nationals of that nationality unilaterally. Oppenheim, 9th Edition, Volume I, Parts 2-4, Page 878 takes the view that there would not seem to be anything contrary to international law in a State depriving its national of his nationality on grounds laid down in the law of that State, such as voting in political elections in a foreign State. It may be that Chinese law provides that, for example, committing an act which is harmful to the State results in a national being deprived of his nationality.
5.
It seems from the views quoted in paragraph 4 above that it is difficult to argue that the Chinese action in making Han stateless is contrary to customary international law. One argument, however might be that Han has been discriminated against on political grounds. This is a ground which Weis considers is an exception to the general rule. While however we suspect that this is the case, can we prove it? There is also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15; under this provision it is necessary to show that Han has been arbitarily deprived of his nationality. This depends in turn whether there is any provision under Chinese law entitling the Chinese to deprive Han of his nationality. If there is no such provision, or if there is and the CPG has not complied with its requirements (eg on procedural matters, such as allowing Han a hearing before a tribunal before stripping him of his nationality,) it would be possible to argue that he has been arbitarily deprived of his nationality.
6. In conclusion unless it can be shown that Han was discriminated against on political grounds which is likely but difficult to prove, or that he was arbitrarily deprived of his nationality which again is likely but depends on whether or not Chinese law was observed, it cannot firmly be said that the Chinese have acted contrary to customary international law. No more can be said than that the Chinese may have acted contrary to Chinese law. The Hong Kong Government have pointed out that the decision may infringe international law; I have reached the same conclusion. Hong Kong Government should not go further in public statements than this.
Вобщ
Shelagh Brooks.
Shelagh Brooks (Miss)
Legal Advisers
270 3621 K269