Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Ending international surrogacy-induced statelessness: an international human rights law perspective

  • Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

Abstract

Statelessness among children born out of international surrogacy arrangements is a sad reality. Despite the availability of various international human rights law provisions guaranteeing nationality for newly born children, some states are reluctant to give nationality to the children of their citizens, who are born abroad through surrogacy arrangements. The article analyzes the root causes of statelessness among surrogate born children in the light of laws and regulations available in this realm, and concludes that countries have responsibility under international human rights regime to give nationality to children born out of international surrogacy arrangements. This obligation continues even when the state’s general public policy opposes surrogacy, and even when their jus sanguinis or jus soli norms would otherwise lead to a denial of nationality. The Article then introduces the possibility of discerning the content of these obligations not only from the major international agreements and conventions, but also from regional conventions. This method of analysis recognizes the non-negotiable nature of the human rights duties that states owe to children born out of international surrogacy arrangements while allowing some flexibility to individual states to realize these rights within their own individual and cultural understandings of nationality, parenthood, and the morality of surrogacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Gerard-Rene de Groot, Children, Their Right to a Nationality and Child Statelessness, in, Alice Edwards & Laura Van Waas (eds) Nationality andStatelessness under InternationalLaw (CUP, Cambridge, 2014) 165.

  2. Seema Mohapatra, Stateless Babies and Adoption Scams: A Bioethical Analysis of International Commercial Surrogacy, 30 Berkeley J. Int'l L. (2012) 412. See also, Charles P Kindregan & Danielle White, International Fertility Tourism: The Potential for Stateless Children in Cross-Border Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements 36 Suffolk Transnat’l L Rev (2013) 527; Priya Shetty, India's Unregulated Surrogacy Industry, 380 Lancet (2012) 1633.

  3. Bríd Ní Ghráinne and Aisling McMahon, A Public International Law Approach to Safeguard Nationality for Surrogate-Born Children, 37(2) Legal Studies (2017) 324–342.

  4. Ghráinne and McMahon focus their analysis on the merits of public international human rights norms to address statelessness arising out of surrogacy over private international law arrangements. This paper supports their conclusion on this matter in full.

  5. Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, UNGA Res 217 A (III) (UDHR).

  6. William E Conklin, Statelessness: TheEnigmaofanInternationalCommunity (Hart Publishing, Portland, 2014) 20.

  7. See, Articles 6 and 7, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS (23 May 1969) 331.

  8. For example, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, section 112 provides that birth during marriage is a conclusive proof of legitimacy. See also, Re X & Y (Foreign Surrogacy), [2008] EWHC (Fam) 3030 (UK); Mark Henaghan, International Surrogacy Trends: How Family Law is Coping, 7(3) Australian J Adoption (2013) 1–24.

  9. For example guideline 3.5.1 of National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision, and Regulation of Art Clinics in India, (2005) requires that a third party oocyte donor shall be informed that his identity shall not be disclosed to the offspring, see <http://www.icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm> accessed 10 March 2016.

  10. For detailed discussion on international surrogacy leading to statelessness, please refer to Sanoj Rajan, International Surrogacy Arrangements and Statelessness,(chapter name) chapter 11, 374–384; World’s Stateless Report, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (publisher name) (The Netherlands, February 2017) <http://www.children.worldstateless.org>.

  11. Henaghan, supra note 8.

  12. EF Amorós, Surrogacy arrangements in a global world: the case of Spain, 1 International Family Law (2013) 68–72. See also, Yukari Semba et al, Surrogacy: Donor Conception Regulation in Japan, 24 Bioethics (2010) 348, 354.

  13. Baby Manji Yamada v Union of India, [2008] 13 SCC 518.

  14. The Citizenship Act, 1955, section 4 (India) and Kokusekiho [Nationality Law], Law No 147 of 1950, article 2(1) (Japan).

  15. Japanese Baby Finally Gets Birth Certificate, Times of India, Jaipur (10 August 2008) <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-08-10/jaipur/27897780_1_certificate-japanese-baby-manji-yamada> accessed 20 March 2016.

  16. Nirmal K Ganguly, “Preface” to Indian Council of Med. Research & Nat'l Acad. of Med. Sci., National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision, and Regulation of Art Clinics in India, (2005) at xii [2005 Guidelines], 63, 74 <http://www.icmr.nic.in/art/art_clinics.htm> accessed 10 March 2016.

  17. Baby Manji Yamada, supra note 13.

  18. Indian Citizenship Act 1955.

  19. Saiko Saibansho [Sup. Ct.] Mar. 23, 2007, 2006 (kyo) no. 47, 61:2 Saiko Saibansho minji hanreishu [Minshu] (Japan). See also, No Entry for Surrogate Baby/Divorce of Japanese Couple Leaves Girl Stranded in India, Daily Yomiuri (8 August 2008).]

  20. Law Prevents Dad from Adopting Manji, Times of India (26 August 2008) <http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-08-26/delhi/27910990_1_baby-manji-ikufumi-yamada-prospective-adoptive-parents> accessed 20 March 2016.

  21. Jan Balaz v Anand Municipality, [2009] LPA 2151/2009 (High Court of Gujarat, India).

  22. See India and the Challenges of Statelessness, NLU Report, 26–27 for further discussion on the Indian Citizenship Act and Statelessness.

  23. Ibid.

  24. Henaghan, supra note 8.

  25. Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, 2014 ( India).

  26. Sanoj Rajan, Resolving Statelessness Arising out of Surrogacy in India: A Legal Analysis, XIV–XV ISIL Yrbk Intl Humanitarian L (2014–2015) 177–198.

  27. Patrick Weil, Access to Citizenship: A Comparison of Twenty-Five Nationality Laws, in, T Alexander Aleinikoff & Douglas Klusmeyer (eds) Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices (Carnegie Endowment for Int'l Peace, Washington DC, 2001) 17–35.

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid, 20.

  30. Jeffrey L Blackman, State Successions and Statelessness: The Emerging Right to an Effective Nationality under International Law, 19 Mich J Intl L (1998) 1141, 1151.

  31. Ibid, 1151–1155.

  32. Baby Manji Yamada, supra note 13.

  33. See, Matthew J Gibney, Statelessness and the Right to Citizenship, 32 Forced Migration Revew (2009) 50.

  34. Article 4(C) (3) and (4) of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (29 May 1993) 33.

  35. Guy S Goodwin-Gill, Convention Relating to The Status of Stateless Persons (United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law) <http://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/cssp/cssp_e.pdf> accessed 18 March 2016.

  36. Ibid. See, Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law, 179 LNTS (13 April 1930) 4137; Protocol Relating to a Certain Case of Statelessness, 179 LNTS (12 April 1930) 4138; Special Protocol Concerning Statelessness (12 April 1930) C.27.M.16.1931.

  37. The terms “nationality” and “citizenship” are used interchangeably in this Article to refer to a sovereign state's recognition of an individual to be a member of that state.

  38. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948 UNGA Res 217 A (III) (UDHR).

  39. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 999 UNTS 171 (adopted 16 December 1966, entry into force 23 March 1976).

  40. UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), CCPR ‘General Comment No. 17: Article 24 (Rights of the Child)’ (7 April 1989).]

  41. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 660 UNTS 195 (adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969).

  42. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 1249 UNTS 13 (adopted 18 December 1979, entered into force 3 September 1961).

  43. Groot, supra note 1, 147.

  44. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1577 UNTS 3 (adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990).

  45. Ibid. Article 7.

  46. See, Laura van Waas, Nationality Matters: Statelessness under International Law, (Intersentia, Antwerp/Oxford/Portland, 2008) 63, 64.

  47. Article 8, CRC.

  48. Statistics at the time of writing this paper. See https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx

  49. Ibid.

  50. Sebastian Kohn, Children's Right to Nationality, Open Society Justice Initiative (February 2011) <https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/children-right-nationality-20110202.pdf> accessed 19 March 2016.

  51. Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954 Convention) 360 UNTS 117 (adopted 28 September 1954, entered into force 6 June 1960). See also, CA Batchelor, Stateless Persons: Some Gaps in International Protection, 7 Int'l J. Refugee L (1995) 232, 239–249.

  52. Ibid. Article 1, 1954 Convention.

  53. Ibid. Articles 3, 16, 13 and 14, 1954 Convention.

  54. UN Economic and Social Council, A Study of Statelessness, United Nations, August 1949, Lake Success, New York (UN Ad Hoc Committee on Refugees and Stateless Persons, 1 August 1949) E/1112; E/1112/Add.1.]

  55. Ibid.

  56. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961 Convention) 989 UNTS 175 (adopted 30 August 1961, entered into force 13 December 1975).

  57. Ibid. Article 1(2).

  58. Ibid. Article 1(4).

  59. Ibid. Article 1(1)(b) and Article1(5).

  60. Groot, supra note 1, 153.

  61. Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference, Hague Conference on Private Int'l Law, Conclusions and Recommendations (7–9 April 2010) <http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff2010concl_e.pdf> accessed 20 March 2016.

  62. See, The Private International Law Issues Surrounding the Status of Children, Including Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (HCCH) <https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy> accessed 20 March 2016.

  63. Katarina Trimmings & Paul Beaumont, International Surrogacy Arrangements: An Urgent Need for Legal Regulation at the International Level, 7 J Private Intl L (2011) 627, 633.

  64. Ibid.

  65. Organization of African Unity, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 11 July 1990, CAB/LEG/24.9/49 (1990).

  66. Ibid. Article 6.

  67. Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969.

  68. Ibid. Article 27.

  69. See, United Nations, Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection with commentaries, 2006.

  70. UNHRC, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc A/HRC/13/34 (14 December 2009) [19–22].

  71. Groot, supra note 1, 29. See also, International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), 20 February 1969, on how Treaties could generate a rule of CIL. More generally, see, PS Rao, The identification of Customary International Law: a process that defies prescription, 57 Indian J Intl L (2017) 221–258.

  72. Alice Edwards, The Meaning of Nationality, in, Alice Edwards & Laura Van Waas (eds) Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (CUP, Cambridge, 2014) 165.

  73. Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Law 179 LNTS (adopted 13 April 1930).

  74. Nationality Decrees in Tunis and Morocco Opinion, Advisory Opinion, series B No. 4 at 24 (PCIJ 1923); see also, P Weis, Nationality and Statelessness under International Law (Kluwer Academic Publishers, London,1979) 66.

  75. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6 is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. See, E Ersboll, The Right to a Nationality and the European Convention on Human Rights, in, S Lagoutte, H Sano & P Smith (eds) Human Rights in Turmoil, Facing Threats, Consolidating Achievements (M Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2006) 263.

  76. Family K and W v The Netherlands, Application no 11278/84 (ECHR, 1 July 1985).

  77. European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 provides a right to respect for one’s ‘private and family life, his home and his correspondence,’ subject to certain restrictions that are ‘in accordance with law’ and ‘necessary in a democratic society.’

    See, Kafkasli c la Turquie, Application No 21106/92 (ECHR, 22 May 1995).

  78. Slepcik v The Netherlands and the Czech Republic, Application no 30913/96 (ECHR, 2 September 1996) and Zeibek v Greece, Application no 34372.97 (ECHR, 21 May 1997).

  79. Karassev and Family v Finland, Application no 31414/96 (ECHR, 12 January 1999).

  80. Kuric v Slovenia, Application no 26828/06 (ECHR, 13 July 2010).

  81. Ibid, [361].

  82. Genovese v Malta, Application no 53124/09 (ECHR, 11 October, 2011).

  83. Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern, Court of Justice of the European Union Case C-135/08. See also, L Van Waas, Fighting Statelessness and Discriminatory Nationality Laws in Europe, 14 Eur. J. Migration & L. (2012) 243–260.

  84. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 (IACHR, 19 January 1984).

  85. Dilcea Yean and Violeta Bosico v Dominincan Republic, series C no 130 (IACHR, 8 September 2005).

  86. Nubian Minors v Kenya, Communication No Com/002/2009 (African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, 22 March 2011).

  87. See, Report of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly, Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, A/HRC/13/34 (14 December 2009) [20].]

  88. International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1.

  89. Ibid, Article 12.

  90. Ibid, Article 32.

  91. See discussion in Section 3 of this Article.

  92. United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS (23 May 1969) 331. See also, Case Concerning Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Series A, No 7 (PCIJ 1926).

  93. See discussion pertaining to the same under Section 4.1: ‘The Limits on the State’s Discretion on Nationality Matters’.

  94. Article 2, Ibid.

  95. Indian Citizenship Act,1955.

  96. Article 2 reads thus:

    Elements of an internationally wrongful act of a State There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission:

    (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and

    (b) Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.

  97. Annie Bird, Third State Responsibility for Human Rights Violations, 21 Euro J Intl L (2010) 883–900

  98. Kuric v Slovenia, Application no 26828/06 (ECHR 26 June 2012) [361].

  99. Prosecutor v Anto Furundzija (Trial Judgment), IT-95-17/1-T (ICTY, 10 December 1998).

  100. Ibid, [148–150].

  101. Ireland v The United Kingdom, Application no 5310/71 (ECHR, 18 January 1978).

  102. Colozza v Italy, Application no 9024/80 (ECHR, 12 February 1985).

  103. MC v Bulgaria, Application no 39272/98 (ECHR, 4 December 2003).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanoj Rajan.

Additional information

The author completed this paper while holding the ICCR India Chair Visiting Professorship at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. He is also an affiliate at Harvard Humanitarian Initiative at Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA and an honorary Visiting Professor for the International Criminal Justice Program offered by the International Christian University at Kinshasa, Congo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rajan, S. Ending international surrogacy-induced statelessness: an international human rights law perspective. Indian Journal of International Law 58, 111–137 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-018-0092-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-018-0092-9

Keywords

Navigation