15 FEBRUARY 1930, Page 8

Nationality of Married Women

THE advent of the League of Nations First Conference on the Codification of International Law, which is to meet at The Hague in March, raises again the ques- tionings which always accompany any discussion upon one of the subjects that have been placed upon its agenda —the subject of the nationality of married women, Nationality is a thoroughly arguable question, and can be dissected and put away for a more convenient season over and over again until, because it is in reality such a very homely question, those who view it from what may be called the human angle succeed in convincing all parties that the issue lies really in a simple thing—the choice between legal conveniences and human rights.

The opportunity afforded by The ilague Conference will provide •ample • scope for the unravelling-of tangles which have troubled international lawyers ever since the matter became seriously controversial, and; because the pressure • of public opinion gains in strength with every discussion, there appears to .be a definite possibility that a solution satisfactory to everyone may this time be reached.

In order to understand the position, it is helpful to remember that the history of the -whole matter is com- paratively short. Before the French Revolution, no question of requiring a woman to adopt a nationality or discard one by reason of having married a foreigner had ever occurred to anyone. The rule of forcing a woman to accept the nationality of her husband was first introduced by the French Civil Code, and came into force in Austria in 1832 and 1888: In England it was only in 1844 that the common- law, by which it had always been cus- tomary for a woman to retain her nationality on marriage, was disturbed by the passing of the Aliens Act, which conferred upon an alien woman who married an English- man the status of a naturalized British subject ; and only in 1870 that, by the Naturalization Act, a British woman, on marrying an alien, lost, for the first time in British history, her nationality and became an alien.

Time and again- the matter has been brought up for public discussion, turned over, and put away. Both this Parliament and the last have seen something of the matter, first. in Miss Ellen Wilkinson's Bill, and again in the Bill which was introduced by Captain Cazalet but crowded out. It has. made but little material progress, however,: except in the gradual .gathering of public opinion in its support ; and there the matter stands, so far, at least; as Great Britain is concerned. • It is necessary, though, to look beyond Great Britain in order to comprehend-the matter in its full significance.

If the problem were the same problem for every country, it would assuredly - assume a character of- comparative simplicity, with only the question of the balance between the symmetry of - international• law and the elemental rights of human beings to 'be settled. Unfortunately however, conditions differ in different parts of the world, and it .is in the adjustment of these differing national arrangements that the problem becomes complicated, since; unless the nations can agree unanimously and simultaneously to a general world rule, no satisfactory settlement can be reached.

It has to -be borne in mind that the great Republics of South America have always recognized the independent rights of a married woman to her own nationality, and that, during the past twelve years, a certain measure of progress towards this ideal has been made in other countries-. Since 1918, Russia, the United States of America, and France have recognized the nationality rights of the married woman, and during the same period, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Belgium, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and Cuba have given important rights to the woman to retain her own nationality after marriage with a foreigner.. The British and Australian Parliaments, and the German Reichstag, have voted in favour of the principle of choice. These changes are the straws which tell the wind. Thought is tending in the direction of international adjustment and must inevitably find itself agreeing to the dropping of minor differences in order to grasp the benefits of world settlement.

The arguments which seek to block the adoption of an international rule of free choice for a woman as well as for a man, centre mainly round the fear of creating a condi- tion of statelessness on the one hand or of double na- tionality on the other. Doubts, tot), are entertained about the wisdom of allowing the possibility of disunity of nationality in the family, which might lead to the increase of conflicts of law. Such arguments are based upon the assumption that it is better to bend the human being to the law, than the law to the human being—expediency demanding defences against possible wrongs. Expediency, however, does not always run with justice, and the advo- cates of human rights claim that the most lasting good is gained in every instance by the fearless recognition of individuality and free will, and by the granting of that most fundamental of privileges, the privilege of inde- pendent citizenship.

On the horns of a dilemma, the possessor of what is known as a lay mind may find help in arriving at a decision in the pronouncement of the members of the foremost international jurists of the world who, at the 1929 meeting of the Institut du Droit International, asserted, formally, their belief that human beings are entitled to equal rights under the law and to equal pro- tection of the law without distinction of race, religion, language, or sex. It is along these lines that a solution will be found ; there seems no other way. The matter must be viewed without prejudice, and moulded into lines which will conform with the general trend of modern legislation and modern thinking, in which men and women are regarded in increasing measure as fellows of a common humanity, to whom equality is a natural law.