Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T07:30:51.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Option of Nationality in Soviet Treaty Practice, 1917–1924

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

George Ginsburgs
George Ginsburgs*
Affiliation:
State University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Option of nationality in its various forms played an important rôle in the international law and diplomacy of the second half of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of the twentieth. The concept undoubtedly reached a peak in popularity and demand in connection with the territorial settlements arising from the first World War, only to fall into disuse in subsequent years. The heyday of the idea of option in general international law and relations in the years following 1918 also coincided with the high point of the usage of the principle in Soviet diplomatic practice. Indeed, perhaps in the diplomatic repertoire of no other nation was option of nationality as frequently resorted to in this or any other comparable period as in the Soviet treaty arrangements of 1917–1924. Option in all its various juridical expressions occupied from the very first an extremely important place in the legal and political acts of the Soviet regime in its search for a modus vivendi with Russia’s neighbors. What is more, the experience of these first years firmly established option as an active and operative principle of Soviet foreign policy, in which capacity it has remained until the very present, whereas in the rest of the international community option has but rarely been revived since World War I.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , October 1961 , pp. 919 - 946
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 In this study only option of citizenship prescribed by clauses of inter-state agreements, or arising from such clauses, will be considered. In the first years of Soviet rule, option of nationality was also, on occasion, unilaterally permitted in a number of domestic enactments adopted by various Soviet Republics. Although similar to option in form and terminology, the latter measures actually represented permits of collective expatriation or simplified procedures for group naturalization and constituted rules of intra-state legal significance only, thus being quite different from option as a concept of jus gentium.

Domestic provisions on option were envisaged in the Ukrainian decree of March 1.1, 1919, Art. 10 of the Constitution of the Far Eastern Soviet Republic, and the Georgian decree of July 11, 1922. See V. V. Egorev, G. N. Lashkevich, M. A. Plotkin, B. D. Bozenblyum, Zakonodatelstvo i mezhdunarodnye dogovory Soyuza SSR i soyuznykh respublik о pravovom polozhenii inostrannykh fizicheskikh i yuridichekikh lits (Legislation and International Treaties of the U.S.S.R. and Union Republics on the Legal Status of Foreign Physical and Juridical Persons) 54-57 (Moscow, 1926) (hereafter referred to as Zakonodatelstvo).

2 1 Dokumenty vneshnei politiki SSSR (Documents on the Foreign Policy of the U.S.S.R.) 437-445 (Moscow, 1957) (hereafter referred to as DVP) ; text in English in 1 Shapiro (ed.), Soviet Treaty Series 23-25 (Washington, D. C, 1950).

3 Sobranie uzakonenu i rasporyazhenii rabochego i krestyanskogo pravitelstva RSFSR (Collection of Laws and Directives of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Government of the R.S.F.S.R.), 1918, No. 50, Item 577 (hereafter referred to as SU).

4 If petitioner submitted evidence that failure to tile option request was due to serious circumstances beyond his control, the NKVD was empowered to process such option even if it was filed after the expiration of the official deadline.

5 SU, 1918, No. 54, Item 601. The language of this section of the instructions seems to have been faulty, for it is precisely those who did not have a “permanent residence” in the B.S.F.S.B., but did have one in the areas over which Moscow renounced its sovereignty by virtue of the Brest treaty, who were entitled to initiate denaturalization proceedings in accordance with the NKVD ‘s regulations.

6 The one month originally allowed by the July 13 decree in which to exercise option rights was subsequently prolonged: by the decree of Aug. 14, 1918 (STI, 1918, No. 59, Item 653), the deadline was postponed for another month following expiration of the initial time limit; by the decree of Sept. 21, 1918 (ibid., No. 70, Item 755), the option period was extended until further notice; and, finally, by the decree of Oct. 22, 1918 (ibid., No. .78, Item 824), the cut-off date was set at Nov. 16, 1918. However, the annulment of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk by the Soviet Government on Nov. 13, 1918, also put an end to the decree of July 13.

7 As a result, the option in question amounted in fact to only a semi-option, not an actual possibility to choose between two citizenships stricto sensu, a right which it would have been ultra vires for any national jurisdiction to have created in any event, but rather an offer to divest oneself of one citizenship in favor of a potential, though very probable, acquisition of another nationality (in this instance, one not yet even in existence). Tacitly, of course, the German Government presumably was under a definite obligation to assure the immediate naturalization of those persons who had renounced their Eussian identity and emigrated to the areas severed from Russia by the Brest Treaty and then under the de facto administration of the German authorities.

8 For a classification and analysis of the various types of option known to international law by the end of the first World War, see Kunz, J. L., “L’Option de Nationalité,” 31 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 112-172, particularly 112-132 (1930, I)Google Scholar.

9 2 Klyuchnikov and Sabanin, Mezhdunarodnaya politika noveishego vremeni v dogovorakh, notabh i deklaratsiyakħ (Bečení International Politics in Treaties, Notes and Declarations) 142-144 (Moscow, 1926).

10 SU, 1918, No. 68, Item 736.

11 The primacy of denaturalization was further underlined by the decree ‘s stipulation that persons attempting to leave for the Ukraine who submitted Ukrainian national passports issued by the Ukrainian consular representatives in Eussia were not to be recognized as Ukrainian citizens by any pubUc agency of the Eussian Eepublic unless they also had in their possession valid certificates of denaturalization from the NKVD.

12 However, Art. 4 also stated that petitions could be filed after the official deadline given sufficient reason for failure to abide by the time limit.

13 The formation of a Soviet Government of the Ukraine shortly thereafter caused all the agreements between the B.S.F.S.R. and the former Ukrainian state to be annulled by the Kremlin, including the Armistice Agreement and the decree of Sept. 10. See the Resolution of the Narkomindel of Dec. 24, 1918, in 2 Klyuchnikov and Sabanin, op. cit. 209.

14 This applies only to the legal status of those individuals in the B.S.F.S.R. who opted for Ukrainian nationality and those persons in the Ukraine who failed to register with Soviet consular representatives (although the text of the decree gave no deadline for such registration). Persons in the E.S.F.S.B. who failed to opt for Ukrainian allegiance ipso facto continued to remain Soviet citizens, and those who registered in the Ukraine with the E.S.F.S.B. ‘s consuls retained Soviet citizenship, thus implying either that the effect of the registration was retroactive (the more probable interpretation) or that Eussian citizenship was lost by them only after the expiration of the time limit for registration (unspecified). In the latter case, since the right of registration was given to all former Russian nationals in the Ukraine, that state would have been inhabited only by Russian citizens and foreigners until the right of registration lapsed.

15 It is interesting to note that initially the distinction between Russian and Ukrainian citizenship was maintained even by the Soviet Ukrainian authorities. Thus, when retreating from Ukrainian to Russian soil in March, 1918, the Soviet Ukrainian Government issued a declaration which stated, inter alia, that the troops of the Ukrainian Republic which were to cross the Russian border “enjoy the rights of civilians of the Ukrainian Republic . . . inasmuch, of course, as they themselves will not express the wish to be accepted and will not be accepted into the citizenship of the Russian Soviet Federation. ...” 2 Antonov-Ovseenko, Zapiski о grazhdanskoi voine (Notes on the Civil War) 263-264 (Moscow, 1928). It is only after the annulment of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the final consolidation of Soviet power in the Ukraine that the differentiation between the two citizenships was tacitly abandoned.

16 Izvestia, Feb. 8, 1920; 1 Sbornik deistvuyushchikh dogovorov, soglashenii i kon-ventsii, zaklyuehennykh BSFSB s inostrannymi gosudarstvami (Collection of Treaties, Agreements and Conventions Concluded by the E.S.F.S.B. with Foreign States and in Force) 100-116 (hereafter referred to as SDD).

17 J. L. Kunz, loc. cit. 163-167. That this procedure in the case of the Baltic states did not operate on strictly ethnic or racial grounds is evidenced by the fact that the “registration” in question was also used to determine the appurtenance of the so-called “Baltic German” residents of Estonia to the Estonian national community. See Krylov, S. B., “Optatsiya i plebistsit i nachalo samoopredeleniya v sovetskikh mezhduna-rodnykh dogovorakh” (Option and Plebiscite and the Principle of Self-Determination in Soviet International Treaties), Sovetskoe pravo, 1923, No. 2(5), p. 48Google Scholar. For the operation and effect of the registration laws in the Baltic states in the case of national minorities, see Laponce, J. A., The Protection of Minorities 92-94 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1960)Google Scholar.

18 S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 49, while acknowledging that the text of the treaty permits either interpretation, comes out against giving option retroactive force. There is no indication as to how the signatories understood this particular proviso or how it was applied in practice.

This major defect of the Peace Treaty was not eliminated by the other two agreements signed between the R.S.F.S.R. and Estonia and also bearing on the question of option: the Agreement on Option of April 6, 1920 (1 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 247-249), and the Agreement Eegarding the Question of Refugees of Aug. 19, 1920 (ibid. 163-164; 1 SDD 300-301). The former merely added some technical details on the procedure for proving Estonian origin for option purposes, and stipulated expresáis verbis that option rights extended also to persons of Estonian origin found in the ranks of the Red Army. The Agreement of Aug. 19, 1920, was pertinent only because its Art. 3 indirectly indicated which non-Estonian individuals in the territory of Estonia were definitely precluded from opting for Russian citizenship, presumably on grounds of lack of domicile there, a category which comprised: military and civil prisoners of the World War; hostages; members of families the heads of which resided in the territory of the other Party; refugees; members of the former North-Western Anti-Bolshevik Army of General Yudenich found in Estonia at the time of the Agreement’s signature; and persons of Estonian origin who had taken part in the civil war in the ranks of the White forces. Although under the terms of the Peace Treaty, the above had no right to opt, the Agreement of Aug. 19, 1920, provided that they were to be returned to their respective homelands on an equal basis with the optants.

19 SDD 207-211; 11 L. N. Treaty Series 121-142. For the text of the Agreement between the Uk.S.S.R. and Estonia Concerning the Procedure of Choosing Estonian or Ukrainian Citizenship of the same date, see 1 SDD 301-306.

20 In this case, too, Estonians of Baltic German origin could, through registration, prove their eligibility to opt for Estonian citizenship, being otherwise precluded from doing so on grounds of “Estonian nationality” alone or as “native Estonians.”

21 However, by Note 1 to Art. 8 of the Convention it was added that “if any person who has opted is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to emigrate within this period of one year from the territory of the UkSSR (or Estonia), the period may be extended by special permission granted individually in each instance.”

22 1 SDD 211-212; 1 Soviet Treaty Series 170-171.

23 Izvestia, May 9, 1920; 1 SDD R.S.F.S.R, 27-34.

24 Izvestia, Dec. 23, 1920; 1 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 135-138. Earlier, by a Resolution of the Narkomindel of Dec. 24, 1918, the Soviet Government had declared that it did not recognize the Georgian Bepublic as an independent state and that it considered all persons viewing themselves as Georgians as continuing to be Russian citizens, subject to the laws and decrees of the Soviet Government of the R.S.F.S.R., 2 Klyuchnikov and Sabanin, op. cit. 209-210. The signature of the Peace Treaty tacitly repealed this directive.

25 If documentary proof of a person’s Georgian nationality was lacking, the People’s Commissariat for National Minorities of the R.S.F.S.R. was empowered to decide on petitioner’s right to opt for Georgian nationality on the basis of his being endowed with personal characteristics marking him as a member of the Georgian “race.”

26 Both agreements between the R.S.F.S.R. and Georgia lasted only until May, 1921, when a Soviet Government of Georgia superseded the Georgian Democratic Republic and all the treaties negotiated by the latter came to an end.

27 Various clauses pertaining to option were included in : the Treaty regarding Repatriation of Refugees, June 12, 1920 (Izvestia, June 22, 1920; 1 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 143-147); the Treaty of Peace, Aug. 11, 1920 (Izvestia, Sept, 21, 1920; 1 SDD 75-86); the Agreement regarding Option, Citizenship, Repatriation, Removal and Liquidation of Personal Property of the Citizens of Both Contracting Parties, July 22, 1921 (Izvestia, Aug. 2, 1921; 2 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 98-101); and the two agreements of Nov. 6, 1921, constituting, respectively, the second and third parts of the July 22, 1921, agreement (Izvestia, June 23, 1922; 1 SDD 237-243).

28 Through the conclusion of the Agreement of July 22, 1921, the duration of the option period was tacitly prolonged, since the parties thereby concurred that petitions for Latvian nationality would be submitted, in the case of persons residing in European Russia, within a period of six months and, in the case of persons residing in Asiatic Russia and the Caucasus, within nine months from Oct. 4, 1921.

29 S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 50, and T. A. Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law 102-103 (New York, 1935), basing himself on Krylov, mistakenly asserted that the Peace Treaty did not expressly grant refugees from Latvia in the R.S.F.S.R. the right to opt for Russian nationality, but that indirectly such a right could be deduced from its Art. 9 amending the Agreement of June 12, 1920, on refugees. Such a contingency seems to have been directly covered by Note 2 to par. 8 of the Peace Treaty. The latter author also remarks concerning Art. 9 that “helpful as it was, this provision did not grant the right to opt for Latvian citizenship to those Russian nationals who resided in Latvia, but were not considered refugees from the Soviet regime,” a conclusion apparently due to a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Peace Treaty, since under its terms persons of this type were automatically recognized as Latvian citizens and therefore had no need to opt for its nationality.

30 However, the Agreements of Nov. 6, 1921, stipulated that Latvians in the R.S.F.S.R. opting for Latvian citizenship were to be repatriated as soon as possible.

31 1 SDD 86-97; 17 L.N. Treaty Series 317-363; and 1 SDD 244-248; 17 L.N. Treaty Series 295-315.

32 In addition, the treaty specified, respectively, that the wives of Latvian (Ukrainian) nationals residing in Latvia (Uk.S.S.R.), who themselves were currently residing in the territory of the Uk.S.S.R. (Latvia), and their children under 18 years of age would ipso facto be considered Latvian (Ukrainian) nationals unless they gave notification to the contrary and unless there existed between the parents a special agreement concerning the nationality of the children.

33 The Treaty of Peace of July 12, 1920 (Izvestia, Sept. 21, 1920; 3 DVP 28-42); the Agreement on the Manner of Option for Lithuanian Citizenship of June 28, 1921 (2 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 102-107); the Agreement on the Re-evacuation of Refugees of June 30, 1920 (Vestnik NKID, 1920, No. 6-7, pp. 121-124; 1 SDD 248-251).

34 In a sense, this formulation was both erroneous (being in contradiction, stricto sensu, with par. 1 of Art. 6) and highly ambiguous. In effect, despite the wording of par. 3, the right to opt for Russian citizenship could not extend to “all” persons over 18 years of age domiciled in Lithuania as of Oct. 14, 1920, since, by virtue of par. 1 of the same clause, not all such individuals had become Lithuanian citizens ipso jure: neither refugees from Russia, for instance, nor the “former civil and military officials of non-Lithuanian origin and the members of their families” mentioned therein had been deprived of their erstwhile allegiance to Russia and, if they had been of Russian nationality before Oct. 14, 1920, they continued to retain that citizenship independently of any option declaration.

Quite confusing, too, was the use in the article in question, in speaking of optants, of the expression “declare their wish to retain . . . their Russian citizenship,” a formula implying either that potential optants acquired Lithuanian citizenship only upon the expiration of the period set aside for the exercise of option or, more probably, that option in this instance had retroactive effect to the date of ratification of the treaty, else, since the right of option was extended to all persons residing in Lithuania, that state would have been inhabited solely by Russian citizens and foreigners until the right to opt had lapsed.

35 This proviso failed to exclude, and apparently also gave the right of option to, Russian military and civilian personnel once stationed in Lithuania (prior to 1917) and now domiciled in the R.S.F.S.R.

36 Agreement regarding Option for Lithuanian Citizenship, Jan. 28, 1921 (Mirnyi dogovor mezhdu Ukrainoi i Litvoi (Treaty of Peace Between the Ukraine and Lithuania) 8-10 (Kharkov, 1921); 1 SDD 256-259); the Peace Treaty of Feb. 14, 1921 (Mirnyi dogovor mezhdu Ukrainoi i Litvoi 3-7; 1 SDD 106-110); the Treaty of Feb. 14, 1921, on the Re-evacuation of Refugees (ibid. 260-261); the Additional Convention of April 5, 1922 (ibid. 110-114).

37 Additional Convention to the Peace Treaty of April 5, 1922.

38 Art. 1 of the April 5, 1922, agreement which superseded Art. 4 of the Peace Treaty, simply stated that “persons of Lithuanian origin who have reached the age of 18 and reside in the territory of the UkSSR shall have the right to opt for Lithuanian citizenship” and, conversely, that “persons of Ukrainian origin who have reached 18 years of age and reside on the territory of the Lithuanian Democratic Republic shall have the right to opt for Ukrainian citizenship.”

39 3 DVP 618-658; 1 SDD 121-148. The Treaty of Peace thus carried out one of the conditions of the Preliminary Treaty of Peace of Oct. 12, 1920 (3 DVP 245-256; Izvestia, Oct. 17, 1920), between Soviet Russia, Soviet Ukraine and Poland, in which the signatories undertook to insert in the future Peace Treaty provisions guaranteeing the right of Poles to opt in favor of Russian or Ukrainian nationality, and vice versa, oa condition that the persons exercising the right of option would enjoy without exception all rights recognized by that treaty as belonging to the citizens of the signatories.

40 In all previous treaties, the clauses on option used the word “prozhivayushchie,” meaning domiciled, dwelling or residing; instead, the treaty with Poland employed the term “nakhodyashchiesya,” which can be translated as “found in,” “present in.” However, no particular legal meaning seems to have been attached by the signatories to the use of the broader expression.

41 Like some of the earlier treaties, the Treaty of Riga did not address itself directly to the problem of Polish citizenship ipso jure, which was left to be construed from the various stipulations of the document.

42 Significantly, persons found in Polish territory who had never been Russian citizens and who, under the terms of the Treaty of Riga, apparently were admitted ipso jure into Polish nationality, were not deemed entitled to vote for citizenship of Soviet Russia.

43 Vestnik NKID, 1921, Nos. 7-8, pp. 124-140; 3 DVP 265-280.

44 Izvestia, March 22, 1921; 3 DVP 597-604; 1 Soviet Treaty Series 100-102.

45 3 SDD R.S.F.S.R. 49-57; 4 DVP 420-429.

46 SZ, 1929, Part II, No. 32, Item 173; 4 SDD 34-35.

47 Summarized in Zakonodatelstvo 14-15. At the third Congress of the Mongolian People’s Party in 1924, it was disclosed that 3,000 Buryat households had by then already applied for and received Mongolian nationality and that the immigration of Buryats into Mongolia was increasing all the time. Tretii s’ezd Mongolskoi Narodnoi Partii 12 (Urga, 1924).

48 Zarya Vostoka, April 18, 1924.

49 The option clauses with Poland did not extend to the territory of the Far Eastern Republic. However, Art. 10 of the latter’s Constitution of April 27, 1920, allowed all nationals of the former Tsarist Empire living in the C.E.R. and in the territory administered by the Chinese Eastern Eailroad a period of six months during which to file papers proving appurtenance to the citizenship of the independent states which emerged on the territory of the former Russian Empire (those living in the territory of the C.E.R. were permitted to declare for the citizenship of third states as well). After the absorption of the F.E.R. into the R.S.F.S.R. these persons continued to be regarded as aliens, except for those who held passports issued by the various consulates in Vladivostok. By the same circular of the Narkomindel which provided for the evacuation from the territory of the F.E.R. of individuals who had opted for the Baltic states, the Soviet Government undertook to repatriate also all persons who had opted under the terms of Art. 10 of the F.E.R. Constitution, including those who had chosen Polish citizenship.

For text of the F.E.R. Constitution, see Norton, H. K., The Far Eastern Republic of Siberia 282-307 (London, 1923)Google Scholar ; for the other relevant legislation, see Zakonodatelstvo 55, 131.

50 Zakonodatelstvo 55, 131; T. A. Taracouzio, op. cit. 109-110; Byulleten NKVD RSFSR, Dec. 17, 1923, No. 31, and Feb. 25, 1924, No. 7.

51 S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 46: “The provisions of the Soviet treaties on option are extremely diversified—apparently, on the basis of the principle of self-determination publicly, endorsed by them, the Soviet authorities allowed in this instance full freedom to the other Party.”

52 The terms of the Russo-Mongolian pact, too, ostensibly benefited only the second party.

53 There is no doubt, of course, that the criteria of eligibility to opt selected by the signatories in every instance had an effect on the number of persons exercising that right. However, just as important in that respect, if not more so, was the simple practical question of how many ressortissants of the seceding entities happened to be present at that moment within the borders of Soviet Russia or one of the other Soviet Republies, a factual situation which helps explain much of the discrepancy recorded in the number of options cast in favor of each of the new nations.

54 This would help explain, inter alia, the apparent willingness on the part of the newly emergent nations to countenance the formulation of the right of option for Russian citizenship within their territory in such broad, and often ill-defined, terms.

55 An attitude also reflected in Soviet nationality legislation of this period by the enunciation of such propositions as the granting of all political and civil rights to working class foreigners in the R.S.F.S.R. regardless of their citizenship, the bestowal of Soviet Russian citizenship on all individuals who could not prove a foreign nationality, the possibility of naturalization of individuals abroad without ever having been in the R.S.F.S.R., etc.

56 Only the decree of July 13, 1918, contained no express reference to that effect, but even then such an obligation could be construed from the language of Art. 10 of the Russo-German treaty of Aug. 27, 1918, on which the enactment was based.

57 Only the agreements with Estonia failed to specify that the property rights of optants continued to be maintained solely under the law, and not unconditionally as heretofore, but in actuality the execution of the relevant clauses in this ease was tacitly revised to make it conform also to the ordre public of the Soviet state.

58 E.g., 15 months in the Soviet-Polish settlement for persons residing in the Caucasus and Asiatic Russia; eventually, 18 months for individuals in the R.S.F.S.R. and 21 months for those in the Caucasus and Russian Asia under the accords with Latvia; 1 month in the convention with Finland concerning the two communes of Repola and Porajarvi; 1 month according to the decree of July 13, 1918, but ultimately prolonged to 4 months; 1 month under the terms of the decree of Sept. 10, 1918, although no express deadline was provided in the original Armistice Agreement with the Ukraine.

59 However, no such duty to depart may be deduced from the language of the R.S.F.S.R.-Latvia and Uk.S.S.R.-Latvia documents and no obligation to that effect was envisaged in the agreement with Poland, although an express reservation on possible expulsion proceedings against optants was included in the latter instrument (with six months’ notice). The inhabitants of Pechenga opting for Russian nationality were, to judge by the text of the treaty, under no official duty to leave their place of residence, and, while specific stipulations concerning mandatory departure appear in the decrees of July 13 and Sept. 10, 1918, no deadline was set for the emigration process.

60 A somewhat different procedure was used in the conduct of option for Polish nationality in the Transcaucasian Federation, where choice of citizenship was effected not on the basis of the usual documentary evidence, but on the basis of passports “issued in its time by the Polish mission in the Caucasus, prior to the establishment of Soviet authority in each of the Republics composing the Transcaucasian Federation.” In this case only were foreign passports, unilaterally issued on Russian territory without prior approval of Soviet authorities, recognized as valid by the Soviets.

A similar procedure had already been used earlier in this region. Thus, while no formal option of citizenship in favor of the Baltic states was ever conducted in the Caucasus, the decree of the Sovnarkom of the Transcaucasian S.F.S.R. of April 5, 1923, recognized as foreigners those persons who, prior to the promulgation of said decree, received from their homeland a national passport, provided it was recognized by the Soviet authorities. Zarya Vostoka, April 6, 1923.

61 In only two instances did significant deviation from the recognized norm occur, involving the power delegated under the terms of the Russo-Georgian and Russo-Lithuanian pacts to the People’s Commissariat for National Minorities of the R.S.F.S.R. to decide, in certain doubtful cases, on the eligibility of petitioners to opt solely on the basis of possession (or lack) of personal characteristics marking them as ethnic members of the Georgian and Lithuanian communities.

62 Zakonodatelstvo, p. 50 ; S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 53-54 ; Art. 8 of the Circular of the R.S.F.S.R. NKVD of Dec. 1, 1921, No. 507; Art. 12 of the Law on Union Citizenship of Oct. 29, 1924, SZ, 1924, Part I, No. 23, Item 202.

63 S. S. Kishkin, Sovetskoe grazhdanstvo (Soviet Citizenship) (Moscow, 1925) ; Zakonodatelstvo 50-51.

64 S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 55 ; Zakonodatelstvo 51. To this rule there was one exception : parsons in the F.E.R. of Baltic extraction, entitled to return home under the terms of the Soviet circular of 1924, who failed to request evacuation or, having requested it, failed to leave on time, were issued Soviet papers identifying them as Soviet citizens. On the other hand, persons in the F.E.R. who liad opted in accordance with Art. 10 of the F.E.R. Constitution and were similarly eligible for evacuation to their country of choice remained aliens, even if they failed to apply for repatriation or to leave on time.

65 S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 53, note 4. However, option under the terms of the Soviet-Turkish agreements was still being negotiated as late as 1926.

66 Zakonodatelstvo 53. With regard to the legal status of potential optants for Soviet citizenship abroad, it must be remembered that on Oct. 28, 1921, and Dec. 15, 1921, laws were passed in the R.S.F.S.R. on the subject of forfeiture of Soviet citizenship by certain categories of persons residing abroad, which contained, inter alia, clauses to the effect that Russian citizenship was lost by persons abroad who had the right to opt for Russian citizenship but did not do so within the time allowed, a proviso confirmed by the Law on Union Citizenship of 1924. See the author’s “The Soviet Union and the Problem of Refugees and Displaced Persons, 1917-1956,” 51 A.J.I.L. 325-361 (1957). For a study of the Soviet impact on, and imitation by, the satellite regimes, see idem, “Hungary and Hungarian Exiles: Laws and Policies,” 19 Journal of Central European Affairs 227-259 (1959), and for a Soviet interpretation, S. I. Rusinova, “Voprosy grazhdanstva v Evropeiskikh stranakh narodnoi demokratu” (Questions of Citizenship in the European Countries of the People’s Democracy), Voprosy sovetskogo gosudarstva i prava (Problems of Soviet State and Law) 176-207 (Leningrad, 1955, Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No. 201).

67 SU, 1921, No. 62, Item 451. Persons within the R.S.F.S.R. who had opted in accordance with the provisions of the agreements on option entered into by the R.S.F.S.R. and were obligated to leave Soviet Russia were thereby notified that they could remain in the R.S.F.S.R. only with the special permission of the NKVD. Petitions for issuance of such permis de séjour had to be filed three months prior to expiration of the period of residence allowed by the option agreement.

68/ S. B. Krylov, loc. cit. 55. According to Zakonodatelstvo, p. 51, such permits of prolongation of the right to stay in the R.S.F.S.R. were issued only in cases whefe declarations were made expressing a desire for reinstatement in Soviet citizenship aiid in other instances only as entirely individual exceptions.

69 T. A. Taracouzio, op. cit. 97.

70 For brief, but favorable, references to early Soviet option practice, see Korovin, E. A (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 235 (Moscow, 1951)Google Scholar ; Kozhevnikov, F. I. (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 143 (Moscow, 1957)Google Scholar ; Lisovskii, V. I, Mezhdunarodnoe pravo (International Law) 101 (Kiev, 1955)Google Scholar ; Kozhevnikov, F. I., Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i mezhdunarodnoe pravo, 1917-1947gg (The Soviet State and International Law, 1917-1947) 170 (Moscow, 1948)Google Scholar; “Optatsiya” (Option), in 31 Bolshaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya (Large Soviet Encyclopedia) 95 (2nd ed., Moscow, 1955) ; Bratus, S. N.et al., Yuridicheskii Slovar (Legal Dictionary) 408 (Moscow, 1953)Google Scholar ; 2 Kudryavtsev, (ed.), Yuridicheskii Slovar (Legal Dictionary) 42 (2nd ed., Moscow, 1956)Google Scholar.

On the other hand, not a single document of this period is cited in the relevant section of the work compiled by Modzhoryan, L. A. and Sobakin, V. K., Mezhdunarodnoe pravo v izbrannykh dokumentakh (International Law in Selected Documents), Vol. 1, pp. 196-206 (Moscow, 1957)Google Scholar. And, in spite of the constant emphasis on option in Soviet practice as an expression of the right of national self-determination, no mention of it is to be found in two recent works devoted to that question: Baratashvili, D. I., Za svobodu i nezavisimost národov (Mezhdunarodno-pravovoi ocherk) (For the Freedom and Independence of Nations, an Essay on International Law) (Moscow, 1960)Google Scholar, and Starushenko, G. B., Printsip samoopredeleniya národov i natsii vo vneshnei politike Sovetskogo gosudarstva (Istoriko-pravovoi ocherk) (The Principle of Self-Determination of Peoples and Nations in the Foreign Policy of the Soviet State, an Historical-Legal Essay) (Moscow, 1960)Google Scholar.

71 See, in particular, J. L. Kunz, loc. cit., and the literature cited therein.

72 Cf. the broad denaturalization provisions of the R.S.F.S.R. decree of Aug. 22, 1921, SU, 1921, No. 62, Item 437, and of Dec. 15, 1921, SU, 1922, No. 1, Item 11; Resolution of the Central Executive Committee and Sovnarkom of the U.S.S.R. of 1933, SZ, 1933, No. 34, Item 200. For the preventive effect of these measures with regard to dual nationality, see Vilkov, G. E., “Mezhdunarodno-pravovoe regulirovanie voprosov dvoinogo grazhdanstva” (International Legal Settlement of Questions of Dual Nationality), Sovetskii Ezhegodnik Mezhdunarodnogo Prava 1959 (Soviet Yearbook of International Law for 1959) 367 (Moscow, 1960)Google Scholar. For another Soviet view on dual nationality, equally critical of the concept, see Chernomordik, E. Ya., “K voprosu o dvoinom grazhdanstve v inostrannom i mezhdunarodnom prave” (On the Question of Dual Citizenship in Foreign and International Law), Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, 1947, No. 1, pp. 57 ffGoogle Scholar.

The use of inter-state agreements to settle existing dual nationality conflicts appears only in 1957-1958, when a series of treaties were concluded between the U.S.S.R. and its satellites and Yugoslavia. Until then, Soviet legal sources referred to domestic option as a means for settling such questions.

73 On this question, see 1 Kudryavtsev (ed.), op. cit. 57-58; S. S. Kishkin, op. cit.

74 E.g., see the author’s “A Case Study in the Soviet Use of International Law: Eastern Poland in 1939,” 52 A.J.I.L. 69-84 (1958).