(a) Examine the definition, meaning of 'Nationality' and modes of acquisition of nationality. Also, make a distinction between…

(a) Nationality: concept, modes of acquisition and citizenship

Under international law, nationality represents the juridical bond between an individual and a sovereign state. In the Nottebohm Case (1955), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) defined nationality as a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests, and sentiments, giving rise to reciprocal rights and duties. It operates externally as the primary condition enabling a state to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its nationals. Under Article 1 of the Hague Convention on the Conflict of Nationality Laws (1930), each State determines under its own law who its nationals are, but other States need recognise that law only so far as it is consistent with international law; Article 15 of the UDHR declares that everyone has the right to a nationality.

International law recognizes five primary modes of acquiring nationality:

1. Birth: through jus soli (place of birth) or jus sanguinis (bloodline/descent).
2. Naturalization: an act of formal grant upon fulfillment of municipal statutory criteria.
3. Cession: where inhabitants of a transferred territory acquire the nationality of the acquiring state.
4. Subjugation (annexation): incorporation of territory through conquest resulting in imposed nationality.
5. Registration, resumption or option: acquisition by specified categories (such as spouses of nationals) through a simpler process, reinstatement of a lost nationality, or choice of nationality after a change of territory.

In India, the Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for citizenship by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and incorporation of territory (Sections 3 to 7), and for loss by renunciation, termination and deprivation (Sections 8 to 10). The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, with rules notified in 2024, eased naturalisation for certain non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and in In re Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (2024) a Constitution Bench upheld the special provision for migrants to Assam.

Nationality differs fundamentally from citizenship. Nationality is a status governed by international law determining an individual’s international allegiance and entitlement to protection against foreign states. Citizenship is a creature of domestic municipal law, governing civil and political rights (such as voting and holding public office). All citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are necessarily citizens with full political franchise. In India, the Constitution (Articles 5–11) and the Citizenship Act, 1955 regulate citizenship, not nationality. The Supreme Court recognised this conceptual divide in State Trading Corporation of India v. Commercial Tax Officer (1963), holding that a corporation may have a nationality but is not a 'citizen' under Part II of the Constitution, which concerns only natural persons.

(b) Reservations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

Under Article 2(1)(d) of the VCLT, 1969, a reservation is a unilateral statement made by a state when signing, ratifying, or acceding to a treaty, purporting to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions. Articles 19 to 23 codify the balance between sovereign consent and treaty integrity, embodying the flexible 'compatibility' standard articulated in the Reservations to the Genocide Convention Advisory Opinion (1951), which replaced the older rule that a reservation needed the consent of all parties.

Under Article 19, a state may formulate a reservation unless: (a) it is prohibited by the treaty, (b) the treaty provides that only specified reservations may be made, or (c) the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Reservations differ from interpretative declarations, which merely clarify a state’s understanding without excluding treaty obligations. Under Article 20, a reservation expressly authorised by the treaty needs no acceptance; where the limited number of parties shows that the treaty must apply as a whole, all parties must accept; a reservation to the constituent instrument of an international organisation needs the organ's acceptance; and a State that raises no objection within twelve months is treated as having accepted it (Article 20(5)). Reservations must be in writing (Article 23) and may be withdrawn at any time (Article 22). For example, India's declaration on Article 1 of the ICCPR, which operates much like a reservation, states that the right of self-determination applies only to peoples under foreign domination; several States objected to it.

The legal effects under Articles 20 and 21 depend on the reactions of other contracting states:

1. Acceptance: Modifies the reserved provisions reciprocally between the reserving and accepting states (Article 21(1)).
2. Objection without opposing entry into force: The provisions to which the reservation relates do not apply between the two states to the extent of the reservation (Article 21(3)).
3. Objection with opposition: The entire treaty fails to enter into force between the two states (Article 20(4)(b)). In human rights treaties, international monitoring bodies increasingly assert that invalid reservations are severable, preserving the treaty’s application (UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 24, 1994; Belilos v. Switzerland, European Court of Human Rights, 1988); the ILC's Guide to Practice on Reservations (2011) takes a middle position.

(c) Non-discrimination in international trade law and WTO dispute settlement

The core of multilateral trade rests on two non-discrimination pillars:

1. Most Favoured Nation (MFN, GATT Article I): Any advantage, favour, or privilege granted to products originating in or destined for any country must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like products of all other WTO members.
2. National Treatment (GATT Article III): Imported products, once they have cleared customs, cannot be subjected to internal taxes or regulations less favourable than those applied to like domestic products.

A WTO member cannot unilaterally impose different reciprocal tariffs on other members, as Article I mandates unconditional MFN treatment, and Article II binds maximum tariff concessions. However, differential tariffs are permissible under recognized exceptions:

1. Regional Trade Agreements and Customs Unions satisfying GATT Article XXIV.
2. Preferential tariffs for developing and least-developed nations under the 1979 Enabling Clause (Generalized System of Preferences).
3. Tariff renegotiations conducted pursuant to GATT Article XXVIII.
4. Trade remedies and exceptions, such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties (Article VI), safeguards (Article XIX), and the general and security exceptions (Articles XX and XXI).

The issue became real in 2025, when the United States imposed country-specific 'reciprocal' tariffs. Such tariffs raise duties above bound rates and discriminate between members, so they are hard to reconcile with Articles I and II; the United States has relied on national security, but the panel in Russia – Traffic in Transit (2019) held that Article XXI is not wholly self-judging, and panels in 2022 rejected the US security defence of its steel and aluminium tariffs.

An affected member state can file a complaint with the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) under Article 23 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) and GATT Article XXIII for violation of MFN or tariff bindings. The mechanism provides for consultations, panel establishment, Appellate Body review and, if a losing member does not comply, authorisation of retaliation (as in EC – Bananas III and EC – Hormones). China and Canada requested consultations against the 2025 US tariffs. But since December 2019 the Appellate Body has lacked members, so a losing party can 'appeal into the void' and block a binding result; the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement is a partial substitute, but neither India nor the United States has joined it. The right to complain therefore exists in law, but its practical value is limited, which is why many members have preferred to negotiate bilateral deals.