The legislative (constitutional) prerequisites for access to power by persons with dual (multiple) citizenship and their participation in the state’s public life differ worldwide: from prohibition and inadmissibility, to admissibility but under certain conditions. The fundamental factor for their admission to participation in the state’s public life is the principle of allegiance, first legally fixed in the British decision in Calvin’s Case (1608).

The purpose of this article is to analyze and compare the legislative regulation of the possibility of a person with dual (multiple) citizenship to exercise the right to vote and be elected head of state (as well as a parliamentarian, head of government or minister), including whether such a person is obliged to renounce alternative citizenship (and second passport) before of the election started, regardless of the time and mode of citizenship acquisition.

The concept of dual (multiple) citizenship of a person who exercises the right to vote, has access to power, state security, secrets, and the treasury, causes unprecedented challenges for the rule of law and democracy, provoking alteration, revision, and rethinking of the matrix of citizenship in general. The fragility of this constitutional and legal institution primarily concerns national identity, constitutional patriotism, and a person’s allegiance to the state of his/her citizenship. Possessing dual (multiple) citizenship deforms the worldview core of citizenship, overloaded with civilizational challenges, creates a dilemma regarding the loyalty of such persons (bipatrides) to each and every state of their citizenship: what if both (all) states of citizenship of this bipatrid are at war with each other? What if such a person were born out of the country?

In the author’s opinion, this political and legal concept requires legislative regulation in the context of promoting anthropocentrism, since the European Convention on Nationality (1997) specifies how many citizenships a person can legally have simultaneously, or whether there is a priority regarding the time and mode of acquisition. It is necessary to differentiate legal and ethical factors with arguments, clearly and understandably regulate the right of such a person (bipatride) to access power only in one state of citizenship (after renouncing all alternative citizenships) or also in other states (consecutively or taking into account the time and mode of acquisition), following the qualifying conditions for assuming office.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Bellamy R, Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press 2008) 152.

2. Kelsen H, General Theory of Law and State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1949) 235. 43 Про державну службу: Закон України від 10 грудня 2015 р. № 889-VIII. Офіційний вісник України. 2016. № 3, стор. 28. 44 Виборчий кодекс України: Закон України від 19 грудня 2019 р. № 396-IX (дата звернення 15.10.2025).

3. Roosevelt Th, Fear God and Take Your Own Part (George H. Doran Company, Harvard University 1916).

4. Spiro P J, At Home in Two Countries: The Past and Future of Dual Citizenship (New York University Press 2016).

5. Sofinska I, Filosofs’ko-pravova visija doktryny hromadjanstwa: monohrafiia (Kamenjar 2018) (in Ukrainian). Edited books

6. Saunders Ch and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of the Australian Constitution (Oxford University Press 2025) 1200.

7. Shachar A and others (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Oxford University Press 2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198805854.001.0001.Journal articles

8. de Groot G-R, González G M, ‘Steps Towards a Realisation of the Right to Have a Nationality’ [2024] 16(2) LeXonomica 143-164.

9. Friedman L, ‘An Idea Whose Time Has Come – The Curious History, Uncertain Effect, And Need for Amendment of the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for the Presidency’ [2007] 52 Saint Louis University Law Journal 137–150.

10. Irving H, ‘The Concept of Allegiance in Citizenship Law and Revocation: An Australian Study’ [2019] 23(4) Citizenship Studies 372–387.

11. Morgan J, ‘Dual Citizenship and Australian Parliamentary Eligibility: A Time for Reflection or Referendum?’ [2018] 39(2) Adelaide Law Review 439–451.

12. Price P J, ‘Natural Law and Birthright Citizenship in Calvin’s Case (1608)’ [1997] 74 Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 97–132.

13. Reijers W, Orgad L, de Filippi P, ‘The rise of cybernetic citizenship’ [2022] 27(2) Citizenship Studies 210–229 https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2022.2077567.

14. Sachs St E, ‘Why John McCain Was a Citizen at Birth’ [2008] 107 Michigan Law Review First Impressions 49–57.

15. Shachar A, ‘Gated citizenship’ [2022] 26(4–5) Citizenship Studies 625–637 https://doi.org/1 0.1080/13621025.2022.2091247.

16. Spiro P J, ‘McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method’ [2008] 107 Michigan Law Review First Impressions 42–48.

17. Szigeti P, ‘The Dilemmas of Schrödinger’s Citizenship’ [2025] 66(1) Harvard International Law Journal 229–299.

18. Thwaites R, Irving H, ‘Allegiance, Foreign Citizenship and the Constitutional Right to Stand for Parliament’ [2020] 48 Federal Law Review 299–323.

19. Sofinska I, ‘Podviine hromadianstvo, pryntsyp virnosti i publichne vriaduvannia: maty ne mozhna pozbavyty’ [2021] 2 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 71–76 DOI:10.36695/2219-5521.2.2021.13 (in Ukrainian).

20. Sofinska I, ‘Pravo na vladu v paradyhmi hromadianstva SShA: aliam vitam, alio mores’ [2017] 78 Derzhava i pravo. Seriia: Yurydychni nauky 281–297 (in Ukrainian). Theses

21. Makarov M, ‘Konstytutsiino-pravovyi instytut hromadianstva v systemi suchasnykh mihratsiinykh protsesiv’ (dys dokt filosofii, 2022) (in Ukrainian). Websites

22. Vink M, van der Baaren L, Bauböck R, Džankić J, Honohan I, Manby B, GLOBALCIT Citizenship Law Dataset, v. 3.0 (EUI, RSC, Research Data, 2025) (accessed 15.10.2025).