MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W259213304

Shelter from the Storm: Rethinking Diplomatic Protection of Dual Nationals in Modern International Law

2005· article· en· W259213304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Craig Forcese

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law review · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawTorturePrisonTerrorismPolitical scienceNationalityDeportationForeign nationalGovernment (linguistics)Human rightsImmigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION In 2003 and 2004, Canada's foreign policy establishment was rocked by the detention, torture, and, in one case, murder of Canadian citizens by foreign governments. On June 23, 2003, Iranian authorities arrested Zahra Kazemi, a fifty-four year-old photojournalist with dual Canadian-Iranian nationality, in Iran.1 Branded a spy after photographing a local prison, Kazemi was beaten into a coma by her interrogators,2 causing her to suffer a brain hemorrhage.3 She died in Iran just weeks later.4 In response to the resulting protests from Canada, Iran asserted that because Eazemi was born in Iran and remained an Iranian national under Iranian law, Canada had no business intervening in the affair.5 Hard on the heels of the Kazemi case, at the beginning of October 2003, Canadian citizen Maher Arar returned to Canada, after being detained in a Syrian military prison for more than a year on unsupported terrorism suspicions.6 In 2002 Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian national, was returning to Canada, via the United States, from a holiday in Tunisia. U.S. authorities arrested Arar during his stopover in New York on suspicion of terrorist connections and deported him to Jordan.7 He was then removed (apparently by Jordanian officials) to Syria, the country of his birth.8 While in Syria, Syrian agents allegedly tortured Arar,9 sparking an on-going inquiry by the Canadian government into Canada's role in Arar's deportation from the United States.10 At least one former U.S. government official has defended the U.S. deportation as proper, arguing that the United States was free to deport Arar to any state of which he was a citizen, including Syria.11 One Canadian official noted, however, that during Arar's detention in Syria, the Syrian government was not obligated to permit Canadian consular officials to visit him.12 These two cases-as well as the case of dual Canadian-U.K. citizen William Sampson, who was detained and tortured for two and one-half years in Saudi Arabia13-have sparked enormous controversy in Canada. Commentators have repeatedly cited these cases as new evidence of Canada's flagging influence in the international community and the failure of its soft power foreign policy.14 More broadly, however, the Kazemi and Arar cases raise another issue. Both Kazemi and Arar were dual nationals, which is at least part of the reason they were vulnerable to abuses by Iran and Syria respectively. Their plights therefore raise the question: Can a government adequately protect its citizens who are also dual nationals of other countries? Some observers have concluded that, as a practical, matter, the answer to this question is no,15 and that dual nationals from all but the most powerful countries are without protection while visiting the states from which they may have emigrated years before. The legal response to the question, however, is fraught with greater ambiguity. This Article discusses what, if anything, states may do to protect dual nationals under international law. To this end, Part II examines international legal rules concerning the treatment of aliens and the concept of diplomatic protection, focusing on state espousal of claims stemming from injuries inflicted on nationals. Part III next explores the evolution of the concept of nationality at international law, focusing on the notion of nationality. Part IV then analyzes how these rules of protection and effective nationality apply to dual nationals. This Article concludes that traditional interpretations of international law favor a non-resporisibility doctrine, which bars a state from asserting protection on behalf of a citizen against states whose nationality that person also possesses. Despite this conclusion, customary international law is not now (and arguably never was) so restrictive. Instead, current international law permits a state to espouse claims against an injuring state so long as the injured person has a better claim to the effective nationality of the espousing state. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.052
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œGeorge Washington international law reviewSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207