青海省人大常委会


海西蒙古族藏族自治州野生动物保护条例
青海省人大常委会


（1996年5月28日海西蒙古族藏族自治州第十届人民代表大会第一次会议通过 1996年7月31日青海省第八届人民代表大会常务委员会第二十五次会议批准 1996年10月1日起施行）


第一条 为加强野生动物资源的保护、管理和合理利用，维护自然生态平衡，根据《中华人民共和国野生动物保护法》和有关法律、法规，结合自治州实际，制定本条例。
第二条 自治州境内国家和省级重点保护的野生动物及其赖以生存的自然环境，均属本条例保护管理范围。
第三条 自治州各级人民政府必须认真贯彻保护野生动物资源的法律、法规，加强组织领导，广泛开展宣传教育，依靠群众做好野生动物资源的保护管理工作。
第四条 自治州、县（市）农牧行政主管部门主管辖区内野生动物资源的保护管理工作；茫崖、冷湖、大柴旦行政委员会负责辖区内野生动物资源的保护管理工作。乡（镇）人民政府和村（牧）民委员会具体负责本行政区域内的保护工作。
公安、工商、环保、交通运输等有关部门协助农牧主管部门做好野生动物资源的保护管理工作。
第五条 自治州境内设立自然保护区和禁猎区，禁止在上述地区猎捕或进行妨害野生动物生存的一切活动。
（一）自然保护区：德令哈市克鲁可湖至托素湖水禽自然保护区；都兰县田格里湖黑颈鹤自然保护区，科学图、曲岗园柏林野生动物自然保护区；茫崖行政区阿拉尔大型野生动物自然保护区。
（二）禁猎区：格尔木市乌图美仁乡、唐古拉山乡、郭里木德乡野牛沟、黑刺沟；德令哈市宗务隆乡伊克拉地区、怀头他拉乡雅沙图；都兰县沟里乡、巴隆乡；乌兰县铜普乡铜普山、赛什克乡牦牛山；天竣县苏里乡、阳康乡、舟群乡；茫崖行政区阿拉尔至西金乌兰湖。
第六条 在非禁猎区，每年3月1日至10月31日为禁猎期。禁猎期内禁止一切狩猎活动。
在非禁猎期狩猎的，须经县级以上农牧行政主管部门批准。
第七条 猎捕野生动物，禁止使用危及人身安全和破坏野生动物资源及栖息环境的军用武器、小口径步枪、汽枪、毒饵、地弓、扣子、铁夹等工具和陷坑、围猎、撒网、烟熏、爆炸、机动车辆追捕、夜间照明狩猎、掏窝、毁巢、挖洞等方法。
第八条 因科学研究、驯养繁殖、展览、对外交换或者其它特殊情况，需要猎捕国家重点保护野生动物的，须按规定申办特许狩猎证或国家重点保护野生动物驯养繁殖许可证。猎捕非重点保护野生动物的，须向县级以上农牧行政主管部门申办狩猎证，并持有公安机关制发的持枪证，方
可狩猎。
第九条 经批准在自治州境内开发、利用国家及省级重点保护的野生动物及其产品的，由自治州、县（市）农牧行政主管部门组织实施；对进入市场的野生动物及其产品，由自治州、县（市）工商行政管理部门进行监督管理；在集贸市场以外经营野生动物或者其产品，由自治州、县（
市）农牧行政主管部门、工商行政管理部门或者其委托的单位进行监督管理。
未经批准，任何单位和个人不得买卖国家重点保护的一、二级和省级重点保护的野生动物及其产品。
第十条 开展国际狩猎活动的，按有关规定执行。
第十一条 凡考察国家重点保护的一、二级和省级重点保护野生动物或在自然保护区拍摄电影、电视、录相，必须按有关规定报批，并缴纳资源保护管理费。
第十二条 运输、邮寄或携带国家和省级重点保护的野生动物及其产品出州、县（市、行政区）境的，须经省野生动物行政主管部门或者其授权单位批准。
第十三条 有条件的单位和个人，经县以上农牧行政主管部门批准，可以开展野生动物驯养工作，向省内外公园、科研单位出售活体野生动物或标志。
第十四条 自治州、县（市、行政区）农牧行政主管部门建立野生动物资源保护基金，用于野生动物资源保护和管理，专款专用。
第十五条 机关、团体、部队、学校、铁路、公路养护、厂矿、农林牧渔场和农村集体经济组织以及其他企业、事业单位，应教育职工、家属遵守法律、法规，自觉保护野生动物资源。
第十六条 在自治州境内从事采金、采矿、工副业生产和其它人员，必须严格遵守有关保护野生动物的法律、法规，不得伤害和破坏野生动物资源及其栖息环境。
第十七条 凡持有州、县（市）林业行政执法检查证或野生动物保护行政执法检查证的林业和野生动物管理人员，有权对本区域内进行狩猎活动的人员进行检查，制止一切破坏野生动物资源的违法行为，协助有关部门查处违法狩猎案件。
第十八条 公安、工商行政管理部门没收的野生动物及其产品，一律交同级农牧行政主管部门，不得自行处理；由农牧行政主管部门会同同级财政、物价部门处理。
第十九条 对在野生动物资源保护管理方面做出显著成绩的单位和个人，由县级以上人民政府或农牧行政主管部门给予表彰奖励。
对举报破坏野生动物资源案件的有功单位及人员给予奖励。
第二十条 违反本条例规定的，按《中华人民共和国野生动物保护法》、《青海省实施〈中华人民共和国野生动物保护法〉办法》的规定处理；构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
第二十一条 以暴力或威胁手段阻碍野生动物管理人员依法执行职务，情节轻微的，依照《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚条例》进行处罚；情节严重构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
第二十二条 农牧行政主管部门工作人员玩忽职守、徇私舞弊、滥用职权、监守自盗或包庇、纵容、指使他人从事违反本条例活动的，由所在单位或上级主管部机关给予行政处分；情节严重构成犯罪的，由司法机关依法追究刑事责任。
第二十三条 本条例的具体应用问题由自治州人民政府负责解释。
第二十四条 本条例自1996年10月1日起施行。



1996年7月31日
Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992