Sunday 17 May 2015

Nationality, domicile and citizenship



Nationality, domicile and citizenship
1)      Nationality:
a.      Means;
The term nationality in law signifies the status of an individual belonging to a particular state.
b.      Definition;
Fenwick defines it as a bond which unites a person to a given state which constitutes his membership in the particular state, which gives him a claim to the protection of that state and which subjects him to the obligation created by the laws of that state.
The basis of nationality is the membership of a particular community.
c.       International importance of the nationality;
Nationality is often determined by the state laws. It is a link through which an individual can enjoy the benefits of international law.
Starke state its importance as under;
1)      Protection of rights of diplomatic agents
2)      Prevention of offences
3)      Loyalty to particular state
4)      State can refuse to extradite its own nationals
5)      Enemy character is determined on the basis of nationality
6)      Jurisdiction of state over their nationals

d.      Modes of acquisition and loss of nationality;

a)      Acquisition of nationality
1.      By birth;
That is nationality is conferred at birth by the fact either of birth within the state territory (jus soli) or by the descent from, one of its nationals (jus sanguinis).
According to jus soli the birth occurs is the decisive factor and according to the jus sanguinins and the parentage.
2.       By naturalization;
It may take place by means of marriage, legitimization, option, domicile, or appointment as government officials and on the application.
According to the keelson;
Naturalization is the administrative fact of the state conferring citizenship upon alien.
3.      By registration of resumption;
Those individuals who were natural born subjects of the state but who lost their original nationality on account of some cause may get back it on fulfilling certain conditions.
4.      By descent;
It is on the basis of nationality of parents, this is also known as jus sanguinins.
UK and USA also recognize this principle.
5.       By subjugation;
A person may acquire nationality through subjugation after the conquest. When the part of a state is subjugated by another state the inhabitants of that state become the nationals of the later state.
6.       By cession;
When a part of the state is ceded, all nationals of the former state become nationals of the later state.

b)     Loss of nationality
1.      By release;
For it, it is necessary to submit an application for the loss of nationality by release.
2.      By deprivation;
Some laws of the state, provides that if a national of its state seeks employment of government of another state without its permission, he will be deprived of his nationality.
3.      Long  residence abroad;
State laws of many states contain provisions in this connection that if a person resides for a long period abroad, his nationality ends.
4.      By renunciation;
When a person acquires a nationality of more than one state, he have to renounce his nationality of one state.
5.      Substitution;
As to this principle, a person may get nationality of state in place of the nationality of another state, and whereby he loses his nationality of one state and acquires the other state.

2)      Citizenship:
The word citizenship is often used in municipal law.
Definition;
Generally the national who enjoys full political and civil rights is called a citizen.
It also means the state of being a native of a city and enjoying the freedom and privileges of the city, in which he resides.
It is intimately connected with the civil rights.
Refer:
It refers to the political status of a person.
3)      Difference between nationality and citizenship:
There is a great difference between nationality and citizenship.
·         By nationality we mean that legal relationship which exists between the nation and the individual, on the other hand, citizenship denotes the relationship between the person and the state law.
·         By nationality the civil and natural rights of a person may come under international law and by citizenship it is the sole concern of the state law.
·         It is possible that all the citizens may possess the nationality of a particular state, but it is not possible that all the nationals may be the citizens of that particular state.
·         Citizens possess full political rights in a state, but a national may not possess such rights.

4)      Domicile:

Mean and Definition;
Domicile is an attribute of nationality and denotes a person’s place of residence.
And,
It is the relationship between the individual and locality, where he has his permanent home.

5)      Difference between nationality and domicile:
·         Domicile denotes the residence of the person, while nationality denotes relationship of man with his nation.
·         Consequently a person may acquire nationality through domicile.

6)      Difference between domicile and citizenship:
·         Citizenship has reference to the political status of a person and,
·         Domicile to his civil rights.

7)      Conclusion:
So, by through the above mentioned writings it is clearly understandable the three terms, nationality, domicile and the citizenship and not same as often a laymen consider these are same.
A student of law must not have these confusions in his mind. And at the end I would like to quote;
Law must be on the sleeves of a Lawyer  

Saturday 16 May 2015

Relationship between International and Municipal Law



What is the relationship between International and Municipal Law?

Introduction:

Apparently there seems no relationship between international law and municipal law.
Bet if examined with philosophical eve then it would be seemed that there is a relationship between both the legal orders.

The test as to observe the relationship between the two systems may be conducted in case of a conflict between the two legal orders. The situation would arise that what law shall be applicable to the case in question.

Relationship between Municipal Law and International Law;

As to relationship between municipal law and international law there are many theories the most prominent one of which may be discussed as under:-

1)      Dualistic Theory:

According to the followers of this theory Municipal law and International law are two separate, distinct and self-contained legal orders, independent from each other. Both the orders enjoy its own spheres and each one is the supreme in its own sphere.

They accepts the separate and independent existence because, according to them, there are following points of distinctions between both the orders:

1.      Sources:
The sources of both the systems are quite different. Municipal law has its source in the land legislature, while International law has its sources in treaties, entered into by different sovereign states, international customs and general principals of law etc.

2.      Subject:
The subjects of both the systems are different. As for as, Municipal is concerned that is an order of the sovereign of the state addressed to the individuals, while at the other hand the subjects of the international law are the states, and to the lesser extent other actors including individuals. In other words Municipal law is between the individuals and international law is between the sovereign states.

3.      Principles:
Municipal law is the aggregate of the principles of state legislature, while International law is obeyed because of principle “Pacta sunt servanda.” At the other hand, municipal law has a legal sanctity while International is obeyed because states are morally bound to observe.

4.      Dynamism:
It is a unique characteristic of International law that it continuously changes and expands while municipal law remains limited. So, on the basis of the following points of distinction between the two legal systems the supporters of Dualistic Theory contend that they both are separate and distinct orders having separate spheres of application.

2)       Monistic Theory:  

According to the followers of this theory International law is not distinct and autonomous body of law, rather there exists only one sets of legal system i.e. the domestic legal order.

They have criticized the view adopted by Dualists, and also rejected the alleged distinction between Municipal law and International law as pointed out by the dualists.

According to them both the international law and municipal law are related with the same legal system. And it is not possible to treat them severely.

3)      Harmonization Theory:  

Dualistic and Monistic both are the extreme views. They both are opposite to each other. But the Harmonization theory impliedly accepts the distinction between the two legal orders but they contend that the differences or conflicts between them may be harmonized.

They are of the view that both the systems have been framed ultimately for the conduct of human behavior, so both of them are supreme in that sense. As for as the conflicts are concerned they may be harmonized and should be harmonized.

The areas where both the systems are contradicted should be brought to test of harmonization. But such contradiction shall not mean that one of them is void. They exerts a duty on the judges of both municipal courts as well as international courts, to point out those points at which the two systems are collide with each other.

According to them the two systems are not like a gear, but like two wheels revolving upon the same axis. According to this theory, neither Municipal law nor International law has supremacy over each other.

Conclusion:

It may be concluded that as for as, the Dualistic and Monistic Theories are concerned they are primitive and traditional, due to which they are most popular. However, the Harmonization Theory is comparatively modern.

Although no theory can be said to be appropriate, but Harmonization Theory appears to be better because it has regarded that International law, as well as, Municipal law have been so framed for the conduct of the human being, so there should be no contradiction between them, and if any contradiction exist, that should be harmonized, either by courts or the legislature of the concerned state.