On June 23, at the National Assembly the hearings organized by the NA Standing Committee on Foreign Relations on the proposal of ARF faction on the theme “Key Problems of Dual Citizenship, International Law and Experience” were held. The MPs, representatives of the Government, political parties, social, international organizations, diplomatic missions attended the hearings.

In his opening speech, Armen Roustamyan, Chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Foreign Relations, assured that the initiative would have continuous character until the complete law is adopted. He noted, that one of the issues of the Committee is the adoption of one of the most important laws within the investigation, understanding and localization of principles of international experience and standards. In his opinion, the affirmation of the institute of dual citizenship is responsible and most important problem, which will effectively implement our compatriots’ protection of in foreign countries. In Armen Roustamyan’s opinion, the country has to solve the problem correctly, promote to the return of whole Armenians, to the strengthening of Armenia and Armenians.

Levon Mkrtchyan, Minister of Education and Science, presented the “Foreign Experience of Legal Regulation of Dual Citizenship.” He reminded the limitation of the problem, informing that after constitutional reforms the situation took a new turn, and mentioned that in this regard we are obliged to adopt a law, by which our people will get necessary opportunities from the point of geopolitical development. Mr. Mkrtchyan pointed favorable sides of the national problems’ view as Armenian people’s unified statehood, and the legal side - as study of international experience. As a problem of draft adoption the processes of international globalization were reported, which revolutionize civil relationships and national peculiarities. In his opinion, there is no stable model, which is possible to learn. Levon Mkrtchyan underlined that the genocide put a stamp on Armenians’ existence and everyday life. Referring to Armenian Diaspora he informed that this is an Armenian entity without borders, which is focused on cultural identity, language, preservation of lifestyle and existence, return to the motherland, restoration of statehood. The political right of this entity makes us to reinforce the institute of dual citizenship in independent statehood of Armenia. In historical review Mr. Mkrtchyan informed that the dispute over dual citizenship got its solution in 1918-1920, upon the first Armenian parliamentary decisions. Minister of Science and Education, pointing out at the declaration of independence, which states that “every Armenian has the right to get Armenian citizenship” said, that legal institution was created on that basis and there are many problems solved: property, getting easily a citizenship, replacement and other issues. According to him, some principles are necessary while awarding citizenship and dual citizenship: fairness, equality of rights, absence of discrimination and legal framework. Levon Mkrtchyan also highlighted the experience of CIS countries, Russia, Spain, and France. The issues of execution of military service and tax obligations were also pointed. Mr. Mkrtchyan mentioned, that a person cannot serve in 2 places, cannot execute tax obligations in 2 places. According to the speaker, the elections related issues are possible to regulate. The opportunity to adopt 2 laws (the Law on Dual citizenship and on Giving RA Dual Status to Armenians Living Abroad) in recognition of Dual Citizenship law was considered as a principal issue. Levon Mkrtchyan highlighted the study of international experience. At the end of his speech he hoped that after the hearings the international experience would be summed up, which will promote the effectiveness of state governmental Commission’s work.

Gagik Harutyunyan, President of the Constitutional Court, noted that the dual citizenship issue is often debated unilaterally, and there is an impression that the institute of dual citizenship is worshipped. He informed that today only 54 out of 191 UN member states adopt the dual citizenship: part of them accepts dual citizenship as an abstract model, the others - some elements of the institute. Mr. Harutyunyan, citing the international legal experience, said that, according to the convention adopted in 1963, the issue of cutting the dual citizenship was raised in the member states of the Council of Europe, at that time considering the institute as a legal opportunity to conquer anachronistic situations. And the European Convention on Citizenship adopted in 1997 in Strasbourg tried to develop the logic of the previous one. In Gagik Harutyunyan’s opinion, Armenia being a CE member, after constitutional reforms is discussing the law on Dual Citizenship, but there are no purposes to join these international documents and solve problems within their framework. According to the speaker, the rights and obligations of citizens must be in harmony; consequently such terms like passive citizenship, co-citizenship, having rights, having no obligations are false. Noting, that the Institute on Special Status has been underestimated once, Mr. Harutyunyan believes, that the Institute enabled the Diaspora Armenians to get the status with rights and obligations equal to Armenian citizens, which was progressive at that time. In Gagik Harutyunyan’s opinion it is not correct to bring the solution of the issue to the fact, that by means of dual citizenship it will be possible to fill the budget of Armenia by $100mln. According to him, to replace the issue into another level and the way to put the question is not correct, and also it is romantic and naïve, because if once, by paying only $1000 people were able to get that status, today there definitely will be people who will pay proportionally stable taxes out of their incomes, so that the Institute of Citizenship is acceptable for them. In Gagik Harutyunyan’s words, there should not be rights’ discrimination. He does not see the solution of the right to election in general elections without residential qualification.

Paruyr Hayrikyan, Head of National Self-Determination Union, reminded to those who spoke about the dangers of dual citizenship that single citizenship does not protect of any danger. “We should not adopt the Law on Dual Citizenship. We should just withdraw the provision “RA citizen cannot simultaneously be a citizen of another country” from the acting Law on RA Citizenship. One more provision regarding this issue and we can live quietly,” said Mr. Hayrikyan.

Frunze Kharatyan, the second secretary of Communist Party of Armenia (CPA), highlighted the recognition of dual citizenship in the creation of national republic. According to Mr. Kharatyan, 5-10 MPs seats out of 131 can be given to Diaspora Armenians, so they would feel that Armenia is their country. F. Kharatyan also believes, that we should not adopt a Law on Dual Citizenship. The Law on Armenian Citizenship should regulate the issues of dual citizenship.

Gevorg Malkhasyan, Deputy Minister of Justice, referred to the international experience of legal regulation of dual citizenship. He referred to the foreign countries’ legislative principles and the RA legislative principles’ problems, and proceeded from this to the principle of dual citizenship model. He mentioned that dual citizen or multi citizen is a person who being a citizen of one country adopts a citizenship of another country.

There are 3 principles in the sphere of dual citizenship in the world:

1. Non-recognition of dual citizenship: Many countries mainly do not recognize dual citizenship, believing that their country citizen does not have right to withdraw from the citizenship and adopt other citizenship and vice versa, the citizen of that country does not have the right to become the citizen of this country without withdrawal from his citizenship.
2. The principle of recognition: This principle is adopted by few countries, which means to recognize not only the fact that the citizen of given country is a citizen of that country, but also to recognize condition of this citizen to become a citizen of another country.
3. The principle of repayment: Almost all countries accept this principle.

These 3 main principles function by different ways in any country. And the approach depends on the political, economic situation of the country. We have to study what principles we have to rely on to apply the dual citizenship. To apply the first principle we have to come from the principles of national security, principle of country protection. The second principle is a principle of involving Diaspora into the RA political, economic relations. The third principle – to elaborate mechanisms, so fewer citizens withdraw their citizenship in Armenia.

The fourth principle is to give opportunity to the RA persons who lost their citizenship and who will adopt citizenship of other country to restore their Armenian citizenship.

Narine Solomonyan, Expert of the Constitutional Court, presented foreign experience of legal regulation of dual citizenship. She noted that not all countries identically relate to the Institute of dual citizenship and in this regard they are divided into 3 groups: 1. Countries which adopt dual citizenship, including Bulgaria, India, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Finland, France, Israel, Cyprus and others. 2. Countries, which recognize dual citizenship with some reserving. These are: Australia, Germany, Japan, Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia and others. 3. Countries which do not adopt dual citizenship, including Austria, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Thailand, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Poland, Cuba, Belarus and others. Mrs. Solomonyan mentioned that Russia recognizes dual citizenship only when bilateral agreement on dual citizenship with the specific country is available and when dual citizenship is permitted by the federal law. The USA does not adopt dual citizenship, excluding cases, when principles of blood and land are employed toward specific individual. Presenting Israel experience, she noted that every Jew, in spite of the residence in Israel is considered a citizen of Israel and on the contrast to other countries, if this dual citizen performs his military responsibility in Israel, then he gets right to elect and be elected.

Chairman of Ramkavar Azatakan Party in Armenia, Harutyun Arakelyan highlighted the necessity of adoption of dual citizenship law, noting that it is of great importance for Diaspora and expressed a hope that the political majority of the parliament will display political wish to give legal, legislative solution to this issue. Hovhannes Igityan, member of Armenian National Movement (ANM), was against the Institute of Dual Citizenship and presented his approach referring to international experience.

Shahen Avagyan, head of Staff of MFA, reported on the theme:“The RA International Obligations Undertaken and Anticipated in the Aspect of Regulation of Legal Relationship Conditioned by Dual Citizenship.” He noted that international law clearly defines the citizenship. It is an exclusive right of the country on the basis of which there is legal connection between an individual and country.

Summing up parliamentary hearings, Armen Roustamyan, Chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Foreign Relations, noted that he doesn’t pretend to finish summing up in the meantime, since it is a serous work and the next reason of the meeting will be when the Committee presents the conclusion where the hearings’ results will be summed up. According to Mr. Roustamyan, in the result of hearings distorted and subjective perceptions were clarified. He highlighted the move of the discussion of the issue into subjective, specialized field, so the whole issue is summed up in one conclusion, which in future will be the basis to present the Law debate in more prepared way.