{"id":22193,"date":"2025-11-06T09:18:20","date_gmt":"2025-11-06T08:18:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/fdef-en\/?post_type=news&p=22193"},"modified":"2025-11-06T09:32:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-06T08:32:41","slug":"dr-javier-garcia-olmedo-contributes-to-the-citizenship-by-investment-debate-with-award-winning-article","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/www.uni.lu\/fdef-en\/news\/dr-javier-garcia-olmedo-contributes-to-the-citizenship-by-investment-debate-with-award-winning-article\/","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Javier Garcia Olmedo contributes to the citizenship by investment debate with award-winning article"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

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\u2019s (ICJ) Nottebohm judgement of 6 April 1955. Olmedo\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n \u201f<\/span>\n 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\u2014developing principled frameworks that help international law remain credible, equitable, and responsive to a changing world\u201d\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n \n\"\"\n <\/figure><\/div>\n\n
\n

Javier Garcia Olmedo<\/p>\n\n\n

Research Scientist<\/p>\n\n

\n \n \n View profile<\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/use><\/svg> <\/a>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/figure>\n <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n
\n

Contributing to a reignited debate<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olmedo explains that the Nottebohm approach\u2014prioritising substance over form\u2014remains relevant even today, and especially in current debates about Citizenship by Investment (CBI), or \u201cgolden passport,\u201d 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 \u201cgenuine link\u201d to the nation. These arguments have reignited academic criticism of the Nottebohm decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A living precedent<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2014not in outdated nationalism\u2014Olmedo 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Olmedo\u2019s 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\u2019s rapid grant of citizenship to Nottebohm was an abuse of its sovereign right to naturalise, as it harmed another state\u2019s legitimate interests. Furthermore, Olmedo modernises the case by showing its \u201cdouble dimension\u201d: it can both exclude abusive nationality claims and include individuals whose genuine ties deserve recognition. He extends this reasoning to contemporary contexts\u2014EU citizenship, investor-state arbitration, and human rights law\u2014making Nottebohm a living precedent rather than a relic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citizenship is not a commodity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201csubstance over form\u201d principle\u2014nationality should have real substance, not just legal appearance. This approach can guide the regulation of CBI schemes, investor\u2013state 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n