CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ certificate. Competent authorities had discretionary powers, no statutory duty, to issue a personal certificate of identity following a refugee’s application. Despite the fact that the following secondary sentence appeared in the text of the ministerial circular: “(…) if refugees they are entitled to the issuance of certificates of identity.” 114 It was agreed by the League of Nations that certificates of identity (Nansen passports) were internationally recognized public documents. Many states accepted the regime governing their official use. 115 These certificates performed an identification and permissive function. In Czechoslovakia, Nansen passports had the same legal effects as did domestic identity cards. Especially abroad, the document fulfilled the expected identification function to a considerable extent. The Nansen passport certified the personal identity of a refugee. However, the personal certificate of identity lacked an underlying part. The document did not prove the legal status of the holder as a state national. Russian or Armenian refugees did not belong to any state since they had been deprived of de jure protection. Personal certificates only verified the status of refugees that was grounded in an international political arrangement. This instrument became one of the cogent reasons for the adoption of the specific rule. The permissive function of Nansen passports was articulated in the form of authorization made by the state that issued this public document. The holder of the personal certificate was permitted to travel to another state. In this sense, the identity certificates functionally replaced ordinary passports as well. Theoretically, the certificate of identity allowed the refugee to enter another state’s territory based on their will. 116 The permission to enter, and potentially to reside, was dependent on being granted a certain kind of visa. The permissive function of a certificate of identity was of a dual nature. The first permit was provisionally granted by the state that had issued the Nansen passport. The second permit was dependent on the sovereign decision of the receiving state to grant the refugee a visa. No refugee had a legal claim to obtain a visa. A return clause, that could be part of the identity card, was frequently a rigorous requirement to have the visa issued. This formal clause enabled the refugee’s return to the state that issued the certificate of identity. Conclusions The issuance of personal certificates of residency from 6 April 1921 was influenced by domestic and international political circumstances. The Czechoslovak government took notice of the material fact that former prisoners of war and political refugees from Soviet Russia lived in Czechoslovakia. The personal or familial position of those individuals was far beyond legal certainty. At that time Russians or Ukrainians had no officially recognized diplomatic or consular representation in Czechoslovakia. 114 Russian and Armenian refugees - new provisions on personal certificates (Uprchlíci ruští a arménští – nová ustanovení o osobních průkazech). Circular of the Ministry of Interior no. 66.540/1929-5, 11 December 1929. Official gazette of the Ministry of Interior of the Czechoslovak Republic, Praha: Novina, 1930, ročník XII, p. 2. 115 HOLBORN, L. W. Legal Status of Political Refugees, 1920–1938. The American Journal of International Law , vol. 32, no. 4, 1938, p. 683. 116 RUBINSTEIN, M. J. L. The Refugee Problem. Reprinted from International Affairs . Published by the Royal Institute of International Affairs , September-October 1936, vol. XV, no. 5, p. 722. 6.

64