ArticlePDF Available

DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN ARMENIA: THE NATURE OF THE DEBATE SINCE INDEPENDENCE

Authors:

Abstract

The November 27, 2005 referendum in Armenia lifted the legal ban on individuals holding dual citizenship. Specifically, three issues: taxation, military service, and participation in elections that permeate socio-political and economic areas of the Armenian society must be resolved within Armenian context before a successful and efficient dual citizenship legal framework is invoked. This paper argues for clear identification of Armenia specific factors and realization of the fact that dual citizenship provision is only effective as a reciprocal process. With exception of few comprehensive proposals, constructive debate on the subject–although much needed and required–has by and large been missing in the times before and after the referendum in Armenia.
9
DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN ARMENIA: NATURE OF THE DEBATE SINCE
INDEPENDENCE
Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan, New School for Social Research, Bearing Point, Inc. and AIPRG
The November 27, 2005 referendum in Armenia lifted the legal ban on individuals holding dual-
citizenship. Specifically, three issues: taxation, military service, and participation in elections that
permeate socio-political and economic areas of the Armenian society must be resolved within Armenian
context before a successful and efficient dual citizenship legal framework is invoked. This paper argues for
clear identification of Armenia specific factors and realization of the fact that dual citizenship provision is
only effective as a reciprocal process. With exception of few comprehensive proposals, constructive debate on
the subject–although much needed and required–has by and large been missing in the times before and
after the referendum in Armenia.
I. INTRODUCTION
A relatively new concept in modern international jurisprudence, dual citizenship is an
intriguing subject. Formally, the main international document providing legal basis for
this concept is the 1930 Hague Convention. Several governments around the world have
adopted dual citizenship in principle, while developing dual citizenship-like arrangements
to allow more flexibility in terms of the interaction between the home country and its
diaspora. Not surprisingly, countries with large diasporas are the ones that have expressed
more interest and have taken actions, passing relevant legislations, to help them utilize the
skills and knowledge of their national abroad This note attempts to provide a theoretical
framework of the relevant social, political and economic issues pertaining to a similar
model within the context of Armenia. For Armenia–a small country with a large Diaspora
network–to integrate into the international community on social-economic and political
levels, developing a pragmatic approach and setting up an effective a dual citizenship
institution in cooperation with other states, is but natural.
The national referendum on constitutional amendments of November 27, 2005 in
Armenia changed–among other things–the limitations put on dual citizenship. Adopting
the new constitution lifted the legal ban on individuals holding dual-citizenship or for
those planning on obtaining a second citizenship. With the legal battle half-way won, a lot
remains to be observed in terms of the process institutionalization. Some of the issues
include the way mechanisms are developed for Armenians and non-Armenians to obtain
dual citizenship, the issue of protection of the rights of a dual citizen and most
importantly the way all the actors involved–such as the various government agencies of
the Republic of Armenia (RA), current Armenian citizens, the various factions in the
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
10
Armenian Diaspora, as well as ethnically non-Armenian foreign nationals–involved in
devising these mechanisms will interact with each other.
To make this paper a manageable one, the debate on dual citizenship in Armenia is
viewed in two phases: pre- and post-referendum. The distinction is necessary to account
for changes in main players’ positions and subsequent developments inspired by the
adoption of the amendments. While there is an interest in developing a dual citizenship
law acceptable to all–or at least most–parties concerned, the debate remains contentious,
riddled with arguments primarily stemming from divergent political platforms, as well as
the different historical and ideological divisions of the established interest groups. In
some cases the Armenian media itself has aligned with specific political forces, thus
presenting a more politicized–rather than an objective—view and discussion on the issue
in the public realm. The fact remains that despite the few existing instances of
comprehensive proposals a comprehensive and in-depth analysis is still lacking to identify
all aspects of dual citizenship in Armenia. The need for such a proposal is to create a
solid and well founded law addressing the main issues expressed by all groups concerned
with the various aspects of a dual-citizenship law.
II. CORE CONTROVERSIES
Dual citizenship is certainly not a panacea for all of Armenia’s troubles; however, it may
be a step further on the path of development. In the Armenian context, dual citizenship
is bound to have strong implications on the idea of repatriation and return to Armenia of
its main natural resource – its people that embody its much needed human capital.
Economic interconnectedness, aside from everything else, has brought an increased level
of population (i.e. labor force) mobility worldwide. The nature of migratory processes has
changed. Moves once considered as “permanent” immigration have become more
temporary in nature as countries compete for skilled labor force and people follow their
incomes. Faced with the prospect of becoming either “host” (receiving) or “home”
(sending) economies, governments of a number of countries have been adopting relevant
provisions to their immigration laws to accommodate the fact of multi-nationality.1 The
concept of dual citizenship—in one form or another—has become a reality for countries
like Ireland, Canada, France, Italy, USA, Israel and many others.
The controversies around dual citizenship have been on the global debate agenda for
quite some time. The symbolic value of “citizenship” in terms of its definition of a state
and national identity often arises.2 At the core of the controversy rests three major
practical aspects: taxation, military service, and participation in elections. These three
aspects deal with basic issues related to the operations of the state, raising questions such
as: Should a person be taxed in his or her home and/or host country? In countries where
1 Incidentally, many countries that in the early decades of the 20th century were net exporters of labor have
become net importers at the end of the century (e.g. Italy, Ireland, France and others).
2 See Per Gustafson, “Globalization, Multiculturalism and Individualism: the Swedish Debate on Dual
Citizenship,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28, no. 3 (2002): 463-481.
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
11
there is military draft would a dual national be obliged to fulfill military service
requirements in both countries or some sort of reciprocal agreement can be achieved,
exempting the individual from double service? Finally, who can run for office? What
happens in a situation when for example a high-ranking official in the country’s
government holds two passports? These are the three main issues that countries allowing
dual citizenship try to deal with.
It is sufficient to say that countries with legal dual citizenship provisions operate
according to sets of regulations that govern dual citizens’ taxation, military service and
electoral participation. In the European Union context, the problem received special
attention in the mid-1980s.3 It was then that Europe had to deal with the consequences
of the 1950-1970s expansionary labor migration policies that resulted in a sizeable growth
of work migrants caught in between two millstones: not granted host country citizenship,
they possessed residence and work permits that were valid for extended periods of time.
The phenomenon has grown in its importance practically at the rate of the population
growth of the foreign labor force with double loyalties. Increased economic and political
interdependence has induced states to seek solutions regulating their population (or to be
precise, labor force) flows. For either home or host country, at a bare minimum that has
required some type of bilateral treaties and resolution of the three core controversies
within the specific circumstances of each state, aside from some measures on aggregate
level.4 In many countries acceptance does not come immediately. Internationally it is
those three controversies that are the most popular counter arguments against dual
citizenship concept and Armenia is no exception to the general case. Indeed, the
opposition to dual citizenship in Armenia is threefold and based on the above-mentioned
issues of taxation, military service and political activity. In Armenia, however, relatively
more weight is attributed to the issues of elections. Specifically, those who oppose the
idea of dual citizenship draw the attention to the potential problems arising from outside
interference in the internal politics by the Diaspora deputies, who may be aligned with
interest groups in their host countries.
While a valid concern, this argument must be taken with a grain of salt in any analysis.
Firstly, not all of the Diaspora Armenians, or people considering adopting Armenian
citizenship, are interested in taking part in Armenian politics. For some dual citizenship is
a question of personal convenience for a wide range of reasons. Secondly, even if there
are a few people who would go into public service, given the reality and history of the
Armenian politics in the Diaspora, it is safe to assume that these individuals will primarily
be guided by their respective parties’ (or interest groups’) considerations in the decision
making process. Thirdly, it is important to keep in mind the actual nature of the dual
citizenship provision. A balanced approach can well be worked out geared specifically to
3 See Tomas Hammar, “Dual Citizenship and Political Integration,” International Migration Review 19, no. 3,
Special Issue: Civil Rights and the Sociopolitical Participation of Migrants (Autumn 1985): 438-450.
4 See Peter J. Spiro “Embracing Dual Nationality,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Working Paper,
for brief history of bilateral relations between US and some European countries. Available at
http://www.ceip.org/programs/migrat/migspiro.htm.
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
12
the set of circumstances in Armenia, before anything is signed into law. Finally, viewed
through the prism of cost-benefit analysis an argument can be made that benefits
significantly outweigh potential costs in the case of Armenia that has consistently been
losing its main resource, its people.
In the analysis of political economy aspects in Armenia it bears necessary to address the
main factors shaping the context of the dual citizenship discussion.
III. MAIN FACTORS IN THE ARMENIAN CONTEXT
Armenia is a small, land-locked country with limited natural resources and virtually
untapped human capital potential. Since its independence in 1991, the country has dealt
with devastating impacts of the 1988 earthquake; full fledged war with neighboring
Azerbaijan; experienced effects of shock therapy economic policies in transition from the
socialist economy to capitalism; and now operates under the conditions of two-sided
blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan. The early 1990s were the years of economic and
humanitarian crises in Armenia. Nevertheless, on aggregate scale fiscal and monetary
policies initiated in the mid 1990s have contributed to the current conditions of economic
growth. This must be considered with a caveat. Growth has been conditioned by recent
financial inflows of increasing monetary transfers (remittances) from Armenia’s nationals
living abroad and few large infrastructure projects funded by Diasporan organizations.
There is a persistent lack of broad internal income-generating possibilities and strong
income inequality at different society strata in Armenia.
Human capital, in terms of collective skills, knowledge, health, labor force and other
aspects, is one of Armenia’s main resources. As such, some of the most important factors
that determine the urgency of the wide-ranging dual citizenship concept in Armenia are:
Continuous population outflow
Active Diaspora (that grows by absorbing still arriving new immigrants)
Economic growth and country’s relative world market position
(At the time of this writing) discussion of adopted constitutional amendments
A. Labor Migration
Partly as a consequence of the socio-economic disruptions of the early 1990s, partly due
to difficulties finding jobs, Armenia has been loosing its population to other countries.
Although some recent estimates have shown a reversal in the trend in emigration,
Armenia still faces volatile migration trends.5 Almost one million (of the one-time 3.8
million total) Armenians have left the country since independence.6 The new immigrants
join the established network-communities in the Diaspora across the world, in particular
5 Gagik Yeganyan–Head, Department of Migration and Refugees–Report to the RA President (as reported by
A1plus News, March 23, 2005).
6 See Armen Yeghiazarian, Vahram Avanesian and Nelson Shahnazaryan, “How to Reverse Emigration?” Armenia
2020 http://www.armenia2020.org/index.php/en/activities/researches/16. (Henceforth Yeghiazarian et al.)
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
13
in Russia, Europe and the United States. Most of the outward migration is characterized
as a temporary labor migration to more promising places in terms of earnings. Quite
often labor migrants from Armenia go abroad for work with intention of returning after a
certain period of time or once they have built up sufficient capital to go back to Armenia.
However, sometimes there is no more permanent migration than temporary migration
and that puts a severe drain on Armenia’s capacity to growth and development.7
Curiously, one could trace the patterns of migratory processes with the major distinction
of them being either permanent or temporary.8
It is important to note in the discussion of dual citizenship that many recent immigrants
retain close ties to their homeland and in many cases provide financial support—by way
of remittances—to their families and friends in Armenia. A recent study estimated that
remittances to Armenia amounted to around $1 billion for the year of 2003.9 Obviously,
for a country with official GDP of close to $4 billion, such financial inflows, if contained
and properly institutionalized, can have a major economic impact.10 Simply put, a country
must be able to absorb these transfers and channel the funds to productive capacities. For
many ethnic Armenian entrepreneurs abroad—including new and old Diaspora—
Armenian citizenship reformed Armenian property and business laws, which are currently
restrictive to non-citizens, hold the key to their more dynamic involvement in the
economy. Until recently, lack of the dual citizenship provision acted to sever the ties of
former Armenian nationals with the homeland. For example, those immigrating to
countries like Russia or the US often have to choose between assuming citizenship of
their new home country, to legalize their status there, and loosing their Armenian
citizenship. Both countries (albeit not as strict in the US as in Russia home to the
largest Armenian Diaspora) require formal renunciation of any other citizenship prior to
accepting theirs. While precise statistical data on such instances is missing, at the very
least, émigrés take up permanent residency, which eventually leads to foreign
naturalization, often renouncing Armenian citizenship. Despite that, the representatives
of the newly formed Diaspora groups take an active role in reconstruction of their
ancestral homeland by active participation in socio-political and economic processes in
the Diaspora. If properly regulated, labor migration could become an efficient tool
contributing to Armenia’s economic growth and development in the long run;11 however,
7 See Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan, Arkady Gevorkyan and Karina Mashuryan, “Economics of Labor Migration
From Armenia: A Conceptual Study,” Paper Presented at the 4th Annual AIPRG conference, World Bank,
Washington, DC, January 15, 2006. (Henceforth Gevorkyan et al.)
8 While the Former Soviet Union absorbs temporary less skilled migrants, permanent moves of the more
skilled and better educated are directed to the Western world. See Gevorkyan et al. (2006) for background
and role of Armenian Diaspora network-communities.
9 See Bryan W. Roberts and King Banaian, “Remittances in Armenia: Size, Impacts, and Measures to
Enhance their Contribution to Development,” Paper Presented at the 3rd Annual AIPRG conference, World
Bank, Washington, DC, January 2005.
10 International Financial Statistic, IMF database http://ifs.apdi.net/imf/logon.aspx, accessed September 24,
2005.
11 More on this discussion see Gevorkyan et al., 2006.
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
14
that requires team-play of all actors, and the dual citizenship provision provides the
necessary legal background for it.
B. The Armenian Diaspora
The Armenian Diaspora is a product of Armenian history.12 A historian’s view might
suggest several waves in the formation of the Diaspora across the world.13 A large portion
of ethnic Armenians, naturalized or born citizens of other countries, live abroad and have
strong sentimental values as well as established organizational foundations (i.e. religious
and/or political party) that support their ties with Armenia. Political divisions, however,
have persisted in the Diaspora through the past several decades. Some, if not all, of the
differences have affected the structure and operations of the Diasporan groups abroad
and their activities in Armenia.14
Many in the Armenian Diaspora have strong desire to fully participate in the life of their
historical homeland. Taken together, the economic, political and social potentials of the
multifaceted Diaspora when applied efficiently and consistently can bring dramatic
changes and help jumpstart Armenia’s economy, transforming the society in the direction
of stable growth and prosperity.15 Yet, more formal participation of Diaspora
representatives in the life of young Armenia has been limited. Since independence,
Armenia has had very few top and mid-level executives in the government from the
Diaspora.16 Not as many Armenian professionals from the Diaspora have repatriated to
Armenia over the course of the past decade as might have been expected.
It has been suggested by observers that lack of Diaspora’s formal activity in the life of the
young republic can be related to the overall disappointment with each other of the
political elites in Armenia and Diaspora in the early years of independence. For example,
12 The Armenian Diaspora is a rather diverse entity made of numerous communities with major clusters in
the Former Soviet Union (Russia), USA, Latin America, Europe, Middle East, and smaller groups elsewhere.
The phenomenon of the Armenian Diaspora dates back centuries. Many groups, however, were formed after
the Genocide in the early 20th century and have been, primarily, sustained by the mass exodus from Armenia
as discussed earlier.
13 Yeghiazaryan et al.
14 Three historical political parties - Social Democratic Hunchakian party, the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation (ARF) – Dashnaktsutiun and the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (also known as Ramgavar) -
have had some difficult times in reconciling their agendas with each other. That has resulted in failure of
coming up with unified representation of Armenian issues.
15 See Aleksandr V. Gevorkyan and David A. Grigorian, “Armenia and Its Diaspora: Is There Scope for a
Stronger Economic Link?” Armenian Forum 3, no. 2 (2003) and Gevorkyan et al., 2006.
16 Most prominent individuals are: Raffi Hovannisian - the first Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, who
moved to Armenia from the USA in the early 1990s. Mr. Hovannisian lives in Armenia and remains
politically active. While serving in the first Armenian government he retained his American citizenship
(Renshon 2000); Gerard Libaridian - served as Senior Adviser to the former President of Armenia, Levon
Ter-Petrossian, and as First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (1993-1994). He currently teaches at the
University of Michigan; the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vardan Oskanyan, and the current Chief
Economic Adviser to the President of Armenia, Vahram Nercissiantz.
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
15
in the case of the Armenian-American Diaspora, taking a position of “wait and see”
similar to the official position of Washington in the late 1980s, and in effect discouraging
their compatriots in Armenia from secession from the USSR, the leaders of the Armenian
American Diaspora groups lost, “their anticipated political role as the navigators of
Armenian national life in the former Soviet Armenia.”17 The author suggests that similar
issues presented themselves at different times to other ethnic groups with strong (as
Armenian) political lobby groups in the USA.
Further, at the dawn of Armenia’s independence the idea of dual citizenship—seen as the
foundation for the “formal” Diaspora involvement—was ruled out by the first
administration. The position was explained by Levon Ter-Petrossian, the first RA
President, in a September 26, 1997 interview:
Now about dual citizenship I have already expressed my opinion in (sic) that issue.
I think the Diaspora must be so generous as to understand why we have denied the
double citizenship. I have tried to explain it. We have very serious problems. If we
had adopted the double citizenship, today we would not have had an army. Would
the Diaspora want Armenia not to have an army? Would the Diaspora want
Karabakh to be defeated? It is a shame. A great many young Armenians ran away
from Armenia together with their families not to serve in the army. If they had
double citizenship, none of them would serve in our army.18
The above approach has been softened in the rhetoric of the current RA President, Robert
Kocharyan, who ran his reelection campaign on a promise of tighter integration of the Diaspora
in Armenia’s affairs. Due to various reasons the progress in the formal field has been slow. It is
expected that legislative changes introducing dual citizenship or dual citizenship-like
arrangements would fundamentally change the Armenia-Diaspora relationship, thus creating an
incentive to establishment of new and more stable links between two entities.
C. Economic Growth and International Integration
Human capital plays an integral role in the modern theory of economic growth. In the
Armenian context, human capital comes not just in form of able-bodied, educated and
large labor force, but in the form of specific project investment, i.e. that venture capital
follows people in this case.
Supporters of the dual citizenship rightfully claim the Armenian Diaspora as the primary
source for substantial and project-oriented investment, contributing to sustained growth
17 See Yossi Shain, “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. foreign Policy,” Political Science Quarterly 109, no.5 (Winter,
1994-1995): 811-841.
18 As quoted from Asbarez October 4, 1997 #4 in Stephan Astoorian, H., “From Ter-Petrosian to Kocharian:
Leadership Change in Armenia,” Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies. (2001).
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
16
and economic development. It seems to be only natural for the patriotically inspired
entrepreneurs to enter as the “first movers” the realm of Armenian economy.19
One of the vital components of stable economic development is a consistent flow of
investment funds into real activity and technical innovation. Competing countries make
extra steps to attract capital to fund various infrastructure and productive initiatives. Yet,
aside from rare cases, Armenia is still perceived as an economy with little promise and
little attractiveness for entrepreneurial capital compared to other countries of the Former
Soviet Union. Landlocked and limited in natural resources, Armenia is drawn to
unconventional assets—such as its largely affluent diaspora—in order to bring economy
closer to its potential and remain competitive.20
Gevorkyan and Grigorian (2003) emphasize Armenia’s urgent need to break the low
savings / low investment linkage that—as textbook economic theory holds—translates
into low aggregate output. The low-income effect that results from that in turn amplifies
even lower level of savings (as population struggles to fulfill its basic consumption needs)
throwing economy further back into the spiral of the “vicious circle” of low income,
poverty and underdevelopment. Suggesting various institutional arrangements that, if
applied, can help break the two main links, the authors express strong support for
Diasporan investment as crucial for pushing the Armenian economy in the right
direction. The authors argue that the Diaspora investor is necessary to create an
institutional track record for Armenia in the eyes of the global investment community.
Thus, in the Armenian context, even the economic issue of growth and its sustainability boils
down to the Armenia-Diaspora relationship. In this context, well defined dual citizenship
policy becomes increasingly acute, as a necessary condition for the educated, entrepreneurial
and (relatively) affluent Armenian Diaspora to establish and maintain closer links with the
homeland. The Armenia-Diaspora dialogue in fifteen years of independence has reached the
point at which the gains from more extensive and intensive relationship need to be realized.
IV. REFERENDUM, HIGHLIGHTS OF THE PAST AND CURRENT DEBATES
It is now logical to summarize the perception of the dual citizenship concept in Armenia
and in the Diaspora.21 In a highly politicized spirit, the debate on dual citizenship has
been a derivation of the debate on the amendments and has centered on either
opposition to or alliance with the ruling coalition of Armenian government.
It is not an understatement to say that historically, especially at times leading to the November
referendum, the discussion of dual citizenship issue has taken a rather sporadic nature. Being a
19 See Lev Freinkman, “Growth Challenges and Government Policies in Armenia,” World Bank Country Study
No. 22854-AM, 2001.
20 A number of published studies corroborate this idea see for instance Michael E. Porter, “Armenian
Competitiveness: Towards a Strategy for Economic Development,” Armenia 2020 Summit,
http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/Armenia_Competitiveness_2005.03.08.pdf, accessed October 11, 2005.
21 By assumption, the provision is expected to impact ethnic Armenians before other nationalities.
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
17
reaction of one political side to the statements of another, the debate climaxed around the
periods of elections (e.g. early/late 1990s and 2003), or, as in the current case, at the time of
introduction of the main law and now with recent announcements of various groups working
on the dual citizenship law design. Usually, many other issues overshadow the dual citizenship
“debate” at other times.22 Finally, more often than not the phrase dual citizenship is usurped
by the media to unleash criticism on specific political or interest groups, rather than being
used in the context of constructive discussion on the subject.
As mentioned before, opposition to the dual citizenship in Armenia is based on three core
controversies with more focus on the electoral issues. Interestingly, it is the opponents who
are most vocal in the Armenian media. Although there is a host of opinions on the subject,
we will refer here to those that can be counted as most representative of a political party or of
an interest group position. We begin with discussion preceding the referendum.
At the level of principal government figures, both President Robert Kocharyan and
Defense Minister Serge Sargsian have argued for introduction of dual citizenship in
Armenia since their appearance on the Armenian political stage in 1998. In various
interviews, and specifically addressing the Third Pan-Armenian Youth Forum, Minister
Sargsian expressed the view that “the representatives of the Armenian Diaspora, who
wish to have Armenian citizenship, should have the suffrage and serve in the Armenian
army.”23 Effectively, Minister Sargsian confirmed that if obligations are limited for dual
citizens, then the rights should be limited as well. In the eyes of the ruling authorities, a
fully fledged citizenship of Armenia is possible in case a potential candidate is ready to
fulfill any formal duties had he or she been born Armenian citizen in the first place.
Discussing the constitutional amendments with students of the Yerevan State University on
October 28, 2005, RA’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian was enthusiastic about
introduction of the dual citizenship concept in the Armenian law. He specifically stated that
the status and particular rights and obligations would be defined by a separate law, once the
legal ban in principle is lifted. Minister Oskanian stressed the urgency for the provision in
dealing with the “daily loss of Armenia’s citizens,” who renounce their Armenian citizenship
in favor of another country’s.24 In his more recent interview to the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet
Minister Oskanian confirmed the above view, adding that Armenia’s internal political affairs,
as in the case of all sovereign states, would be resolved by people residing in the country.25 He
emphasized the crucial role of the Diaspora in the process as the law gets worked out.
22 A careful review of Armenian media may attest to that.
23 “Serge Sargsian: It’s Time For Dual Citizenship,” PanArmenian.Net, July 25, 2005.
http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=14285, accessed May 20, 2006.
24 See “H.E. Mr. V. Oskanian, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, Addresses the
Students of the International Affairs Departments of Yerevan State University,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
October 28, 2005 http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/speeches/051104_vo_university.html - accessed
May 27, 2006.
25 “Minister Oskanian’s Interview to the Turkish Hurriyet Daily,” Hurriyet, March 27, 2006,
Transcripthttp://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/news/q_a/index.html - accessed June 2, 2006.
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
18
In sharp contrast to the above, at the height of the debate on the approaching
referendum back in 2005 the “Aravot” newspaper adhered to the position of Armenian
Pan-Natianl Movement (APNM)—the former ruling party in Armenia—putting at the
center of its criticism the internal struggles of high profile Diasporan politicians as the
main threats to national security. However, little discussion, i.e. explanation, of this
potentially viable argument has been offered so far, leading one to consider similar
statements to be politically inspired and aimed at gaining immediate political capital,
rather than offering an effort to study and discuss the issue.26
Similarly, according to Stepan Grigorian, spokesperson for Armat, “citizenship means
having the right to vote and being elected and the danger of this, is that as a result, the
government of Armenia could be influenced from abroad.”27 Furthermore, he expressed
a concern for ethnic Armenians living in the Diaspora, since their dual national loyalties
might be misinterpreted by the authorities in host countries, suggesting that dual
citizenship implementation must involve bilateral agreements. Finally, APNM deputy
chairman, Aram Manukyan, calling for consideration of the already known three aspects
of dual citizenship, has been adamant about his party’s opposition to the idea, claiming
that the law would create problems in each of the major aspects. His concern, however,
has mainly been with the possibility of Russian Armenian deputies forming a majority
force in the governance process in Armenia.
In the months before the referendum an alternative draft of the RA Constitution had been
presented by Grigor Ghonjeyan, a United Labor Party representative in the RA National
Assembly. According to that document, dual nationals would have the right to run for local
governments and take part in national referenda, but not elect or be elected to Parliament or
the post of President. Furthermore, Mr. Ghonjeyan has asserted that dual nationals would be
allowed to own property, but not land. His party foresees no tax concessions. Importantly, a
view that was expressed by Mr. Ghonjeyan at a seminar organized by the Civic Debates Club
in May 2005 was that the issue of dual citizenship should be completely covered in the
constitution without anything being left over for any addendum and secondary laws.28
The role of the one of the leading parties in the Armenian government the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation ARF-Dashnaktsutiun is pivotal in spearheading the dual
citizenship debate. In the early discussions preceding the referendum vote the ARF had
openly declared the matter to be “one of the most important issues today in the draft of
constitutional changes.”29 ARF leaders and commentators claimed (and continue to do so)
26 See “One Nation, One Authority?” Aravot.am, February 12, 2004, “No to the Constitutional
Amendments,” Aravot.am, June 30, 2005 and “How I’d Change the Constitution,” Aravot.am, July 15, 2005.
27 As quoted in Tigran Avetisian, “Armenia: Dual Citizenship Debate,” Institute for War & Peace Reporting,
http://iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/cau_200410_257_2_eng.txt, accessed October 12, 2005.
28 See “Dual Citizenship Should be Allowed but not Encouraged in Armenia,” ARMINFO News Agency, May
20, 2005 and “Dual Citizenship is Still Subject for Arguments,” A1plus News Agency, May 20, 2005,
http://www.a1plus.am/eng/?go=issue&id=28524 accessed May 31, 2006
29 Ibid.
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
19
dual citizenship to be “for Diasporan Armenians a national right” that among other things
would “also assume obligations.”30 In support of his party’s platform, coalition government
and RA National Assembly member, as well as an active member of the ARF in Armenia,
Hrayr Karapetyan stated: “If Azerbaijan has oil, Georgia has sea, then Armenia has a
powerful Diaspora.”31 Raising the country’s importance, this runs parallel to the idea of
Diaspora businessmen and professionals as the “first movers” in revitalizing the economy.
The ARF-Dashnaktsutiun, however, did not simply endorse the amendments to the RA’s
main law. On April 5, 2006 the party publicly announced its official vision for the dual
citizenship “Concept,” to be submitted for consideration as a draft law to the National
Assembly later the same year.32 Under the new law, if adopted, anyone with dual
citizenship, legally residing in Armenia for a set number of years would be granted the
right to vote and run for office. Elections are to take place only inside Armenia, a certain
number offices allowed to be occupied by dual-nationals to be established by the
government. In addition dual-nationals would be eligible for the draft in addition to other
requirements. The authors of the law contend that the best international practices have
been studied and adjustments to Armenian context have been made in preparation of the
law.33 However, the stipulation of the vote taking place solely in Armenia, may deprive of
the voting rights of those Armenian nationals who happen to be temporary abroad for
various reasons. Further, it is apparent that the law does not set specific requirement on
military service for dual nationals, while Armenia born male nationals being subject to
draft. Still, the introduction of comprehensive provisions contributes significant
constructiveness to the post referendum debate in Armenia on the subject of dual
citizenship - something missing before.
Preceding the referendum Vardan Poghosyan, the deputy chair of the National
Democratic Party, offered a somewhat more balanced approach. He proposed a flexible
arrangement for dual citizenship under which residence in Armenia becomes the defining
factor in electoral rights determination. Calling for greater attention to the public office
appointments and political rights, in a commentary immediately following the ARF’s
April 5th announcement, Mr. Poghosyan criticized the ”Concept” as “raw” and
incomplete in its provisions on all three core points: taxation, military service, and
elections. It was not clear to him how the mechanism of required residence and
30 “The Goals and Values of Dashnaktsutiun are Both Timely and Immediate,” The Armenian Weekly Online, March
2004 Editorial, http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/march_2004/politics003.html, accessed May 30, 2006.
31 “Adoption of law on Dual Citizenship to Raise greatly Armenia’s Influence in Region,” ARMINFO News
Agency, June 4, 2005.
32 “Concept: of the Republic of Armenia Law on Granting Dual Citizenship to Foreign Armenians [Arterkri
hayerin Haiastani Hanrapetutiunum erkqaghaqatsiutian kargavijak talu masin]” available at Yerkir.am
http://www.yerkir.am/arm/Hajecakarg.pdf - accessed May 30, 2006.
33 “Draft Bill on Dual Citizenship Introduced in RA Parliament,” PanArmenian.Net, April 6, 2006
http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=17257 – accessed May 5, 2006.
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
20
contribution of certain amount of income would work. Importantly, however, Mr.
Poghosyan mentioned the issue of reciprocity of the dual citizenship clause.34
Speaking at the Armenian National Academy of Sciences on September 28, 2005,
Andranik Mihranyan, member of the Board of the World Armenian Congress and the
Union of Armenian of Russia, stated that “the Armenian community of Russia favors the
constitutional amendment lifting the ban on the dual citizenship.”35 It is safe to assume
that this is a representative view of many other Diasporan civil organizations at large. The
idea has been subject of deliberations at every Armenia-Diaspora conferences held in
Yerevan since 1999, in which delegates of all major Diasporan organizations have taken
an active part.36 The adopted constitutional amendments raise hopes for those for whom
acquiring Armenian citizenship is a matter of personal values and for those for whom it is
a necessity of conducting business or reestablishing ties with their homeland.
The issue of electoral rights as they relate to dual citizenship appears to be defining in the
current debate on dual citizenship. One cannot fail to notice a clear separation in views
between the political formations in Armenia on this subject. Hence, despite some
reasonable arguments offered at various levels in the Armenian political structure, the
debate on dual citizenship, unfortunately, is plainly a debate on authority and preservation
of party status and ideological dogmas. It leads to a conclusion that a constructive debate
on a larger scale of the Armenian society (i.e. outside politics) is yet to be seen.
On a practical side, the opponents seem to forget that dual citizenship works only in
cases where two countries have adequate legislation, i.e. being a citizen of Armenia does
not jeopardize the person’s citizenship elsewhere and vice versa. A set of comprehensive
binding agreements would be required. For example, anyone accepting Russian
citizenship must formally renounce another country’s citizenship. This puts the
speculations of the opponents about “two million votes coming from Russia” in a
different perspective. Still, introducing comprehensive dual citizenship law, Armenia
would be making the first step in the negotiation process with potentially high positive
outcomes for the national economy and country development.
The following survey stands out in this discussion and it is worth mentioning. In
February 2005, A1plus News Agency conducted a survey among three groups of people in
Armenia. Overall, ninety-nine people were surveyed. Of this sample sixty-seven offered
their support to the idea of dual citizenship. Temporary migrants to Russia fancied the
idea in general; however, they were unprepared to answer any specific questions
pertaining to the taxation, draft and elections issues. University-level students in Armenia
expressed reservations in terms of introducing a provision on certain obligations for dual
34 “Raw Conception,” Aravot.am, April 7, 2006, http://www.aravot.am/2006/aravot_eng/April/7/st01.htm
- accessed May 31, 2006.
35 “Armenian Community of Russia Supports Amendment to Armenian Constitution on Dual Citizenship,”
ARMINFO News Agency, September 28, 2005.
36 Information on annual Armenia Diaspora conferences, issues discussed, resolutions, participants and other
is available at http://www.armeniadiaspora.com
Dual Citizenship in Armenia: Nature of the Debate since Independence
21
citizens. Finally, social scientists and other intellectuals were slightly more cautious and
suggested starting with the rights of permanent residence as a type of dual citizenship.37
Despite obvious sample limitations, and in the absence of larger scale similar efforts, the
findings of the survey suggest a general approval of dual citizenship. In particular, the
approval is coming from those who have experienced the limitations of not having dual
citizenship like legal status in their practical life. That is a crucial insight that should be
given its proper attention. The issues of political economy, i.e. the notorious core
controversies of taxation, military service and elections, are recognized as important but
are not the governing determinants in the overall concept of dual citizenship.
According to the some previous researches, people usually vote, pay taxes and serve in
military in the countries of their habitual residence.38 Therefore, such considerations
(certainly with preceding attention from the authorities) become part of everyday life for
a dual national and are worked out on the basis of their relevance.
V. CONCLUSION
Whether Armenia is going to be successful in setting the foundations for future dual
citizenship arrangements depends largely on the country’s ability to adapt international
legal base, learn from the practical experience of others and seriously consider the main
socio-economic and political factors of the problem. The critics must remember that
adopting a law on dual-citizenship in Armenia is only half the battle. It remains up to the
governments (and the RA government diplomacy) to adopt similar clauses, for
Armenians in other countries to fully enjoy the rights and bear obligations of dual
citizenship. Until there is a bilateral or internationally accepted mechanism for allowing
dual citizenship, the situation might not even arise. In fact, the number of Armenians
from the Diaspora may not be as high as most optimistic estimates may predict, namely,
because of the inexistence of such reciprocal legal basis.
Despite all this, adopting a law on dual citizenship would in effect be the required first
step on the path of achieving Armenia’s long-run prosperity and growth as well as the
“oneness” of all Armenians. The necessary condition at this stage is proper understanding
of all complexities of the process. The highly politicized debate on the issue of dual
citizenship requires a constructive dialogue involving all stakeholders, including the public
and civic groups. Deeper investigation of the existing international practice will bear
benefits in the long run designing any future regulations.
Finally, the urgency of analysis applied within specific Armenian context of today should
not be underestimated. Some of the ideas raised in this article serve as starting point for
more informed discussion of the subject matter within the Armenian context. Overall, a
closer examination is needed.
37 “Dual Citizenship Perceived as Privilege,” A1plus News Agency, February 19, 2005,
http://www.a1plus.am/eng/?go=issue&id=24973, accessed May 15, 2006.
38 See Hammar, 1985.
Armenian Journal of Public Policy
22
WORKS CITED
“1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality
Laws,” http://kirra.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1938/4.html
Astourian, Stephan H. “From Ter-Petrosian to Kocharian: Leadership Change in
Armenia,” Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies, 2001.
Freinkman, Lev. “Growth Challenges and Government Policies in Armenia,”
World Bank Country Study No. 22854-AM, 2001.
Gevorkyan, Aleksandr V. and David A. Grigorian. “Armenia and Its Diaspora: Is
There Scope for a Stronger Economic Link?” Armenian Forum 3, no. 2 (2003).
Gevorkyan, Aleksandr V., Arkady Gevorkyan and Karina Mashuryan. “Economics of
Labor Migration From Armenia: A Conceptual Study,” Forthcoming Armenian Journal of Public
Policy. Presented at the 4th AIPRG conference, World Bank, Washington, DC, January 15, 2006
Gustafson, Per. “Globalization, Multiculturalism and Individualism: the Swedish
Debate on Dual Citizenship.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 28, no. 3 (2002): 463-481.
Hammar, Tomas. “Dual Citizenship and Political Integration,” International
Migration Review 19, no. 3 (Autumn 1985): 438-450. Special Issue: Civil Rights and the
Sociopolitical Participation of Migrants.
Porter, Michael E. “Armenian Competitiveness: Towards a Strategy for
Economic Development,” Armenia 2020 Summit,
http://www.isc.hbs.edu/pdf/Armenia_Competitiveness_2005.03.08.pdf
Roberts, Bryan W. and King Banaian. “Remittances in Armenia: Size, Impacts, and
Measures to Enhance their Contribution to Development,” Working paper presented at
2005 AIPRG Conference.
Shain, Yossi. “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 109, no.
5 (Winter 1994-1995): 811-841.
Spiro, Peter J. “Embracing Dual Nationality,” Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 1998. Working Paper, available at
http://www.ceip.org/programs/migrat/migspiro.htm
Yeghiazarian, Armen, Vahram Avanesian and Nelson Shahnazaryan. “How to Reverse
Emigration?” Armenia 2020
http://www.armenia2020.org/index.php/en/activities/researches/16
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Armenian International Policy Research Group. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate.
Article
Full-text available
This paper develops the economic impact of remittances in Armenia. There is a high propensity to save out of remittances, and thus the impact of remittances on growth is expected to be positive. Using plausible values for some of the parameters under study, we show that the Armenian economy probably grows 1.6% per year in the long run for a permanent 10% increase in the flow of remittances. Evidence also suggests that remittances have a negative impact on labor supply of adults and a positive impact on education. We find that for households receiving remittances, they constitute 80% of household income and help reduce poverty. We then suggest several strategies for increasing the reach of remittances to more remote parts of Armenia. While more research is needed, there is also a need to improve the transmission of remittances and improve linkages with the diasporan community.
Article
Full-text available
For a country such as Armenia, shifts in population flows have significant long lasting implications on the economy and society. By assessing the most common and pertinent forms of labor migration across the world [specifically looking at examples of the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan – countries with established labor migration regimes] and identifying actors involved in the migration process this study unveils the socioeconomic significance of labor migration as a precursor to outright migration that is deemed to be one of the factors inhibiting Armenia’s development. Although social and economic processes are considered to move in tandem and should be studied as such, the paper argues that economic considerations exert primary influence on migratory decisions and geography. As such, an economic analysis framework of the labor migration processes is presented, encompassing the legal and social issues involved. Introducing a model for the temporary labor migration regime, the paper makes a strong argument in favor of instituting government-sponsored programs [state-managed regime] in Armenia with active Diaspora participation. It is crucial to remember that this paper is not looking into the political ramifications related to the sensitive issue of labor migration, but proposes a possible way out of the current economic stalemate.
Article
Mr. Lynch explores the status of proposed bur unratified amendments to the United Stares Constitution. He also describes sources available for identifying amendments introduced in Congress-most of which are never proposed for ratification-and includes a bibliography of such sources.
Article
Since July 2001, Swedish citizenship law fully permits dual citizenship, whereas earlier legislation demanded that Swedish nationals, with some exceptions, should have only one citizenship. This paper analyses the arguments used in the debate preceding this new law. The opponents of dual citizenship usually defended a nation-state order, in which individuals should belong to one single nation-state and this belonging should be manifested in national citizenship. The proponents of dual citizenship, including the parliamentary majority, balanced the national perspective against, on the one hand, a global/international perspective and, on the other hand, an individual perspective. They frequently referred to globalisation, increasing international mobility, multiple national bonds and multiculturalism. They suggested that dual citizenship would facilitate the integration of immigrants in Sweden, whereas they moderated legal and political concerns, sometimes arguing that rights and obligations in today's society are increasingly dissociated from national citizenship. Finally, the national perspective was at times explicitly subordinated to an individual perspective, which emphasised the experiences and desires of migrants - immigrants as well as expatriate Swedes. This perspective framed dual citizenship as a matter of individual choice, and often regarded citizenship as a personal attribute to be used for the construction of self-identity and meaning.
Article
PIP On the premise that representative government cannot properly function without the political participation of a large active segment of its constituents represented by permanent immigrants without citizenship, this article 1) reviews some attempts to resolve such an anomalous situation; 2) suggests naturalization as an instrument to correct it and describes the naturalization rate and the reasons for the low propensity for naturalization in various North European countries; 3) surveys the phenomenon of dual citizenship, the reasons for its increase as well as its increase as well as its inconveniences and advantages; and 4) hypothesizes that future increases in dual citizenship will protect political integration. Labor immigration will probably not be encouraged again, as it was some 20 years ago, but large international migration will take place both within Europe and to Europe from other continents. There are many indications that in the future many more Europeans will possess dual or multiple nationality, and this, in combination with more weight on a person's effective residence, will promote political integration of those large groups of immigrants and their descendants, who now stand outside the political systems without proper representation.
Article
This paper analyzes the Armenian government under president Levon Ter-Petrosian during the 1990s and the transition to prime minister Robert Kocharian in 1998. It mainly looks at the underlying causes of Ter-Petrosian's downfall and his forced resignation, focusing on the country's economy, ideological factors, citizenship and the diaspora, and pragmatic authoritarianism. It concludes with a discussion of the fragmentation of the Armenian Pan National Movement (APNM); the APNM challenge to Kocharian and national security minister Serzh Sargsian; the Karabagh conflict; and the "hyperpresidentialism" of the Armenian political system.
Armenia: Dual Citizenship Debate Institute for War & Peace Reporting
  • Tigran Avetisian
Avetisian, Tigran, October 13, 2004, " Armenia: Dual Citizenship Debate, " Institute for War & Peace Reporting, http://iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/cau/cau_200410_257_2_eng.txt, accessed October 12, 2005
It's Time For Dual Citizenship
  • Serge Sargsian
Serge Sargsian: It's Time For Dual Citizenship,"PanArmenian.Net, July 25, 2005, http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=14285, accessed May 20, 2006