Dividing Divided States. Gregory F. Treverton

Models of Citizenship

      Single

      This is straightforward. In a secession, it would mean that residents of the seceding state would automatically become citizens of it unless they chose otherwise. Those, say, northern and southern Sudanese living in the “other” state would have the right to choose, under some conditions, of which state to become a citizen. In cases elsewhere in the world, the “condition” is residence, with those seeking citizenship in the “other” required to prove some continuing residency in that other state. All those accepting or choosing citizenship in the seceding state would lose their citizenship in the original state.

      Dual

      This would be similar to the above except that, perhaps under some conditions, those people living in the “other” state might be permitted to acquire a new citizenship in the new state without losing citizenship in the original state. This choice would entail negotiating arrangements for which laws dual citizens would be subject to, where they would pay taxes, which army they would be subject to being conscripted into, and the like. The presumption would be that most of the arrangements would be based on the primacy of the state in which a person resided.

      Long-Term (or Permanent) Residence Without Citizenship

      At least thirty countries in the world have provisions permitting citizens of other nations to reside in them without citizenship. Indeed, in an increasingly globalized world where people may want or need to reside in another country primarily for economic reasons but have little interest in citizenship, some analysts have begun discussing “sojourner rights.” These might permit people to work where they need to but not acquire health care, social security, or other specific benefits of citizenship.⁷

      For some, though not all, of the countries that permit permanent residence, that status is a way station to full citizenship. In general, permanent residents have the same rights as citizens except that they usually cannot vote or run for office, hold government jobs, or sometimes own certain kinds of property. Often, but not always, they are restricted from jobs in the national security area. That is not the case in the United States, where permanent residents not only are subject to U.S. taxes, but also were subject to conscription into the U.S. military when the country had a draft. Now, they can serve in the U.S. military; indeed, that service may be a fast track to citizenship.

      The risk of permanent residence is that it may become a second-class status. The German case is instructive. Germany—and, on a smaller scale, Belgium and the Netherlands—reached agreements with a number of countries to send Gastarbeiter (“guest workers”), low-skill industrial workers, to fill jobs during the boom of the 1960s and 1970s. In Germany, the largest influx was from Turkey. The workers were given the right to live and work for two years, with the expectation that they would return home afterward. Some did, but others stayed and brought their wives. Their children were given the right to live in Germany but not citizenship. They came to form separate communities, sometimes quite large ones scarcely integrated in broader German society and sometimes the target of extremist politicians.⁸ Table 1.1 summarizes the models, bases, and principles for citizenship.

Table 1.1. Models, Bases and Principles of Citizenship

       Citizenship Examples from Other Countries Dividing

      The situation of Czechoslovakia is similar to that of Sudan in that prior to the 1993 dissolution of the country, it had two levels of citizenship, one national (Czechoslovakian) and the other regional (Czech or Slovak). When the country divided, both of the resulting countries granted national citizenship to their former regional citizens. And both allowed citizens who had held regional citizenship in the other region to apply for citizenship in their newly independent states. However, the new Czech Republic also applied a residence requirement to Slovakian nationals desiring Czech citizenship, requiring them to demonstrate uninterrupted residence for two years in the Czech Republic. The two states also differed in that Slovakia allowed for dual citizenship, while the Czech Republic did not.

      So, too, Slovenia, Croatia, and Macedonia all took slightly different approaches to citizenship in their respective new states following independence from Yugoslavia. As in the Czechoslovakia case, each new state’s laws automatically granted citizenship in the new state to individuals who were previously citizens of their respective former republics. However, for others wishing to apply for citizenship, Croatia also imposed a residency requirement, requiring “habitual residence,” in its case defined as five years, in addition to some other conditions. In contrast, Slovenia and Macedonia allowed citizens from all of the former Yugoslav republics to apply for citizenship, although the latter applied a number of conditions, requiring applicants to have fifteen years of residence in the former Yugoslavia, be at least age eighteen, receive personal income, and apply within a year.

      Similarly, Serbia and Montenegro made somewhat different choices about citizenship following Montenegro’s declaration of independence in 2006. In particular, Serbia allowed Montenegrins who held a registered residency in Serbia prior to the succession to apply for Serbian citizenship, and allowed for dual citizenship. In contrast, in March 2008 after the referendum Montenegro enacted legislation that precluded dual citizenship except through separate agreements with other countries, although it did allow Montenegrins who had gained Serbian citizenship after the 2006 succession to retain these citizenship rights until Serbia and Montenegro concluded a formal agreement. Unfortunately, as of 2011, such an agreement had not been concluded, with Montenegro opposing and Serbia supporting the idea of letting those initially allowed to keep both citizenships to retain them.

      Ethiopia and Eritrea opted for a kind of dual citizenship when they divided in 1993, agreeing—but only after the Eritrean referendum—to continue to respect traditional rights of people to reside in another territory.⁹ That state of affairs continued for three years, though the two states could not agree on permanent citizenship arrangements for Eritreans living in Ethiopia. The issue remained stalled amid disagreements over borders and trade when civil war erupted between the two countries in 1998. The Ethiopian government revoked the citizenship rights of Ethiopians who had voted in the Eritrean final status referendum, equating voting with a forfeiture of Ethiopian citizenship. Ethiopia forcibly expelled 75,000 Eritreans, a move condemned by the international community. For its part, Eritrea also subsequently expelled Ethiopian citizens from its territory, though the numbers were much smaller. This humanitarian aftermath of the war remains a sharp point of contention between the parties.

       Principles and Special Considerations

      The models and examples suggest several critical principles in handling citizenship during secession.

      Establish the Basic Principle Permitting Choice in Light of Residence

      The first presumption is that people should be allowed to choose their citizenship. The second is that, in general, it will be based on residence. In all the cases, the starting point was that those people residing in the territory of the new state would become citizens of that state unless they chose otherwise. The harder issue is dealing with those who regard themselves as “belonging” to the state other than the one in which they reside. For them, special provisions or agreements may be required.

      Think Carefully About Dual Citizenship and Permanent Residence

      In thinking of special provisions, dual citizenship is tempting. It can be complicated, and it can become a bone of contention, as was the case, tragically, in Ethiopia and Eritrea and, less dramatically, in Serbia and Montenegro. The complications are clear in the Sudan case. On one hand, dual citizenship would be less on the agenda if, for instance, formal independence meant that southerners in the Khartoum civil service or in joint military units returned to the South. So, too, northerners who had long residence and business in the South might have found it best to become citizens of that state. The challenge was the southern IDPs who in principle wanted to return to the South but were prevented by economics from doing so, at least for some time. At a minimum, some agreement on their