CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

DALIBOR JÍLEK – JANA BALIŠOVÁ CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ issues of jurisdiction belonged, first and foremost, to the domain réservé of the states. 15 Thus, in an unsurprising manner, the certification process regarding the nationality of forcibly expatriated, unaccompanied children quickly devolved into a convoluted, formalistic plight. Many unaccompanied children remained in the zones controlled by the occupying powers for long periods of time. Formerly, some had been forcibly removed to the German Reich with the patent objective of being coerced to be part of the “Lebensborn” program – an organized scheme of complete and final Germanization ( Eindeutschung ) of foreign children who were deemed sufficiently “racially valuable”. 16 The selected children were initially placed into institutional care, where the first phase of their forced assimilation would be undertaken. 17 In later stages, they were entrusted into the care of suitable foster families or adopted by proper German parents. The whole process was overseen by the SS Race and Settlement Main Office, which also ascertained the eligibility of potential caregivers, guardians, and parents to those children. 18 The primary objective of Germanization was a comprehensive – cultural, social, and spiritual – integration of the selected children into the German nation. In the long-term, it was conceived as a strategy to augment and replenish the numbers of the “racially desirable” German population. This type of wholesale individual transformation necessitated a complete annihilation of the child’s former (individual, familial, or group-related) identity. Thus, the process also entailed the loss of the original nationality as the assimilated child acquired German citizenship. In ascertaining the real identity, including nationality, of particularly small children, cooperation among the relevant national ministries and national Red Cross Societies played an integral role. With respect to children placed in centers within the occupation zones of Austria, Germany, and Italy, the IRO and local organizations also participated in the process. In the US zone these centers were administered by the IRO, while in the British zone the task was discharged by the military command. Before conclusively ascertaining the nationality of unaccompanied children, the occupation authorities presumed their German nationality and treated them in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. Only a formal declaration of the child’s true nationality could refute this rebuttable presumption and its attendant legal effects. The requirement of establishing the child’s uncontested nationality needed to be satisfied. This determination acted as a momentous turning point in the unaccompanied child’s life as, immediately afterwards they became an alien in the occupied territory. On the contrary, with respect to refugee children whose nationality remained in doubt, or whose state of origin refused to recognize the legal bond, the uncertainty of their legal status persisted. The establishment of the unaccompanied child’s nationality entailed certification by an official representative appointed by the country of origin’s government. 19 This requirement reflected the customary rule of general international law granting each state the right to 15 Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco , Advisory Opinion No. 4, PCIJ Rep Series B (7 February 1923) 24. 16 See ‘The RuSHA Case’ in Trials of War criminals before Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No . 10, October 1946 – April 1949 (vol V, United States Government Printing Office 1950) 94: “Special treatment of racially valuable children…” 17 These institutions were directly managed by the program’s eponymous organization “Lebensborn”. 18 RuSHA – Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt . 19 In general, the involved states did not provide, at the time, any consular services in the occupation zones.

106