Suchergebnisse

Timorese citizenship was born with the new independent state, on 20 May 2002. The Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (Constituição da República Democrática de Timor-Leste), which entered into force on that same day, set the criteria for the attribution of Timorese citizenship by birth (cidadania originária) and referred to ordinary legislation the definition of the rules on acquisition, loss, reacquisition, registration and proof of Timorese citizenship (Article 3, under the heading 'citizenship'). Much like the rest of the constitutional text, Article 3 reflects the combined influences of the Mozambican Constitution of 1990 and of the Portuguese Constitution of 1976. The first is reflected in the Constituent Assembly's option for setting substantive criteria for the attribution of citizenship, while the second is evidenced by its option for referring the bulk of the citizenship regime to ordinary legislation. The combination is not without difficulties. Article 3 of the Timorese Constitution adopts the traditional jus soli and jus sanguinis principles for the attribution of citizenship by birth. Both principles are enunciated in very broad terms, making access to Timorese citizenship by birth remarkably easy. This may be explained by the fact that Timor-Leste is a small and poor country with a vast diaspora, but later legal developments, i.e. the adoption of the 2002 Nationality Act and of the 2004 Nationality Regulation, suggest that the Constituent Assembly might have come across as more inclusive than what was actually intended. The attempts made by the National Parliament and by the Government to introduce restrictions in the access to Timorese citizenship by birth lack a constitutional mandate and should be deemed unconstitutional. The issue, however, has not yet reached the Timorese courts and seems to be absent from academic and political debates in the country. The chapter provides historical background to the current citizenship regime in Timor-Leste, covering membership criteria ...

Discussion of the cross-border migration in the Euro-region Galicia-North of Portugal against the background provided by a strong narrative of historical, cultural and linguistic ties, on the one hand, and the increasing reports of discrimination against Portuguese workers in Galicia, of their disenfranchisement in the political field and their exposition to a range of negative stereotypes that hinder their chances for ...

In Brazil, like in most Latin American countries, the criteria for attribution, acquisition and loss of Brazilian citizenship are set in the Constitution. The formal constitutionality of citizenship criteria is a long standing and undisputed legal tradition going back to the very first constitution of Brazil as an independent country, the Imperial Constitution of 1824. The constitutional enunciation of citizenship criteria has always been perceived as exhaustive (Melo 1949: 7) and its provisions have often been read literally, but it never dispensed with regulation by ordinary legislation nor with judicial and executive interpretation. Some major changes have actually been introduced by such infraconstitutional means, which raised and continues to raise questions as to their compliance with the Constitution and therefore as to their validity. Some legislative and judicial developments were eventually incorporated in the constitutional text, but a recent major change to the Brazilian legal tradition in this field – the introduction by executive ordinance of renunciation as a mode of loss of Brazilian citizenship – is yet to be expressly enshrined in the Constitution.

Em publicação ; Cultural diversity is a prominent feature of our globalised world and has been the object of much celebration over the past decade. However, intra-State diversity is perceived by many – in Europe, as in other Western countries – as a problem, a source of social divisions and tensions, a challenge to the unity and authority of the legal system, and a liability to the territorial integrity of the State. European countries have responded in many different ways to the "problem" of cultural diversity, according to their history and specific social makeup, but their responses can be summed up into two main approaches – assimilationism and multiculturalism. While multiculturalism has been blamed for many of the bad things that have happened in Europe in the last decade, it is still the best answer to the question of how democratic States, founded on the rule of law and respect for human rights, are to deal with the cultural diversity of their societies. One of its main aspects – the protection of cultural minorities – is, however, still a work in progress throughout ...

One of the most fundamental state prerogatives is to decide who belongs to the political community. When East Timor became independent from Indonesia on May 20, 2002, the Constitution of the new country set the criteria for attributing Timorese citizenship by origin. The constitutional provision on citizenship combines the traditional jus soli and jus sanguinis principles in such a way that grants easy access to Timorese citizenship by origin. This generosity may be explained by the fact that East Timor is a small and poor country with a vast diaspora, although recent legal developments suggest that the Constituent Assembly might have said more than it intended. The clarification of the scope of the constitutional provision is extremely important, not only for symbolic reasons (connection between citizenship and national identity), but also for its practical consequences, given that many fundamental rights under the Constitution (including the right to own land) are exclusive to Timorese ...

Defence date: 21 November 2008 ; Examining Board: Prof. Doutor Jacques Ziller, Instituto Universitário Europeu; Prof. Doutor Pedro Bacelar Vasconcelos, Universidade do Minho; Prof. Doutor Rui Moura Ramos, Universidade de Coimbra; Prof. Doutor Francesco Francioni, Instituto Universitário Europeu. ; First made available online 14 January 2015. ; Portugal is a very good illustration of the current identity quests that are pursued by communities of all shapes and sizes – local, national, supranational, international, civilizational – in response to old urges and new threats posed in a globalised, but also "glocalised", world. Torn between its European body and its atlantic/lusophone "soul", Portugal tries to strike a balance between the two dimensions of its identity as a polity and, in the process, claims a special role as mediator between north and south, Europe and the African continent. Although fully committed to the European immigration policy, with its restrictive dimensions and its focus on integration, Portugal purports to articulate the European demands with the special solidarity bonds that exist with the Portuguese speaking countries. It has been so for a number of years, but the recent developments in both the Portuguese nationality and immigration laws show that the fears expressed by many that Schengen would surpass the lusophone ties were well founded and that, no matter how well intended the Portuguese policies are in these matters, the result will be detrimental to the so-called lusophone citizens. They do enjoy a special status – encompassing voting rights and access to public office that is generally forbidden to all foreigners (a status unparalleled in the two other European countries under scrutiny, France and the United Kingdom) – but their access to the Portuguese territory has been curtailed. Even more than Portugal, which until recently was the last of the European "nation states" and only now faces visible cultural diversity in its society, the European Union and the Community of the Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) struggle with the definition of their respective identities and sense of purpose, seeking to win the hearts and minds of their peoples. Commonly considered a natural spontaneous community, due to the existence of a common language, the CPLP faces the difficulties posed by mutual distrust and old grudges and the fear, by many, that it is only an expression of imperial nostalgia on the part of Portugal. Its member states show only a mild commitment, engaged as they all are in other regional communities of their own, as can be seen in the discussions on citizenship and free movement within the lusophone area. There are many similarities between the legal systems of the CPLP member states, which can be explained by the cooperation between lawyers and academics specially in Africa and East Timor, but some of those similarities are merely formal, with little correspondence in the law in action, and coexist with relevant differences due mostly to different levels of socio-economic development and political will. For the European Union the purpose of fostering a feeling of belonging and solidarity between the peoples of Europe is an ongoing struggle for legitimacy which has suffered major setbacks in recent years. After the constitutional momentum, the Union has adopted a more modest stance, but has by no means given up winning the support of the European citizens. One of the fields in which its intervention is demanded is directly linked with the identity quest in progress – border definition and control, policies towards illegal and legal aliens. Stressing the need to integrate the third country nationals who are legal residents and adopting the mantra of intercultural dialogue, the EU presents itself as a guardian for human rights and a fighter against racism, at the same time as it tries to keep Europe for the Europeans as much as possible. Its member states are willing, for European or domestic reasons, to go along and easily drop old preferences for extra-community bonds of solidarity. Portugal may again be the last of the empires, keeping a special status for the foreigners of lusophone origin, but it nevertheless keeps with the times when it comes to admission to its territory.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocols provide the basis for establishing effective mechanisms to address the multifaceted challenges faced by States and other actors, including regional organizations, in ensuring that children are able to access and enjoy their rights. Article 3 of the CRC states that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration". This principle is of particular relevance to the situation of migrant children, including unaccompanied migrant children, in regular or irregular situations that are the focus of this study. This study reviews judicial decisions from the CJEU and the ECtHR and from selected European national courts, which apply the principle of the best interests of the child to cases involving migrant children in irregular situations, including unaccompanied and separated children. The selected cases are meant to be illustrative of the type of issues that are raised before national courts and of the way in which these courts interpret their obligation under Article 3 of the CRC to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. Finally, the study identifies a number of relevant cases which explicitly refer to the best interests of the child and that may serve as good practice in guiding future jurisprudence throughout Europe. ; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Regional Office for ...