1 See, Alexander Ernst, Staatsangehörigkeit im Deutschen Reich unter der Herrschaft der Nationalsozialisten und seine Auswirkungen auf das Recht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1999).Google Scholar

2 Lübbe-Wolff, Gertrude, Entziehung und Verlust der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit – Art. 16 I GG, 18 Juristische Ausbildung 57 (1996).Google Scholar

3 The whole Article 16.1 GG reads as follows: “Die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit darf nicht entzogen werden. Der Verlust der Staatsangehörigkeit darf nur auf Grund eines Gesetzes und gegen den Willen des Betroffenen nur Google Scholar

dann eintreten, wenn der Betroffene dadurch nicht staatenlos wird“. (“No German may be deprived of his citizenship. Citizenship may be lost only pursuant to a law, and against the will of the person affected only if he does not become stateless as a result”).Google Scholar

4 For earlier decisions by two chamber see below note 22.Google Scholar

5 BVerfG, 2 BvR 669/04 of 24 May 2006, marg. nos. 37 onwards, available at http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20060524_2bvr066904.html, headnotes 1 and 2.Google Scholar

6 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 30.Google Scholar

7 See, e.g., Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, May 26, 2006, at 1, 4, 10; Frankfurter Rundschau, May 26, 2006, at 5; Sueddeutsche Zeitung, May 26, 2006, at 8; die tageszeitung, May 26, 2006, at 6; Die Welt, May 26, 2006, at 4.Google Scholar

8 Possible exceptions are set out in Sec. 12 StAG.Google Scholar

9 Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe, 2 K 1706/03 of December 18, 2003; Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg, 13 S 537/04 of March 4, 2004.Google Scholar

10 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 35.Google Scholar

11 See, e.g., Paul Weis, The United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, 1961, 11 Int'l & Comp. L. Quarterly 1078, 1084 (1961); for the corresponding usage of the term in US immigration law see Thomas A. Aleinikoff & David A. Martin & Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration and Citizenship, 107 (5^th edition 2003).Google Scholar

12 See, Carol Batchelor, Statelessness and the Problem of Resolving Nationality Status, 10 Int'l J. Refugee L. 156, 158 (1998).Google Scholar

13 European Convention on Nationality, Article 4 (c): “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality”; American Convention on Human Rights, Article 20 (3): “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality or right to change it”.Google Scholar

14 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961, Article 9: “A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds”.Google Scholar

15 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of 1961, Article 8.1: “A Contracting State may not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.”; European Convention on Nationality, Article 7.3: “A State Party may not provide in its internal law for the loss of its nationality under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article if the person concerned would thereby become stateless […].”Google Scholar

16 For a concise overview, see, supra, note 3, at 60; see also Jörn A. Kämmerer, Art. 16 in Bonner Kommentar zum Grundgesetz, marg. nos. 46 onwards (Dolzer/Vogel/Graßhof eds., delivery complement 08/2006);Google Scholar

17 Kokott, Juliane, Art. 16 in Grundgesetz Kommentar, marg. no. 16 (Sachs ed., 3^rd ed. 2003).Google Scholar

18 Schnapp, Friedrich E., Art. 16 in Grundgesetz-Kommentar, marg. no. 11 (v. Münch/Kunig eds. 4th ed. 1992); however, differently now Schnapp, id., 5^th ed. 2000, at marg. no. 12.Google Scholar

19 Becker, Ulrich, Art. 16 in Bonner Grundgesetz. Kommentar, marg. no. 33 (v. Mangoldt/Klein/Starck eds., 4^th ed. 1999); Kämmerer, Art. 16, supra, note 16, at marg. no. 49.Google Scholar

20 Pieroth, Bodo & Schlink, Berhard, Grundrechte, 251 (21^st ed. 2005).Google Scholar

21 BVerfG, 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats, 2 BvR 116/90 of June 22, 1990, 53 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2193 (1990); BVerfG, 1. Kammer des Zweiten Senats, 2 BvR 2101/00 of Aug 10, 2001, 20 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1393 (2001).Google Scholar

22 Article 93c Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (Law on the Federal Constitutional Court – BVerfGG); see Franz-Wilhelm Dollinger, § 15a, in Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (BVerfGG), marginal no. 26 (Umbach/Clemens/Dollinger eds., 2^nd ed., 2005).Google Scholar

23 See, supra, note 5, marg. nos. 35 ff.Google Scholar

24 See, supra, note 5, marg. nos. 41; see Hermann Kurthen, Germany at the Crossroads, 29 International Migration Review 919 (1995).Google Scholar

25 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 42.Google Scholar

26 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 49.Google Scholar

27 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 45 f.Google Scholar

28 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 49. Although the FCC does not say so explicitly, it should be noted that this particular inhumanity applies to racist Nazi politics rather than to the forced resettlement of the German population from Eastern Europe, which was rather driven by revenge.Google Scholar

29 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 49.Google Scholar

30 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 49.Google Scholar

31 See, Hailbronner, Kay & Kau, Marcel, Constitutional Law, in Introduction to German Law 53, 57 f. (Reimann/Zekoll eds., 2005). For an illuminating analysis of the historical reasons for this particular emphasis of the rule of law see Michael Stolleis, Nach der Sinnflut, in Festschrift für Wolfgang Wiegand 1145 (Bucher/Canaris/Honsell/Koller eds., 2005).Google Scholar

32 See, supra, note 5, marg. no. 50: ausreichendes Maß an Rechtssicherheit und Rechtsklarheit (sufficient degree of legal certainty and legal clarity).Google Scholar

33 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 51.Google Scholar

34 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 50.Google Scholar

35 The court thus addresses a objection against the judicature of its chambers, see Lübbe-Wolff, supra, note 3, at 61.Google Scholar

36 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 53: “eindeutig außerhalb des Sinns und Zwecks der Vorschrift“.Google Scholar

37 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 53 onwards.Google Scholar

38 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 58 onwards.Google Scholar

39 See, supra, note 5, marg. nos. 62 ff.Google Scholar

40 The court is not obliged to publicise the results of its votes but he may do so, according to its procural rules. With regard to its ruling on Article 16.1 sent. 1 GG, the vote is not publicised. With regard to Article. 16.2 sent. 2 GG it is publicised that two dissenting votes occurred. However, the court does not tell who the two dissenters were nor did they file a dissenting opinion.Google Scholar

41 Four out of eight justices ruled in the affirmative (Vice-President Hassemer and Judges Di Fabio, Mellinghoff and Landau), four in the negative (Judges Broß, Osterloh, Lübbe-Wolff and Gerhardt).Google Scholar

42 The opinion of the court is written by those four judges who prevailed due to how the FCC's procedural rules resolve a split.Google Scholar

43 Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Der Rechtsstaat, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts 541, 574 (Isensee/Kirchhof eds., Vol. 2, 3^rd ed. 2004).Google Scholar

44 Dreier, Horst, Art. 1 Sec. 3, in Grundgesetz Kommentar marg. nos. 44 and 62 (Dreier ed., Vol. 1, 2^nd ed. 2004).Google Scholar

45 For the plenary power doctrine see Legomsky, Stephen H., Ten More Years of Plenary Power: Immigration, Congress, and the Courts, 22 Hastings Const. L. Q. 925 (1994-1995); Hiroshi Motomura, Immigration Law after a Century of Plenary Power: Phantom Constitutional Norms and Statutory Interpretation, 100 Yale L. J. 545 (1990).Google Scholar

46 Cf. BVerfGE 49, 89 (126); 61, 260 (275); 83, 130 (142).Google Scholar

47 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 85.Google Scholar

48 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 80 onwards.Google Scholar

49 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 80.Google Scholar

50 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 75, 83. Usually these are general constitutional commitments not specific for any particular fundamental right. But because the function of citizenship demands reliability as well the court declared them to be also part of the specific protection provided by Article 16.1 GG (Supra, at note 32). As regards the content of the protection, however, it is not discernible what difference this reinforcement of protection makes.Google Scholar

51 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 83.Google Scholar

52 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 76.Google Scholar

53 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 76.Google Scholar

54 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 89.Google Scholar

55 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 72 ff.Google Scholar

56 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 90 ff.Google Scholar

57 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 92.Google Scholar

58 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 93.Google Scholar

59 Sec. 48 Subsec. 2 and 3 VwVfG also contains detailed provisions about Vertrauensschutz (protection of reliance), but they pertain only to material benefits or damages, which do not play a role here.Google Scholar

60 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 93 onwards.Google Scholar

61 The general direction of this approach is already visible in the FCC's judgment on the European Arrest Warrant Case, which concerns the protection against extradition enshrined in Article 16.2 Basic Law; see BVerfG, 2 BvR 2236/04, 18 July 18 2005, marg. no. 67.Google Scholar

62 See, supra, notes 14 and 15.Google Scholar

63 See, Hailbronner & Marcel, supra, note 32, at 76 onwards.Google Scholar

64 See, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (ed.), Integration und Islam, 2006, available at http://www.bamf.de/cln_043/nn_566334/sid_57F47B075535F815B29C822153A367A1/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Asyl/Publikationen/schriftenreihe-band-14.html__nnn=true.Google Scholar

65 Meanwhile, the state's ministers of interior have decided to harmonize their handling of the naturalization; see Sammlung der zur Veröffentlichung freigegebenen Beschlüsse der 180. Sitzung der Ständigen Konferenz der Innenminister und –senatoren der Länder am 5. Mai 2006, available at http://www.stmi.bayern.de/ministerium/imk/beschluesse/.Google Scholar

66 See, Wolfrum, Rüdiger & Röben, Volker, Gutachten zur Vereinbarkeit des Gesprächsleitfaden für die Einbürgerungsbehörden des Landes Baden-Württemberg mit Völkerrecht, March 2006, available at http://www.mpil.de/shared/data/pdf/gutacht_gespraechsleitfaden_einbuergerung.pdf. Prof. Wolfrum is currently President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea at Hamburg.Google Scholar

67 See, Sec. 10.1 no. 4 StAG.Google Scholar

68 See, supra, at note 6; BVerfG, supra, note 6, marg. no. 30.Google Scholar

69 See, supra, note 5, marg. nos. 63 onwards.Google Scholar

70 Tyler, Tom R., Why People Obey the Law? (1990); Stefan Magen, Fairness, Eigennutz und die Rolle des Rechts, Preprints of the MPI for Collective Goods 2005/22 (2005).Google Scholar

71 See, Fehr, Ernst & Gächter, Simon, Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity, in 14 Journal of Economic Perspectives 159 (2000); Christina M. Fong, Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis, Reciprocity and the Welfare State, in Moral Sentiments and Material Interests 277 (Gintis et al. eds., 2005), Amy L. Wax, Rethinking Welfare Rights, 63 Law and Contemporary Problems 257 (2000).Google Scholar

72 BVerfG, 2 BvR 2236/04, July 18, 2005, marg. no. 65; see Simone Mölders, The European Arrest Warrant in the German Federal Constitutional Court, 7 German L. J. 45 (2006), at http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol07No01/PDF_Vol_07_No_1_45-8_Developments_Moelders.pdf.Google Scholar

73 In this vein Kämmerer, supra note 16, at marg. nos. 38, 55.a.Google Scholar

74 Id.Google Scholar

75 See, BVerfG, 1 BvR 670/91, June 26, 2002, BVerfGE 105, 279 ff.; BVerfG, 1 BvR 558/91 and 1 BvR 1428/91, June 26, 2002, BVerfGE 105, 252 ff; Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde, Schutzbereich, Eingriff, verfassungsmäßige Schranken. Zur Kritik der Grundrechtsdogmatik, 42 Der Staat 165 (2004); Uwe Volkmann, Veränderungen der Grundrechtsdogmatik, 60 Juristenzeitung 261 (2005).Google Scholar

76 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 91.Google Scholar

77 There is another possibility to oblige parliament to decide on a regulatory issue without binding it with regard to the content of the decision. This is the before mentioned Wesentlichkeitsdoktrin (essential questions doctrine, see supra, note 48). It is not apparent, why the dissenters did draw on this doctrine.Google Scholar

78 BVerwG, 1 C 19/02, June 3, 2003, 23 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 489, 490 (2004).Google Scholar

79 See, supra, note 6, marg. nos. 67 and 76.Google Scholar

80 BVerwG, 1 C 19/02, June 3, 2003, 23 Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 489, 490 (2004).Google Scholar

81 For the FCC's judicature on the proportionality principle see Albers/Witzke, The End of the “Woodward and Bernstein” Era? The German Constitutional Court and Journalists’ Privacy on Mobile Phones, 4 German J 647, 652 (2003); Heilbronner & Kau, supra, note 32 at 76.Google Scholar

82 So explicitly BVerfG, supra, note 6, marg. no. 67 (nächstliegende Reaktion).Google Scholar

83 See, supra, note 6, marg. no. 76.Google Scholar

84 E.g., Brubaker, Rogers, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (1992); Helen Elizabeth Hartnell, Belonging: Citizenship and Migration in the European Union and in Germany, 24 Berkeley J. Int'l L. 330, 373 (2006); Kurthen, supra note 25 at 919 and 929; see also Rolf Grawert, Staatsvolk und Staatsangehörigkeit, in Handbuch des Staatsrechts 107, 132 Isensee/Kirchhof eds., Vol. 2, 3^rd ed. 2004). Additionally there has always been the possibility to acquire the German citizenship by naturalization (ius domicilii), see Kurthen, supra note 25 at 929.Google Scholar

85 For a historical overview see Rolf Grawert, Staat und Staatsangehörigkeit (1973).Google Scholar

86 Kurthen, supra, note 25 at 929.Google Scholar

87 Brubaker, supra note 86 at 50; Ulrich K. Preuss, Citizenship and the German Nation, 7 Citizenship Studies 37, 38 and 50 (2003).Google Scholar

88 Masing, Johannes, Wandel im Staatsangehörigkeitsrecht vor den Herausforderungen moderner Migration 73, (2001); Preuss, supra note 89 at 39 onwards.Google Scholar

89 Id., 46.Google Scholar

90 Id., 47.Google Scholar

91 The change was mainly effected by the Gesetz zur Reform des Staatsangehörigkeitsrechts (Act regarding the reform of the law of citizenship) of July 15, 1999 (BGBl. [Federal Gazette] I 6718). An overview of the reform is provided by Holger Hoffmann, The Reform of the Law on Citizenship in Germany: Political Aims, Legal Concepts and Provisional Results, 6 Eur. J. Migration & L. 195 (2004).Google Scholar

92 One parent must also be an EU-citizen or have an unlimited residence title (Niederlassungserlaubnis -settlement permit).Google Scholar

93 Pursuant to Article 6.3 of the European Convention on nationality contracting states – Germany among them – shall provide for the possibility of naturalization of persons lawfully and habitually residing on its territory with a maximum waiting period of ten years.Google Scholar

94 This inclusion of ethnic Germans was motivated to cope with the resettlement of ethnic Germans after World-War II.Google Scholar

95 As is now the case for EU-citizens in county and municipal elections, see Article 28 Sec. 1 Sent 2 GG.Google Scholar

96 BVerfG, 2 BvF 2/89 and 2 BvR 6/89 of October 31, 1990, BVerfGE 83, 37 [52].Google Scholar

97 Christian Hillgruber, Staaten unter Migrationsdruck: Nationale Identitätswahrung zwischen Fremdenfeindlichkeit und Multikulturalismus, in Globaler demographischer Wandel und Schutz der Menschenrechte 131, 138 (E. Klein ed., 2005).Google Scholar

98 See, Brubaker, Rogers, The Return of Assimilation? Changing Perspectives on Immigration and Its Sequels in France, Germany, and the United States, 24 Ethnic and Racial Studies 531 (2001); Udo Di Fabio, Die Kultur der Freiheit (2005).Google Scholar