您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律论文 »

职务犯罪及其预防控制研究/祁辉煌

时间:2024-05-11 01:57:10 来源: 法律资料网 作者:法律资料网 阅读:8622
下载地址: 点击此处下载
职务犯罪及其预防控制研究

祁辉煌


【摘要】职务犯罪是严重的腐败行为,也是典型的腐败形式。如何采取有效的手段和对策来控制和预防职务犯罪,越来越成为明智的政府执政治国的重要内容和有识之士关注的重要课题。本文就从职务犯罪的含义、性质界定以及根源、危害、特征及其表象分析入手,就职务犯罪的预防和控制作一尝试性的探讨和研究,仅供参考。
【关键词】职务犯罪的含义 性质界定 根源 特征及表象 危害 职务犯罪预防控制 意义
【正文】
职务犯罪是指国家工作人员(详见【注释】)利用职权或通过职务行为进行违法活动,触犯刑法有关规定,应受刑事处罚的行为。职务犯罪,是一种违法犯罪行为,就其性质而言,有贪污贿赂、挪用公款等经济犯罪和渎职侵权以及侵犯公民人身权利和民主权利的犯罪。
一、 职务犯罪的根源
二战以后,世界上绝大多数国家相继开始了现代化的进程。在这一发展过程中,不论是发达国家还是发展中国家,困扰他们最甚的问题之一就是官员的腐败问题。腐败活动制造社会矛盾,引发社会冲突,对经济建设和政局稳定起着严重的破坏作用,而腐败现象最极端的表现就是职务犯罪。
职务犯罪究其产生和发展的根源,有微观层次上个人素质方面的,也有宏观层次上制度结构方面的。从宏观上大体有以下四个方面:一是经济根源。不规范的经济行为、经济观念、经济体制是构成国家工作人员职务犯罪的经济根源。二是政治根源。社会主义的民主和法制尚不健全;有法不依,执法不严,违法不究的现象大量存在;官僚主义、主观主义、个人主义以及地方保护主义还很严重;以权压法、以权抗法、以严代法等现象还是一些领导的习惯性做法,等等这些都是导致国家工作人员职务犯罪的政治根源。三是思想根源。有些国家工作人员经受不住各式各样的诱惑和封建特权思想及西方腐朽文化的侵蚀,理想道德价值观破灭,贪图安逸享受奢侈等腐朽堕落思想滋生,致使利用职权违法犯罪。四是文化根源。中国儒家文化的“亲亲、尊尊、君君、臣臣、父父、子子”等“三纲五常”观念和以政治为中心的“吏官文化”,对国家工作人员职务犯罪有其深远的文化根源。
从微观上主要有以下几方面:
(一)政治素质低。职务犯罪的干部大多没有良好的思想基础,又放松自身学习,不注意改造自己的世界观和严格自律。受西方拜金主义、享乐主义和极端个人主义等腐朽思想文化的影响、侵蚀,在经济利益的驱动下,世界观、人生观错位,价值观扭曲,把一切向钱看的腐朽思想带入执法领域中,把手中的权力视为交换的筹码,以权谋私、权钱交易,把公正执法扔到了脑后。
  (二)法制观念淡薄。职务犯罪的干部大多没有牢固树立公正执法的思想观念,在实际工作中不自觉遵照法律规定依法办事,对工作缺乏高标准、严要求,不能兢兢业业对待每一项具体工作。
  (三)特权思想严重。特权思想有两种表现,一是往往拥有特权,以管人者的身份自居,自认为高人一等,把党和人民赋予的权利当作耍特权的资本,认为自己可以不受法律约束,凌驾于法律之上。二是缺乏全心全意为人民服务的宗旨意识和为人民甘于奉献的敬业精神,忘记了“权力来自于人民”、“人民公仆为人民”的崇高宗旨。群众观念淡薄,颠倒了主仆关系,忘记了干部的本色是为人民服务。
  (四)工作机制和管理方式尚待完善。少数基层领导工作上满足于一般化的部署要求,缺少深入检查;受“难免论”、“难管论”的影响,对干部利用职务违纪违法导致的各种问题认识模糊,行动上对干部失察、失管、失控,对违纪违法干部无原则地加以袒护和纵容,姑息迁就,缺乏严肃批评教育;不能有效地启动预防机制,处理上又失之于宽,对违纪违法干部思想政治工作停留在表层,缺乏渗透到每个环节的具体措施。
(五)监督制约机制松懈,制度流于形式。近年来,各地各部门都普遍制定了相应的预防职务犯罪的规定、纪律、制度、办法等,但在具体落实上,却缺乏广度和深度,没有起到干部之间相互监督,部门之间相互制约的作用。
二、 职务犯罪的特征及其表象
职务犯罪大体有六大特征:一是犯罪手段的隐蔽性,或以“集体研究”乱发奖金,或私设小金库搞账外账,或名为借实则挪用,或收受贿赂,幕后交易等;二是犯罪结果具有损公肥私性,大凡职务犯罪都会给国家利益造成不同程度的损失。三是犯罪行业分布具有广泛性,目前已涉及每一个拥有公共权力的部门和人,连教育、医疗等部门也成了高发区。四是犯罪年龄已向多层次、全方位发展,从“59岁现象”到“39岁现象”,不满25岁犯罪的人群也呈强劲增长之势。五是职务犯罪人员高层化,省部级、地市级领导干部职务犯罪案件增多,且犯罪金额巨大,都在百万元以上,甚至高达千万元、亿元。六是职务犯罪具有对政权的危害性,综观东欧剧变、苏联解体的历史,不难发现,一个政党如果在政治上极端腐败,那么它必将灭亡。
就其表象来看,又表现为多种形式:
(一)利用职权谋取私利、进行权钱交易,徇私枉法。主要发生在一线执法业务工作部门的执法环节上,具体表现为个别行为主体利用手中职权直接为当事人谋取利益,徇私枉法,进行权钱交易。
(二)侵犯国家、集体、公民及法人的合法权益,违法办事。其具体表现是利用职务特权,违法操作,严重侵犯了相对主体的合法权益,使国家、集体、公民及法人受到财产、人身及秩序上的损害。
(三)严重违反法定程序办事,违背“程序合法实体公正”的要求。由于行为主体不能按照法定程序处理,程序不公正,从而导致实体公正也无从体现,直接影响了行使职权的客观公正。
三、职务犯罪的危害
职务犯罪造成的危害较之其他刑事犯罪相比更甚,腐败问题已给国际社会、世界各国造成了严重的经济损失和政治后果。联合国2001年发表的报告称:全世界每年因官员腐败造成的损失约达6000亿美元。在上个世纪90年代后半期,我国主要类型的腐败所造成的经济损失和消费者福利损失,平均每年在9875亿—12570亿元,占全国GDP总量的13.22%—16.8%。【1】可见职务犯罪的危害,其严重程度恰如江泽民同志多次强调的那样,已经成为“关系党和国家生死存亡的严重政治斗争”!
首先,在政治上,它破坏了国家政治和法制的统一,引发和激化社会矛盾,破坏政治稳定。现代化建设的过程是一个国家实现政治整合的进程,它要求有统一的法制实践和稳定的政治局面。而官员的腐败行为使统一的权力体系陷入了被各种私欲分割隔离的境地,导致法制权威的极度削弱。各种滥用权力的行为侵犯着公民的合法权益,刺激社会矛盾和冲突的爆发,破坏政治稳定。
  其次,在经济上,它制造了分配不公,刺激不正当竞争,催发经济利益的恶性冲突。腐败分子以权创收,以权获利,直接破坏了按劳分配和等价交换的原则,公平竞争的市场秩序遭到破坏,造成经济局面的混乱以及整个社会健康的经济机体的毁损。
  第三,在精神文化方面,它助长了腐朽没落思想,瓦解人民群众对现代化事业的信心,滋生对执政党政府的离心离德倾向。
可以看出,职务犯罪的严重腐败现象,都是因为权力运行失控、失衡所致。“腐败的根本是权力的腐败”,权力腐败的实质是公有权力被滥用。因此,要预防权力腐败,本人认为除了以德倡廉、以俸养廉外,最根本的还是要通过加强立法监督、立法制约等手段来防止公共权力被滥用。
四、职务犯罪的预防控制
职务犯罪预防,是一项复杂的社会系统工程,它不仅需要社会各阶层、各领域、各部门的共同参与,而且要通过法律的、机制的、体制的、教育的多手段和多途径进行综合治理。正如江泽民同志所说:“反对腐败是关系党和国家生死存亡的严重政治斗争。……各级党委务必做到旗帜鲜明,态度坚定,工作锲而不舍。坚持标本兼治,教育是基础,法制是保证,监督是关键。通过深化改革,不断铲除腐败现象滋生蔓延的土壤。”【2】
我国法律对职务犯罪实行惩戒与教育相结合、打击与预防相结合的方针,打击是手段,预防是目的。打击是惩治职务犯罪的治标措施,预防才是治本之策。根据职务犯罪存有复杂多样的特点,对不同类型的职务犯罪,我们应根据其具体特征分别采取有针对性的预防控制策略。
(一)强化思想建设,加强党性教育,以德倡廉,筑起“不想腐败”的思想道德防线。不少事实证明,“千腐败、万腐败,都是思想先腐败。”,我们必须从思想上强化预防职务犯罪建设,加大思想教育力度,把党性、党风、党纪教育作为培训党员干部的必修课,突出教育的广泛性和教育方法的多样性,既要讲实效,又要有声势,在广大党员和领导干部的思想上筑起预防职务犯罪的坚固堤坝,树立全心全意为人民服务的理想道德观。
(二)强化监督机制,健全具有足够约束力的监督体系,以监督保廉,建立“不能腐败”的权力运行机制。马克思主义监督学说认为,监督是国家的一种职能,是维护一定社会政治和经济秩序的手段。从政治学的角度看,不受监督的权力必然走向腐败。目前,我国监督体制还不够完善,没有形成具有足够约束力的监督体系,特别是对掌握着各级和各部门单位最高权力的党政“一把手”,由谁监督,监督什么,如何监督没有明确的规定,更缺乏经常有效的具体监督措施,导致对他们的监督“失控”,违法违纪的比例上升。
针对监督方面存在的这些突出问题,一是要强化党内监督。要通过加强民主集中制,加强党的组织生活制度,加强对党员领导干部的民主评议制度,来强化党委内部的监督和纪委的监督。二是要强化权力机关的监督。人民代表大会是我国的国家权力机关。在人民代表大会的权力中,监督权是最重要的一种。建议中央考虑在地方人大对同级党政机关享有充分监督权方面的立法研究,切实履行各级人民代表大会及其常委会对同级党政机关、审判机关和检察机关的法律监督和工作监督作用。三是强化行政监督。主要是要扩大监察机关的权限,同时要完善行政监察管理体制,使之能相对独立行使监察权。此外,还要加强行政监察队伍建设,培养一支训练有素,懂政策、法律和技术的监察队伍。四是强化经济监督。主要是指加强国家授权经济监督职能的专门机关和企事业单位内部的监督机构,按照一定的法律、制度和纪律对机关、团体、企事业单位的经济活动,以及国家公务人员的经济行为进行监察和督促。特别要加强财务监督制度,用法律制度保证财会监督人员的政治、经济地位不受监督对象支配,依法独立行使经济监督权。五是强化民主监督。重点要充分发挥各级政协机关民主监督的职能作用,围绕反腐倡廉,积极抓好民主监督。正如毛泽东同志在同黄炎培先生谈话时指出:“只有让人民来监督政府,政府才不敢松懈。只有人人起来负责,才不会人亡政息。”六是强化群众监督。要进一步明确群众对权力监督的重要内容和监督方法,依法保护群众的监督权,调动群众监督的积极性。七是强化舆论监督。要在坚持党的四项基本原则的前提下,尝试给予新闻媒体的知情权、调查权、评论权、曝光权,使之不失为制约职务犯罪的锐利武器。
  (三)强化法制建设,完善预防职务犯罪的法规体系,以法护廉,创造“不敢腐败”的法律环境。必须重点抓住两个方面:一是立法;二是执法。一方面必须切实加强预防职务犯罪的立法工作。要尽快建立和完善职务犯罪预防、惩戒、监督等方面的法规,使之形成一套比较完善和规范的预防职务犯罪的法规体系,让预防职务犯罪真正做到有法可依。在职务犯罪高发期,治乱要用重典,所制订的法规要加大惩罚的力度,量纪量刑要从重,要增加职务犯罪的政治成本和经济成本,在政治和经济上要给予职务犯罪分子沉重的打击,使其在党内无藏身之地。另一方面要克服执法中的“软骨病”,排除各种干扰,刚正不阿执法。要坚决杜绝以言代法,以权代法,以权压法,以罚代刑,以及贪赃枉法的职务犯罪问题发生。一定要做到“有法必依,执法必严,违法必究”,在法律面前人人平等,没有特殊公民。只要违法的都要依法严惩,以震慑职务犯罪分子。
(四)强化干部制度建设,改革领导干部福利分配方式,以俸养廉,提供“不愿腐败”的经济条件。一是抓住当前机构改革和企业改制的有利时机,加快政府职能的转变,精简机构,实行政企分开,防止权钱交易。二是进一步推进干部制度改革。按照“公平、平等、竞争、择优”的原则,选拔任用领导干部。在党政机关普遍推行干部公开选拔竞争上岗,领导干部任前公示和民主讨论干部等制度。要建立健全用人失察责任追究制度。三是按照社会主义市场经济的要求,改革福利分配方式。对高级领导干部的福利待遇要由“实物化”改为“货币化”,尽可能实行领导干部住房、工作用车、出差食宿标准纳入其工资福利中,取消福利性的实物分房和公款接待,从根本上杜绝领导干部在住房方面谋私和坐超标车、公车变私车、屡屡更换新车以及公款大吃大喝现象。四是要绝对保证国家机器“吃皇粮”,军队、武警部队、政法机关及其他所有党政机关必须与所办经营性企业彻底脱钩,一律不得从事经商活动。行政执法部门实行“收支两条线”,铲除职务犯罪现象产生的土壤。五是要按照公开、公平、公正原则,完善有形建筑市场等各类市场管理,规范行政行为、企业行为和市场行为。同时要进一步增加行政办事的透明度,要大力推行政务公开、村务公开、厂务公开等。增加用权行为的透明度,由“暗箱操作”变为“阳光行动”,根治“黑箱”作业。
综上所述,通过以德倡廉,以俸养廉、以监督保廉、以法护廉,为防范职务犯罪筑起了一道思想道德防线和一套相互制约的权力运行机制,从而使为官者、掌权者“不想腐败”、“不愿腐败”、“不能腐败”、“不敢腐败”,进而达到防止权力滥用,遏制腐败现象滋生蔓延的目的。
五、职务犯罪预防控制的重大现实意义
胡锦涛总书记在中央纪委第二次全会上指出:“在继续下大力气惩处腐败的同时,加强教育,发展民主,健全法制,强化监督,创新体制,把反腐倡廉寓于各项重要政策措施之中,从源头上预防和解决腐败问题,更好地为实现全面建设小康社会的奋斗目标服务。”因此,研究职务犯罪的产生及其发展规律,而采取相应的预防措施加以遏制,对于推进党风廉政建设和反腐败斗争具有十分重要的现实意义。
(一)做好预防职务犯罪工作,有利于维护社会稳定。
古今中外的历史告诉我们:腐败,是社会不稳定的一个重要因素。饱览历代兴亡历史的明代哲学家王夫之说:“贪益甚,政益乱,民益死,国乃以亡。” 【3】 清朝顺治说过:“贪官蠹国害民,最为可恨”,“贪官不惩,民生不安”,“治国安民,首在严惩贪官”。康熙提出“治国莫要如惩贪”。【4】他们为什么有这样的认识呢?这是因为“廉则兴邦,贪则亡国”,已是被历史反复证明了的社会发展规律。
社会发展到今天,人民群众在解决了温饱问题后,政治意识增强,只要有一些腐败出现,就会引起群众的不满。而当腐败问题积重难返,十分严重时,必将引起社会动荡。印尼前总统苏哈托就是很好的例证,全球性的廉政和反腐败监督组织透明度国际去年宣布了它称之为世界最腐败的前国家领导人名单,印尼前总统苏哈托名列前茅。透明度国际在一份“全球腐败报告2004”中说,印尼前总统苏哈托在职的1967年至1998年期间,共挪用公款150亿至350亿美元,而印尼的人均国内生产总值只有695美元。【5】显而易见,这样的政府,社会动乱,政府垮台,是它的必然。
国家如此,一个地方也是同样。如果那个地方的国家工作人员在廉洁问题上过不了关,贪赃枉法、敲诈勒索、愚弄百姓,必会引起群众的不满和反抗,使社会陷入无序状态之中。如果不加以高度重视,认真解决存在的问题,一旦矛盾激化,后果将不堪设想。
因此,只有做好预防职务犯罪工作,遏制职务犯罪高发态势,才会赢得人民群众的广泛支持,从而有利于维护社会稳定。
(二)做好预防职务犯罪工作,有利于打造廉洁、高效政府。
廉洁、高效的政府,是经济发展的一个必要条件。而要建设这样的政府,就必须将职务犯罪降到最低限度。新加坡是一个国土面积不到700平方公里,总人口400余万,“除了阳光和空气,几乎没有任何资源”的岛国。为了生存和发展,新加坡政府始终怀有强烈的危机感和紧迫感。新加坡执政党—人民行动党的创始人,前总理、内阁资政李光耀指出:国家兴旺的关键是要有一个廉洁的政府,政府官员保持廉洁和献身精神,是政府牢固的基础。建立一个廉洁、高效的政府,创造良好的投资环境,是国家生存和发展的必备条件,也是执政党—人民行动党重要的治国理念。因此,新加坡政府在廉政建设方面的治国理念,就是把预防腐败作为政府建设的首要工作来抓,对公共服务人员(国家公务员)有严格的纪律约束、严肃的制度管理、严密的考核奖惩。新加坡政府经过近四十年的不懈努力,建立了一整套完整的法规和严格执法机构,使公务人员“不想贪、不敢贪、不能贪”,从而有效地保持了政府及其公职人员的廉洁和高效。【6】在这样的政府领导下,新加坡在一代人的时间内从一个第三世界国家转变为一个富裕的发达国家,人均国民生产总值居世界前茅。
如果政府出现严重的腐败现象,则必然要阻碍经济的发展。安徽省原副省长王怀忠,在担任阜阳市委书记时,大权在握,在人事问题上独断专行,在经济发展上虚报浮夸,并大肆收受贿赂,极大地败坏了党风涣散了民心,给阜阳经济和社会发展带来严重影响。在王怀忠主持工作的几年中,阜阳错失了多年以来少有的发展良机,造成的损失是无法估量的。【7】
因此,只有做好预防职务犯罪工作,建设一个廉洁、高效的政府,才能提高公务人员的素质,健全工作机制,规范权力运作,为经济社会发展和促进社会进步提供优质服务。

国家税务总局关于集体金融企业财务管理问题的通知

国家税务总局


国家税务总局关于集体金融企业财务管理问题的通知
国税发[1994]240号

1994-11-05国家税务总局


各省、自治区、直辖市国家税务局,各计划单列市国家税务局:
  税务机构分设以来,各地反映,对集体金融企业征收所得税和财务管理问题需要进一步明确。现通知如下:
  集体金融企业缴纳企业所得税,已明确由国家税务局征收和管理。为有利于统一政策,强化税基管理,其财务管理工作也应由各级国家税务局负责。
  望各地认真遵照执行。




国家税务总局

一九九四年十一月五日




Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III. Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992