 8 Persons with St Christopher and Nevis connections ........................................... 8 Persons with Hong Kong connections ................................................................. 9 Date of application .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]