Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Chapter VI. Nationality. A plea for Reform. Paper read at a Committee on Nationality appointed by the International Law Association at 2 King's Bench Walk, Temple, London on February 24th 1922
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
— 41 —
more reliable witnesses, and these certificates should have the character
of passports enabling the holder to reside in the country issuing them
and to travel in other countries after obtaining the necessary visas from
the representatives of those countries they intend to visit.
Banishment of citizens from their own country is a practice which
leads to a state of affairs entirely incompatible with the point of view
of harmonious relations between the States of the world. An example
may be quoted of the Russian Penal Code (Art. 325), which sets forth
that „any person, having gone abroad, who takes service there without
the authority of the Government, or who becomes naturalised, incurs
loss of all his civil rights and perpetual banishment". Many states
which were created by the Versailles Peace Conference, have adopted
this obsolete idea for no other reason than the convenience of shifting
the burden of responsibility for their own nationals to countries
wherever these unhappy people may be finding temporary shelter.
However, it may certainly be laid down as an axiom that no state can
free itself from the obligation to deal with its own subjects. For
instance, Latvia considers herself at liberty to expel some of her own
citizens of non-Lettish racial origin and to forbid others to return
home, from abroad. Thus she is keeping out of the country many of
her citizens who, though of non-Lettish descent — have, with their
ancestors, lived for centuries as natives of the country. This is a crime
against nationality and a breach of international law. For the sake of
those principles which the League of Nations has undertaken to defend,
it is important that each lawful citizen of Latvia should be allowed to
return to his or her native land, to live there unmolested and in peace.
The laws determining nationality passed by the Latvian
Constituent Assembly on September 5th, 1919, and October 7th, 1921, do not
acknowledge this principle in all its compass. Only such persons may
apply for Lettish citizenship: — • . r ^
(a) Who up to August 1st 1914, had been living on Latvian
territory at least within the last twenty years: .
(b) Who up to 1881 had their domicile in Latvia:
(c) Who are the descendants of those under categories (b) and (c),
provided that all those under these categories were Russian subjects
at the moment of Latvia’s separation from Russia and who at that
time had their domicile on Latvian territory.
Thus, all those of Baltic, Jewish or Russian origin .who, at the
approach of the German army of occupation in the Baltic Provinces,
had been transported by the Russian Government into the interior of
the Empire, where they were forced to stay until the conclusion of
peace, should not be considered to have forfeited their right to Lettish
citizenship. But the Latvian authorities refused them admittance when
they attempted to return to their own native land. Not one of the
21 Jews who had been evacuated from Latvia to the Province of
Tche-ljabinsk, were given permission to re-enter Latvia; out of 154, who were
sent to the province of Saratow, 151 were turned away from the Lettish
frontier; out of 81 evacuated to Moscow, 75 were not allowed to return
to Latvia, and none at all were allowed to go back from Polotsk,
Vitebsk, and so forth. Banishment has also bean inflicted on small
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>