Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala)

A state may exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of a national only if there is a genuine connection between them, so Liechtenstein could not protect a man naturalised there to avoid enemy alien status.

Citation
(1955) ICJ Reports 4
Court
International Court of Justice
Year
1955
Subject
Public International Law
Topic
State responsibility, nationality and international organisations

Facts

Friedrich Nottebohm, a German national, lived and conducted business in Guatemala for over 30 years. In 1939, shortly after the outbreak of the Second World War, he obtained Liechtenstein nationality after a brief visit, giving up his German nationality, and returned to Guatemala. Guatemala later treated him as an enemy alien, detained him, and confiscated his property. Liechtenstein brought proceedings against Guatemala, exercising diplomatic protection on his behalf.

Legal principle

The International Court of Justice held that Liechtenstein's claim was inadmissible. The court said that nationality is a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence, interests and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. A state is entitled to exercise diplomatic protection against another state only if the nationality it has conferred corresponds to such a genuine connection. Mr Nottebohm had no real connection with Liechtenstein, and his naturalisation had been obtained to enable him to substitute the status of a national of a neutral state for that of a national of a belligerent state, so Guatemala was not bound to recognise it.

Related cases on state responsibility, nationality and international organisations

Studying public international law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.

Back to all law cases

This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.

Contact Us

Enquire about our bespoke academic solutions