• notion of justice
• breach of domestic law
• breach of international law

Let us discuss the above issues in some detail in the following paragraphs.

What is justice?
According to Plato and Aristotle justice is the mother virtue, and it is whatever is due to an individual, not less and not more. Plato used the Greek word "Dikaisyne" for justice, which comes very near to the notion of "morality" or "righteousness."

The concept of justice may be synonymous with what is known in Bangla as bibek, (good conscience), Jathartha (just), and nyabichar (right treatment). That means whatever goes against such concepts is perceived as injustice.

It is unjust for someone to steal from people or not give them what is owed, and it is also unjust if someone called upon to distribute something among members of a group uses an arbitrary or unjustified basis for making the distribution.

A person instinctively knows what constitutes justice or injustice. If someone says that charity is not good and murder is good, would anybody accept it? No, because it is against innate and established moral values. There exists a relationship between morality and justice, and justice and righteousness.

In the light of the above, if a citizen is barred from entry into the state of origin it arguably constitutes injustice toward that citizen.

Breach of domestic law
States are free to enact laws to determine citizenship. Citizenship is conferred on an individual by operation of domestic laws. Once citizenship is conferred on a person, he is endowed with certain political and civic rights and obligations.

Citizenship constitutes a legal attachment characterized by a genuine connection of interests and sentiments with a state. There is a legal nexus between a state and a citizen, wherever that individual may live.

Both, the state and the citizen, have certain rights and obligations toward each other. A citizen pays taxes, may join the armed forces, may vote in the election and demonstrate commitment and loyalty to the state, while the state protects the citizen within the state and abroad.

A state protects its citizens abroad, and the passport given to the citizens requests foreign governments to allow them to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford them every assistance and protection that they may stand in need of while they are in a foreign country. If a citizen is in trouble overseas, the embassy looks after his welfare, and this is widely understood to be a consular function of an embassy.

If a citizen is wronged/injured by an action of another state, his state is eligible to sue the other state on his behalf. This right of a state is based on personal jurisdiction of states over their citizens.

If a citizen commits a crime overseas, he/she may be tried in his/her own country, because the state extends its personal jurisdiction over its citizens even while the citizen is abroad. For example, citizens of Bangladesh may be put on trial within Bangladesh, under Section 3 of the Bangladesh Penal Code, if they commit a crime overseas.

The close connection is emphasized in the Bangladesh Constitution, which stipulates that a person who acquires the citizenship of, or affirms or acknowledges allegiance to, a foreign state is disqualified from being a member of parliament (Article 66.2).

The connection can be severed if that citizen becomes a citizen of another state. Even then, some states have retained provisions for double nationality. For example, a Bangladeshi can be both, Bangladeshi and British, by holding the passports of both states (British citizens now use European standard passports because Britain is a member of the European Union).

When a citizen having two passports travels abroad, the important thing is to note which passport he/she uses for his/her travel. This will demonstrate that the citizen has preferred to be closer to one state than the other by using one of the travel documents (i.e. either Bangladesh or British).

From the above discussion, it is noted that it is the citizenship, which legally binds both the state and the citizen, and other states recognize this umbilical connection.

Some writers have compared the relationship between a citizen and the state of origin to that of a parent and a child. It means that the parent extends its long hand (jurisdiction) over the child on the basis of close connection.

That is why it is argued that if a citizen is barred from entry into his/her state, it would be construed as a breach of domestic citizenship law.

Breach of international law
Barring a citizen from entering the country of origin may tantamount to severing connections with that citizen by the state of origin. As a result, s/he may be perceived by other states as stateless, because there is no certainty of protection emanating from that state while s/he is overseas.

The issue of statelessness has been a major concern in international law. International law, therefore, does not approve statelessness of a person because of vulnerability and insecurity of that person. A stateless person is often compared to a vessel without any flag in the open sea.

The Hague Convention of 1930 adopted a Special Protocol concerning statelessness. It states: "If a person, after entering a foreign country, loses the nationality without acquiring another nationality, the state whose nationality the person last possessed is bound to admit that person at the request of the state in whose territory the person is."

The UN took further initiative to reduce statelessness by adopting two Conventions:

• The 1954 Convention relating to the status of stateless persons
• The 1961 Convention on the reduction of statelessness.

The main features of the Conventions are to reduce statelessness, whatever the circumstances.

Article 1 of the 1954 Convention defines the term "stateless person" as "A person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its laws."

Article I of the 1961 Convention states: "A contracting party shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless." Article 8 of the Convention further states: "A contracting state shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless." (In the Conventions the term "nationality" is preferred to "citizenship."Both terms are loosely interchangeable.)

Citizenship is a legal relationship between a citizen and the state of origin. The state of origin and a citizen have an umbilical relationship under both domestic and international laws. The rights and obligations of each party are reciprocal. The act of barring a citizen from entering the state of origin is not only against the notion of justice but is construed to be against both domestic and international laws.

Furthermore, the 1954 and the 1961 Conventions demonstrate that statelessness of a person is a matter of international concern, and a citizen should not be placed in such a situation. Such issues may come within the jurisdiction of the UN Human Rights Council, of which Bangladesh is a responsible member, for purported breach of human rights.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.