{"id":144090,"date":"2015-05-05T14:19:48","date_gmt":"2015-05-05T08:49:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/?p=144090"},"modified":"2015-05-05T14:21:41","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T08:51:41","slug":"the-dual-national-citizenship-human-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colombotelegraph.com\/index.php\/the-dual-national-citizenship-human-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"The Dual National, Citizenship & Human Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Rashantha N. de Alwis-Seneviratne<\/span><\/a> –<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Rashantha<\/a>

Rashantha N. de Alwis-Seneviratne<\/p><\/div>\n

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 1948, was the result of the experience of the Second World War. World leaders decided to complement the UN Charter with a road map to guarantee the rights of every individual everywhere. It represents the universal recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, inalienable and equally applicable to everyone, and that every one of us is born free and equal in dignity and rights.<\/p>\n

Whatever our nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status, the international community on December 10 1948 made a commitment to upholding dignity and justice for all of us. By becoming parties to international treaties, States assume obligations and duties under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights.\u00a0 The obligation to respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human right<\/p>\n

President\u2019s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne<\/span><\/a>, a member of the Committee on the Draft Amendment to the Constitution, says that being a Sri Lankan citizen is an \u2018essential qualification\u2019 for contesting a General Election in the country. This is the law the world over and is not unique to Sri Lanka, that only a citizen of a country can hold public office. That it would be a prerequisite is also common sense as otherwise, anyone from another country could hold public office in Sri Lanka. Having said that, I believe we have a \u2018first\u2019 in Mr. Mahendran being a non-national and the head of the Central Bank. However, I am more interested in the rights of a dual national and not of a non-national.<\/p>\n

The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ajith P. Perera, said at a press conference recently that, according to the provisions included in the 19th amendment to the constitution, Sri Lankan nationals who possess dual citizenship are not permitted to contest in the General Election.<\/p>\n

What is the basis for such an announcement? The questions that spring to my mind are:
\na. Is a dual national of Sri Lanka not a citizen?
\nb. If so, what is the legal status of a dual national of Sri Lanka?
\nc. Does a dual national enjoy lesser rights than a national who does not hold dual nationality?
\nd. Can a national law that is contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, be legal?
\ne. Is this provision embedded in the Dual Nationality Act of Sri Lanka?
\nf. If it is not, can it be included in the 19A or any amendment to the Constitution without the Supreme Court\u2019s approval?<\/p>\n

The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says \u2018\u2019 \u2026the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.\u2019\u2019 As the Charter goes on to extrapolate, \u2018\u2019the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n

A national of a country is a citizen. This means, simply, that such a person is a member of a state. Under International Law, Nationality is synonymous with citizenship. There may technical differences i.e. like acquiring citizenship by Naturalization but once naturalized, a person is no different to a citizen. There are countries that do not recgonise dual nationality for e.g. Singapore and until recently, Australia. However, those that do, recognise the right of a citizen to acquire rights of citizenship in another country. For tax and legal purposes, there may be agreements between these countries that share citizens. However, the citizenship rights that a dual national enjoys cannot be subservient or unequal to those of a non-dual national of the country, as that would be contrary to the Human rights Charter.<\/p>\n

Sri Lankan nationality may be regained at a price but does Mr. Ajith Perera mean that the nationality regained by paying for it, is not the same as the nationality he or she lost and if so, what is the person paying to get? A half-nationality? A reduction in citizenship rights?
\nThe following Articles of the HR Charter are clear and unambiguous and may refresh the memory of some people.<\/p>\n

Article 2.<\/p>\n