Faculty of Science, Technology and Medicine
Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance
Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust
Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine
Luxembourg Centre for Contemporary and Digital History
Luxembourg Centre for European Law
Luxembourg Centre for Socio-Environmental Systems
Dr. Javier Garcia Olmedo, Research Scientist within the Department of Law at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance, has been recognised for his legal scholarship and reinterpretation of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) Nottebohm judgement of 6 April 1955. Olmedo’s article, published in the Asian Journal of International Law from Cambridge University Press, “In Fairness to Nottebohm: Nationality in an Age of Globalization,” won the Asian Society of International Law 2025 Young Scholar Prize.
‟ This prize marks a significant professional milestone. It shows that careful engagement with classic cases can generate meaningful perspectives on current debates about citizenship, migration, and state responsibility. The prize affirms a clear direction for future research—developing principled frameworks that help international law remain credible, equitable, and responsive to a changing world”
Research Scientist
Contributing to a reignited debate
In the Nottebohm case, Friedrich Nottebohm, a German businessman in Guatemala, acquired Liechtenstein citizenship during World War II to avoid enemy alien status and access diplomatic protection. The ICJ ruled that Guatemala was not obliged to recognise this nationality because it lacked genuine social or economic ties. The decision was not arbitrary; it applied established principles pragmatically to prevent abuse.
Olmedo explains that the Nottebohm approach—prioritising substance over form—remains relevant even today, and especially in current debates about Citizenship by Investment (CBI), or “golden passport,” schemes. These programmes allow wealthy individuals to purchase citizenship in exchange for investment, often with minimal ties to the country. The European Commission has invoked Nottebohm to argue against these practices, claiming nationality should not be sold without a “genuine link” to the nation. These arguments have reignited academic criticism of the Nottebohm decision.
A living precedent
Olmedo’s analysis fits within his broader research on international investment law and EU citizenship law. By reinterpreting Nottebohm as a decision rooted in fairness and functionality—not in outdated nationalism—Olmedo connects historical international law with contemporary global citizenship debates. His work demonstrates how older doctrines can continue to inform regulation in a highly mobile, globalised world.
Olmedo’s approach stands out because he challenges the long-dominant view that Nottebohm distorted international law. Instead of treating it as an anomaly, he reframes it as a coherent, principled decision addressing the misuse of nationality. In his interpretation, Liechtenstein’s rapid grant of citizenship to Nottebohm was an abuse of its sovereign right to naturalise, as it harmed another state’s legitimate interests. Furthermore, Olmedo modernises the case by showing its “double dimension”: it can both exclude abusive nationality claims and include individuals whose genuine ties deserve recognition. He extends this reasoning to contemporary contexts—EU citizenship, investor-state arbitration, and human rights law—making Nottebohm a living precedent rather than a relic.
Citizenship is not a commodity
Nottebohm is relevant because it addresses how we define belonging and identity in a globalised world. Nationality is not just a legal label; it reflects real connections and responsibilities within a community. Treating citizenship as a commodity risks increasing inequality and eroding trust between people and states. Understanding the case helps citizens see that nationality determines both rights and obligations, shaping how justice operates across borders.
Olmedo urges policymakers to preserve the integrity of nationality by ensuring that citizenship laws are grounded in genuine social and legal ties. The Nottebohm judgment offers a “substance over form” principle—nationality should have real substance, not just legal appearance. This approach can guide the regulation of CBI schemes, investor–state disputes, and other areas where nationality is instrumentalised. By maintaining meaningful standards, governments can strengthen international trust, prevent abuse, and uphold the democratic value that citizenship represents a shared commitment, not a commercial transaction.