Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
USESANDUNDERUSES...
25
discriminationwithinthemeaningofArt.1ofICERD.Legallyspeaking,nationalityis
indeednotidenticaltoKbeingofnationalorigin”.Nevertheless,andasreflectedinthe
travauxpréparatoiresofthisprovision,stateswerefarfromspeakingwithonevoiceon
whattheyperceivedKnationalorigin”tobe.
Furthermore,theGeneralRecommendationofCERDno.30of200550impliesin
itsparagraph4thatdilerencesintreatmentbasedoncitizenshiporimmigrationwill
constitutediscriminationifthecriteriaforsuchdilerentiation,judgedinthelightof
theobjectivesandpurposesoftheConvention,arenotappliedpursuanttoalegitimate
aimandarenotproportionaltotheachievementofthisaim.51Teminorityjudgesin
theQatarv.UAEOrderonprovisionalmeasureswerenotpersuadedbythisview.52
However,itishardtodenythatthatdiscriminatingbetweenonegroupofforeigners
andanothergroupofforeignersinfactconstitutesanactofdiscriminationbasedon
nationalorigin(prohibitedunderArt.1(1)ofICERD),andassuchshouldbedis-
tinguishedfromdilerentiatingbetweencitizensandnon-citizens(excludedfromthe
scopeofICERDunderthesecondparagraphofArt.1(2)ofthetreaty).Alongthese
lines,whenassessingthelegalsituationofQatarinationalswhowereexpelledoratleast
obligedtoleavetheterritoryoftheUAE,itseemsnecessarytocomparethemeasures
adoptedtowardsthemvis-à-visthesituationofotherforeignnationals.
TeCourt’sfindingofprimafaciejurisdictionintheUkrainev.RussianFederation
andtheQatarv.UAEcasesbeingoneofthebasesfororderingprovisionalmeasures
underArt.41oftheStatuteoftheICJcouldberegardedasasignthattheCourt
mightleantowardsabroaderandmoresystemicinterpretationofKnationalorigin”
asagroundsofprohibiteddiscrimination.Itwouldberegrettableifthecriterionof
citizenshipdictatedwhetherornotapersoncanbenefitfromtheguaranteesenshrined
inICERD,notwithstandingthestates’powerstoapplyKdistinctions,exclusions,
restrictionsorpreferences”tocitizensvis-à-visnon-citizensunderArt.1(2)ofthe
Convention.
Teaboveconsiderationsgiverisetoamoregeneralreflection:whileitisfully
understandablethatstatesstandupindefenceoftheirnationals’rightsandforthis
purposeinitiateinternationalproceduresbasedonICERDprovisions,avigilant
observerofinternationalrelationswouldhavelittledifcultyinseeingthecasesbrought
totheICJunderArt.22ofICERDasreflectionsofbroaderpoliticalandlegalconflicts
betweentheapplicantandrespondentstates.Tequestioncouldreasonablybeasked
whethertheproceedingsattheICJarenotjustKside-elects”oftheinabilitytotackle
Kactual”problemsunderpinningthepoliticalinter-staterelationsbetweenthestates.
However,evenifthismightsometimesbethecaseitshouldnotdissuadeusfrom
recognizingthatstatesarefullyentitledtoaddressinternationalbodiesindefenceof
50SeeGeneralRecommendationNo.30ondiscriminationagainstnon-citizens,adoptedonthesixty-
fifthsessionofCERD,availableatwww.ohchr.org.
51Ibidem.
52SeetheJointDeclarationofJudgesTomka,GajaandGevorgiantotheICJOrderforprovisional
measuresintheQatarv.UAEcase,para.5.