Michel Erpelding
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.