The Nottebohm Case

Liechtenstein vs Guatemala

Facts:
Nottebhom, a naturalized citizen of Guatemala and Leichtenstein, is a German national by birth
who at the age of 24 moved to Guatemala, where he maintained a residence and a business
enterprise, and where his most of his relatives live. He settled in the same for 34 years and
occasionally visited his brother in Liechtenstein.
Guatemala arrested Nottebohm as a dangerous enemy alien during WWII and denied his
readmission at the end of the said war. Being an action against a Liechtensteiner, Liechtenstein
claims that Guatemala acted in breach of their obligations under international law.
Issue:
Whether the nationality conferred on Nottebohm by Liechtenstein bestows upon Liechtenstein
a sufficient title to the exercise of protection in respect of Nottebohm as against Guatamela.
Ruling:
No. Both states, by conferring nationality on the same person, have acted in the exercise of its
domestic jurisdiction, and adhere to their own views.
Being in equal footing, the court referred to the real and effective nationality (effective
nationality link, or the Nottebohm Principle), that which accorded with the facts that based on
stronger factual ties between Nottebohm and the two states. Thus:
Nottebohm settled in Guatemala for 34 years and carried activities there, it
was his main seat of his interest. It remained the center of his interests and
business activities. On the other hand, His connections with Liechtenstein
were extremely tenuous. He had no settled abode, no prolonged residence in
that and his application indicated that he was paying a visit there and
confirms the transient character of this visit. There was no intention of
settling there.

Nottebohm and Liechtenstein had the absence of bond of attachment while between him and
Guatemala exists a long-standing and close connection.

Guatemala is therefore under no obligation to recognize a nationality granted in such

cirumstances. Liechtenstein consequently is not entitled to extend its protection to Nottebohm
against Guatemala and its claim must be held to be inadmissible.