The transformation of citizenship policies in post-soviet states

The Citizenship Law of the Republic of Armenia was adopted on November 8, 1995. The Armenian citizenship legislation is one of the most liberal in the post-Soviet space.

The law presupposes a wide range of possibilities for acquiring Armenian citizenship, including the right of return for the members of the Armenian diaspora.

Ethnic Armenians can acquire citizenship in a simplified manner. The simplified procedure also applies to the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, who have an official residence permit in the territory of the unrecognized republic. Armenian legislation does not provide the jus soli principle. Armenian nationality law is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis. The term of permanent residence in the country for naturalization is only 3 years, being the shortest among all post-Soviet states. Other additional conditions are not very strict and include, first of all, the requirement for knowledge of the Armenian language.

Initially, a citizen of the Republic of Armenia could not be simultaneously a citizen of another state. However, in 2007, with the adoption of a large package of amendments to the legislation on citizenship, this provision was declared invalid. From that moment it is possible to preserve the original citizenship by immigrants if the countries have a relevant treaty.

This circumstance is reflected in the change in the CPI score by 0.5 points. Other significant changes in the conditions of naturalization have not occurred since that.

2.2.2.2 Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani citizenship is based on the Constitution adopted on November 12, 1995, as well as the Citizenship laws of October 6, 1993 and September 30, 1998. The legal status of foreigners and stateless persons is regulated by the relevant law .

The mechanism for determining citizens by registration (so called `propiska system') was widely used to identify Azerbaijani citizens in the first years after the adoption of the first law on citizenship (until 1998). Then the new registration system was created, which is still valid. A citizen who has changed his place of residence, not later than 10 days from the date of arrival to a new place, must apply for registration to the relevant government agencies.

The key problem for the spread of Azerbaijani citizenship was the status of tje residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. A large part of the Azerbaijani population of the region left the region, moving to the territory controlled by Azerbaijan. Until recently (2014), residents of Nagorno-Karabakh had the opportunity to obtain Azerbaijani citizenship in a declarative general procedure. However, now this is possible only with the rejection of other citizenships (including the citizenship of the unrecognized republic).

Simplified acquisition of citizenship is possible for Azerbaijanis (but not for the representatives of national minorities living on the territory of the country, for example, Lezgins). Citizenship is determined solely by the principles of jus sanguinis. Additional conditions for naturalization, except the knowledge of official language, are absent. The term of permanent residence for naturalization is not very large (5 years).

In accordance with Article 69 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons, foreigners and stateless persons enjoy all rights and freedoms and fulfill all duties on an equal basis with citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan, unless otherwise provided by law or by an international treaty, by a participant which is the Republic of Azerbaijan.

In May 2014, there was the most significant tightening of the legislation in the field of citizenship policy, which primarily manifested itself in two aspects:

· Prohibition of multiple citizenship. Immigrants are required to refuse their previous citizenship, and citizens are required to inform the authorized bodies about the existence of dual citizenship (however, it is not necessary to refuse it). When disclosing the fact of the presence of dual citizenship, criminal responsibility may arise, as well as the loss of the citizenship of Azerbaijan.

· Expanded opportunities for loss of citizenship (service in the government bodies / law enforcement agencies / special and military services of foreign states, voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship (see the previous paragraph), disloyalty and treason).

Such changes (and above all the final ban of multiple citizenship, which was previously simply not recognized) affected the fall of the CPI in the last time period by 0.5 points.

2.2.2.3 Belarus

Belarus is a case of a gradual transition from legislation aimed at recognizing the residence of the country as citizens, to a normal citizenship legislation.

The first citizenship law after the Belarusian declaration of independence was adopted on October 18, 1991. In the future, it there were several minor amendments. On June 28, 2002, a new citizenship law was adopted .

The first citizenship law did not recognize continuity with the citizenship of the Byelorussian Union Soviet Republic; instead all Soviet citizens with a local residence were recognized as citizens of the new state. Also, the first law did not explicitly prohibit multiple citizenship, but it was not recognized. Since 2002, immigrants are required to renounce their previous citizenship.

The main principle for granting Belarusian citizenship is jus sanguinis. No elements of jus soli were introduced into national legislation (although such discussions were conducted earlier).

In the Belarusian citizenship legislation there are no ethnically targeted provisions. Additional conditions for naturalization are the knowledge of the Belarusian or Russian language - the official languages of the republic, the availability of a residence permit and a permanent legal source of income.

2.2.2.4 Estonia

The case of Estonia is quite unusual among the post-Soviet countries. As in the case of other Baltic states, since the restoration of Estonia's independence, the country follows the legal principle of the state continuity. As all the Baltic states claimed that they were subject of Soviet occupation in 1940-1991, they proposed the principle of state continuity as the basis of their state- and nation-building. According to this principle they proclaimed their continuity with the interwar independent Baltic states, which should have touched upon the issues of restoring the international legal personality, state institutions, granting citizenship rights, and so on.

With regard to the citizenship policy, this was manifested in the restoration in 1992 of the pre-war law on citizenship as amended by 1940. This law was quite archaic, but also somewhat more inclusive than the current legislation.

After the restoration of Estonian independence, persons who had Estonian citizenship before June 16, 1940, and their descendants were automatically considered Estonian citizens. Thus, approximately two thirds of the 1.5 million residence of Estonia regained their citizenship in 1992. All other residents of Estonia could receive Estonian citizenship in the process of naturalization. At the same time, all residents of Estonia, who were once Soviet citizens, had the right to register as citizens of Russia, the legal successor of the USSR, or to choose any other citizenship. Persons wishing to obtain Estonian citizenship by naturalization had to meet the following requirement - to reside permanently in Estonia for at least 2 years prior to the day of applying for Estonian citizenship and 1 year after the day of filing the application. For stateless persons who, by the day of filing an application for citizenship, permanently resided in Estonia for at least 10 years, the requirement of Estonian language proficiency could not be taken into account.

The adoption of a new citizenship law on April 1, 1995 marked the rejection of such a policy of naturalization.

In accordance with the updated legislation, the applicant for Estonian citizenship must be on the territory of Estonia on the basis of a permanent residence permit for at least 5 years from the date of submission of the expression of the will to acquire Estonian citizenship and one year from the day after that; they must know the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Estonia, must have a legal permanent income.

The knowledge of the Estonian language and civil integration is confirmed by the corresponding tests. The provision was removed about the possibility of obtaining citizenship by naturalization to a stateless person if this person has lived in Estonia for at least 10 years. In this case, it was even indicated the possibility not to apply the requirements for the knowledge of the Estonian language, which was actively used in the first years of independence by those wishing to be naturalized. These are very stringent conditions, which must certainly affect the CPI assessment in the form of a penalty of 0.5 points.

Citizenship is granted solely on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. Multiple citizenship is generally not recognized, but some members of the Estonian diaspora in Canada and the United States can retain it. An interesting feature of the national legislation is also the fact that no one can loss Estonian citizenship acquired by birth.

The adoption of such a stringent legislation on citizenship led to the emergence in the mid-1990s of a situation of mass statelessness. The new citizenship policy provoked a sharp, almost threefold decline in the rate of naturalization. The specific legal category of "non-nationals" (mostly Russian), afflicted in their rights, was formed. By 2018 their number is about 6% of the total population.

2.2.2.5 Georgia

The Georgian Citizenship law was adopted on March 25, 1993.

A person who permanently resides in Georgia for 5 years can apply for Georgian citizenship. Additional conditions for naturalization are knowledge of the history and traditions of the country, as well as the national language. Spousal naturalization involves more flexible requirements for candidates. In 2007, the country also introduced a simplification procedure for naturalization for persons who invest directly in the economy of at least 300 thousand Euros.

Multiple citizenship is not recognized, but the head of state can allow a foreign citizen to acquire Georgian citizenship for special achievements while retaining his existing citizenship. In law enforcement practice, cases of citizenship continued to increase in the 2010s. At present, the country has taken a course to approve the principle of multiple citizenship. Relative liberalization of legislation also occurred in 2014. The grounds for the loss of citizenship of Georgian citizens living abroad were abolished. Otherwise, the amendments affected the rights of children to preserve Georgian citizenship when the status of their parents changed. Liberalization of the citizenship policy was reflected in the increase in the CPI by 0.5 points in the last period.

The inhabitants of Abkhazia and South Ossetia were initially recognized as citizens of Georgia. Many of them still keep Georgian passports. Citizens of unrecognized republics who do not have Georgian citizenship can receive it in the general order (the interpretation of the fact of residence on the territory of unrecognized states usually corresponds to living in the territory of Georgia).



2.2.2.6 Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan's first citizenship law was adopted on December 20, 1991. In 1995, there were minor amendments. The new Citizenship law was adopted on May 17, 2002.

In the case of Kazakhstan, there is a quite stable legislation (despite the adoption of the new law in 2002). The new law mainly removed provisions on the base of which the individuals should be recognized as the citizens of the republic (which were temporary requirements for transition from the Soviet republic to an independent state).

Citizenship is granted solely on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. The legislation provides for a mandatory period of permanent residence of 5 years, which can be reduced by spousal naturalization. Multiple citizenship is not recognized, and there is no evident legal loopholes that allow an immigrant to retain their original citizenship.

The legislation also specifies special conditions for the naturalization of compatriots - the so-called oralmans. For their naturalization the requirement of the term of residence does not exist. According to official data, 957 764 oralmans arrived in Kazakhstan for 25 years (since 1991, as of January 1, 2016), and if their descendants are taken into account, they comprise more than 1 million people (10% of all Kazakh population of the republic).

Also, rehabilitated victims of mass political repressions and their descendants residing in the territory of Kazakhstan can claim simplified naturalization procedures. Obviously, this provision is aimed at integrating representatives of the ethnic groups (Ingush, Russian Germans, etc.) deported to the territory of the Kazakh SSR.

2.2.2.7 Kyrgyz Republic

The first citizenship law of Kyrgyzstan was adopted on December 8, 1993. The new law was adopted on May 21, 2007 . This law set the trend for a gradual relative tightening of the legislation.

Kyrgyz citizenship is granted solely on the basis of jus sanguinis. The possibility of preserving multiple citizenship in obtaining citizenship of Kyrgyzstan is absent. The naturalization period is 5 years, both in the case of basic naturalization and spousal naturalization; although earlier in the second case it was possible to obtain citizenship via simplified procedure. On March 17, 2012, the provision of reduction of the naturalization term to 3 years when married to a citizen of Kyrgyzstan was excluded. Since 2012, only women who married a Kyrgyz citizen can obtain citizenship under a simplified procedure. An additional condition of naturalization is only the knowledge of Kyrgyz or Russian language and the availability of a stable source of income. The law provides for the possibility of simplified acquisition of citizenship not only for special achievements, but also for investments into country's economy. In these cases, it is possible to shorten the term of permanent residence on the territory of the country.

Interestingly, in the case of Kyrgyzstan, an increase in the degree of democracy of all major indices is accompanied by a tightening of the legislation on citizenship, identified through the CPI. In the last time period there was a decrease in CPI by 0.75 points.

2.2.2.8 Latvia

On October 15, 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Latvia (elected in 1990 as the Supreme Council of the Latvian SSR) adopted a resolution "On the restoration of the rights of citizens of the Republic of Latvia and the basic conditions of naturalization". According to this document, the decree of the Supreme Council of the USSR of 7 September 1940 was declared inoperative, and the citizenship of Latvia was recognized only for persons who were citizens of the Republic of Latvia on 17 June 1940 and their descendants 2/3 of the country's inhabitants). Dual citizenship was prohibited.

In July 1994, the Citizenship law was enacted, replacing aforementioned resolution. The law provided for the possibility of naturalization with some time lags - the division of applicants into groups by age, place of birth and age of arriving into the country for those not born in Latvia; these groups were able to apply for naturalization in different years. The law on citizenship retains some continuity with the 1919 law, especially in relation to wording.

In 2012, the parliament rejected the bill on ratification of the European Convention on Nationality. In 2013, changes were adopted permitting dual citizenship with the EU, NATO, EFTA, Australia, Brazil and New Zealand, as well as allowing ethnic Latvians and Livs to retain any previous citizenship, but toughening the residence qualification and making it impossible to appeal the government's refusal to naturalize . This decision is the only meaningful liberalization of the citizenship policy, which is reflected in a small change in the CPI in the recent period.

Latvian citizenship is granted only on the basis of jus sanguinis. The naturalization period is 5 years. There are a large number of additional conditions for both immigrant naturalization and spousal naturalization. This allows me to lower the corresponding CPI components.

2.2.2.9 Lithuania

In 1989, the legislative body of the Lithuanian SSR adopted an act of citizenship that granted automatic citizenship to those who could ascertain their own birth, or the birth of their parents or grandparents on the borders of Lithuania. Permanent residents that were not covered by these criteria were given citizenship when signing the oath of allegiance. The knowledge of national language ??was not required. The 1991 treaty with Russia broadened the definition of residence to those who immigrated to Lithuania from Russia between 1989 and the ratification of the treaty. Subsequent applicants for citizenship were required to meet a number of naturalization standards, including testing in the Lithuanian language. The requirements of citizenship were the most liberal of those that were in the newly independent Baltic countries. Partially it can be explained by the smallest number of immigrants from other Soviet republics and a greater degree of ethnic homogeneity among all Baltic states. The settlers of the Soviet period had the right to choose for themselves Lithuanian citizenship through a simplified procedure of naturalization, although they were not considered to have the Lithuanian citizenship ipso facto. Nevertheless, even this step was enough to avoid the situation with mass statelessness, which is a important feature of Latvia and Estonia.

In addition to general naturalization, the law presupposes the possibility of obtaining Lithuanian citizenship in a simplified order (for ethnic Lithuanians) and as an exception (with special achievements before the republic). The Constitution includes a provision on the right of return for persons who left Lithuania after its occupation by the Soviet Union in 1940, as well as for their descendants.

Later, more stringent requirements for naturalization were introduced into the legislation. The term of permanent residence in the country is 10 years. Citizenship is granted solely on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. Dual citizenship for immigrants is prohibited, but Lithuanian citizens may have the right to dual citizenship. At the same time, there is a tendency for gradual liberalization of legislation in this respect. Thus on June 23, 2016, the parliament adopted a law increasing the number of provisions for acquiring dual citizenship. It came into force on July 6, 2016, amending the Citizenship law. In general, an individual has the right to dual citizenship if:

· “A person who was absent in Lithuania on March 11, 1990”. This is defined as:

o at least one of his or her ancestors (parents, grandparents or great-grandfathers) was a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania;

o the ancestor left Lithuania for a short period of time before Lithuania regained its independence on March 11, 1990;

o after June 15, 1940, the ancestor did not move to the former Soviet Union.

· “A person deported from occupied Lithuania before March 11, 1990”.

o An individuals or their descendants who before June 15, 1940 had Lithuanian citizenship and were forcibly deported from Lithuania before March 11, 1990 due to political, social or ethnic persecution of the Soviet and Nazi occupation regimes.

In the near future, it may also be allowed to keep the existing citizenship for some immigrants wishing to obtain Lithuanian citizenship. In 2019, a referendum is to be held in the country, where the issue of retaining previous citizenship for ethnic Lithuanians living in the EU and NATO countries will be discussed.

2.2.2.10 Moldova

The Moldova's Citizenship law was adopted on June 5, 1991. On June 2, 2000, a new version of this law was adopted, which was significantly amendment on June 5, 2003. At the same time, the new law retains a significant degree of continuity with its predecessors. Most of the changes in the legislation concerned the possibility of citizens of Moldova receiving citizenship of another country without losing Moldovan citizenship. At present, such a right extends to all citizens, although from the end of 2007 to the end of 2009, civil servants were forbidden to have multiple citizenship.

Moldovan legislation in the field of citizenship is based mostly on the principle of jus sanguinis. However, the legislation also provides for the possibility of obtaining citizenship by double jus soli by the individuals, at least one of whose parents lived on the present territory of Moldova (including unrecognized Transnistria). The legislation also provides for the possibility of a simplified acquisition of Moldovan citizenship by descendants of the inhabitants of the regions, historically associated with Moldova (Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, Hertza region, and MASSR), living in them as of June 28, 1940.

Although Moldova was not initially able to carry out massive issuance of passports to residents of the Transnistria (due to the active stage of the military conflict and restrictions on control over the territory), residents of the self-proclaimed republic have the opportunity to simplify the acquisition of Moldovan citizenship (as residence on the territory of the TMR is counted for residence in the territory of Moldova). To date, about 2/3 of the inhabitants of the TNR have Moldovan citizenship. The abolition of a visa regime with the EU countries provoked an increase in requests for the acquisition of Moldovan citizenship. TMR itself introduced its own citizenship in October 2001.

In general, the Moldovan legislation establishes a long term of permanent residence for naturalization for those wishing to obtain Moldovan citizenship (10 years). For stateless persons and refugees, this period is reduced to 8 years. However, there are soft conditions for spousal naturalization - in this case, the term of permanent residence in the country is only 3 years. The only additional condition for naturalization in the general order is sufficient knowledge of the Moldovan language. At the end of 2016, the country's legislation was amended, which allows one to obtain citizenship without the term of residence. To do this, one need to invest some amount of money in the country's economy through the Public Investment Fund for long-term development. At the same time, candidates undergo a rigorous procedure for checking their financial reputation and criminal history. Thus, Moldova was the third country in the post-Soviet space, which implemented the principle of issuing citizenship in exchange for investment. At the same time, in Moldova this principle is realized most consistently.

The change in CPI in the recent period is explained by the country's gradual transition to a policy of non-recognition of multiple citizenship. The law removed the requirement for immigrants to renounce their citizenship. Now when they receive Moldovan citizenship, they can retain the previous one, if this does not contradict the laws of their country.

2.2.2.11 Russia

The Citizenship Law of the RSFSR was adopted on November 28, 1991. Amendments were made in 1993 and 1995. On 31 May 2002 a new version of the Citizenship Law of the Russian Federation was adopted, the main amendments were introduced on 11 November 2003.

The Russian case perfectly fits the scheme of transformation of the national legislation on citizenship after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The first law on citizenship included provisions on the recognition of Russian citizenship, which were excluded from the second law. All citizens of the former USSR, permanently residing in the territory of the Russian Federation, who did not renounce Russian citizenship within a year after the law entered into force were automatically recognized as Russian citizens. One should take into account two issues in this regard: 1) the all-Union citizenship was used as a legal basis for such recognition, but not the citizenship of the RSFSR; 2) it was assumed that no the registration on the territory of the RSFSR should be taken into account, but permanent residence, which allowed for a broader interpretation. In general, such provisions of the law were aimed at covering a greater number of potential candidates for citizenship.

Also, the first Russian citizenship law provided for the possibility of obtaining citizenship on the basis of registration. It allowed the citizens of the former USSR to obtain Russian citizenship in a simplified manner. This made it possible to take into the Russian citizenship a large number of refugees and migrants (mostly ethnic Russians) from the post-Soviet states, engulfed by armed conflicts and pursuing policies aimed at ethnic homogenization. The legislation even introduced a special term "forced migrants" (`вынужденные переселенцы') to designate such categories of the population. An important feature of this category was that, in addition to citizens of the Russian Federation who left certain regions of Russia or foreign countries in connection with the threat of their lives, it also extended to people from post-Soviet countries that came to Russia as refugees.

The introduction of such a category reflects the specifics of the transformational processes of the 1990s, when the lack of political stability in most post-Soviet republics and the intensification of state- and nation-building processes provoked a wave of migration to Russia, which was not repeated thereafter on such a scale. It is important to note that the activation of labor migration since the beginning of the 2000s should not be compared with this case, since it has completely different reasons and a fundamentally different ethnic composition of migrants.

The return to the widespread application of this norm occurred in the middle of 2010 due to the outbreak of the war in Ukraine and the relocation of a large number of Ukrainian citizens to Russia.

The adoption of the new law on citizenship in 2002 marked an important transformation of the citizenship policy. By this time, there was a turning point from mass migrations caused by disintegration processes and their consequences, to labor migration from mainly Central Asian countries to Russia, where rapid economic growth began. In this regard, the new law was obviously aimed at limiting the number of people of other nationalities who could obtain Russian citizenship.

In these circumstances, in addition to excluding the provisions of the law on the recognition of citizenship, several important legislative innovations were made.

The term of uninterrupted residence in the territory of Russia before the application for citizenship was increased from three to five years. Also some new conditions for admission to citizenship were introduced, including the knowledge of the Russian language, the existence of a legitimate source of personal income, as well as an appeal to the authorized body of a foreign state with a statement of the renunciation of the existing citizenship. The latter condition is necessary only in the absence of an international treaty on dual citizenship between Russia and this state, but currently only one such treaty is in force - between Russia and Tajikistan (a similar treaty with Turkmenistan ceased in 2015). The above circumstances are reflected in the decline of the CPI score.

In general, the fact of having multiple citizenship (except for the case with Tajikistan) is not legally significant for the Russian authorities. However, since the summer of 2014, all holders of multiple citizenship must notify law enforcement agencies about this. This decision was motivated by the objectives of national security, but often it is not respected, and the authorities do not show special eagerness in identifying the holders of multiple citizenship.

Under the previous and the current law, citizenship is granted exclusively on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. In 2017, the State Duma of Russia drafted a bill, which proposed the introduction of jus soli to obtain Russian citizenship. The only additional condition in this case should be only knowledge of the Russian language at a sufficient level. Despite the positive conclusion of the corresponding committee of the State Duma, the draft law was eventually rejected due to criticism associated with fears of increasing the burden on the welfare system.

However, this case demonstrates the possibilities of further development of Russian citizenship legislation in the context of the intensification of mass migrations in the post-Soviet space in connection with the war in Ukraine, as well as the basic trend towards depopulation, which is typical for the entire post-Soviet stage of Russia's history, and, according to some experts, will only intensify in the coming decades. The discussion about the use of jus soli is directly related to the problem of external homelands - the fact of residence of large Russian (or Russian-speaking) minorities in the regions bordering Russia. This factor is indicated as a potentially source of tension since the early 1990s. He also played one of the central roles in the war in Ukraine.

It should also be noted that since June 22, 2006, Russia has a specific program to attract compatriots to Russian citizenship . The legal status of compatriots was introduced somewhat earlier, and, according to the initial idea, was to completely cover the category of “forced migrants”. Compatriots are people living abroad who have their ancestors in the past lived in Russia, who must make free choice in favor of “spiritual, cultural and legal ties with Russia”. Although the results of the implementation of the program were moderate (according to the Federal Migration Service, by the end of 2011 only slightly more than 60 thousand people moved to Russia) In 2012, by presidential decree, it was made perpetual. As a result, the program allowed receiving a large number of Ukrainian refugees in 2015-2016, which even exceeded the previous achieved indicators for attracting compatriots.

In general, the transition to a new citizenship policy in the early 2000s was very pragmatic. Such a policy was to attract and retain ethnic Russians and prevent the influx of representatives of many ethnic minorities.

2.2.2.12 Tajikistan

Tajikistan was one of the most afflicted countries after the collapse of the USSR due to the prolonged civil war in the 1990s, as a result of which Tajikistan became one of the poorest countries in the world. The civil war resulted in the outflow of a significant part of the population of the country (especially from urbanized areas) to other post-Soviet countries (mainly Uzbekistan and Russia) and ethnic homogenization. As a result of the 2000 census, the share of the Tajik population has grown to 80%, and the number of Russians in the country has decreased by almost 6 times to 68.2 thousand people compared to 1989.

The Citizenship Law of the Republic of Tajikistan was adopted on November 4, 1995, several months after the completion of the most active stage of the armed conflict. In accordance with the law of citizenship of Tajikistan is provided solely on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. The basic period of permanent residence for naturalization is 3 years. In cases of spousal naturalization and the presence of special achievements, this condition can at all be abolished. For refugees the term is reduced by half. Additional conditions are not provided by the law, and in general, even at the level of formulations, it resembles the Soviet law on citizenship. Multiple citizenship is allowed by law only if there are relevant bilateral international treaties. Currently, only one such agreement is in force - with the Russian Federation. At the same time, in 2016 amendments were made to the legislation, which prohibited persons with multiple citizenship from working in state bodies. This can be seen as the preparation for the final ban of multiple citizenship. This fact is reflected in the decline of the CPI score in the last period.



2.2.2.13 Turkmenistan

The Citizenship Law of Turkmenistan was adopted on September 30, 1992. The country's citizenship legislation is highly stable: for a quarter of a century a small number of amendments were made.

The citizenship of the country is granted exclusively on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis. The term of naturalization is 5 years. Additional conditions require the possession of the state language. The presence of close relatives who are citizens of Turkmenistan allows, to shorten this term or not to apply it at all, but only for the citizens of the former USSR (these provisions are not detailed more clearly in the legislation). Also, ethnic Turkmen, persons who have special achievements and refugees can apply for a such simplified procedure of naturalization.

Official legislation directly prohibits multiple citizenship, except in cases provided by bilateral international treaties. At present, no such agreement is in force. Until May 18, 2015, the Agreement between the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan on the settlement of issues of dual citizenship was in force. At the same time, in 2013, old passports were being replaced in Turkmenistan, which would force the people with dual citizenship to renounce Russian or Turkmenistan citizenship. As a result, after negotiations between the leaders of the two countries it was decided, by the time of the termination of the agreement, to retain its effect only on those persons who received the second citizenship of one of the countries before 2003.

At the same time, the very fact of the citizenship of a foreign country with which a relevant treaty was concluded had no legal significance for the Turkmen authorities. Such individuals can enjoy the benefits of multiple citizenship, but the state considers them as exclusively Turkmenistan citizens.

Since it is currently impossible to obtain multiple citizenship in the country, Turkmenistan receives zero score of the relevant CPI indicator.



2.2.2.14 Ukraine

The first law Ukrainian Citizenship Law was adopted on October 8, 1991, and for a decade it was amended many times. As a result, in order to systematize the legislation and bring it in line with the Constitution of Ukraine adopted in 1996, a new version of the law was adopted on February 26, 2001. The biggest package of amendments was introduced in 2005.

The Constitution of Ukraine determines that there is a single citizenship in Ukraine that excludes the possibility of the existence of citizenship of administrative and territorial units of Ukraine. This rule was introduced in connection with the presence of such territorial autonomy, as Crimean Autonomous Republic.

Both versions of the citizenship laws are based on the principle of jus sanguinis. They provide for a basic naturalization period of permanent residence of 5 years. At the same time, the new version also introduced strong indulgences for spousal naturalization, allowing applications for citizenship after two years of marriage with a Ukrainian citizen. The descendants of the inhabitants of states that existed on the territory of modern Ukraine from 1917 to 1991 can obtain citizenship without observing the condition of the period of permanent residence on the territory of the country. Additional conditions for naturalization include knowledge of the Ukrainian language and obtaining an official permit for immigration. According to the decree of the President, it is possible to obtain citizenship by persons who have special achievements before Ukraine or are of interest to the country, for which it is not necessary to comply with the abovementioned conditions.

The first version of the law also contained rules on the recognition of individuals as the citizens of Ukraine, which were removed from the new version of the law. In accordance with this norm, all citizens of the USSR who resided on the territory of Ukraine at the time of declaration of independence (August 24, 1991) and all stateless persons residing in the country at the time of the entry into force of the first law on citizenship were recognized as citizens of Ukraine.

In accordance with the law on citizenship, immigrants are expected to renounce their former citizenship within two years after receiving the Ukrainian citizenship.

At the same time, there are numerous legal loopholes for the acquisition of the citizenship of other countries by citizens of Ukraine. The mechanism of loss of Ukrainian citizenship (which is formally assumed) is not clearly specified in legislation. Currently, the possibility of tightening the legislative regulation of multiple citizenship is under discussion.

2.2.2.15 Uzbekistan

The Citizenship Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan was adopted on July 2, 1992. Since then, several packages of amendments have been introduced, mainly regulating the rights of children when the civil status of their parents changes.

Nationality is based on the principle of jus sanguinis. The base period of naturalization is five years. Spousal naturalization doesn't assume shorten term of naturalization. A number of additional conditions for naturalization include the existence of a permanent source of income.

In accordance with the law, all candidates for the citizenship of Uzbekistan must renounce their citizenship. In 2016, legislation was also tightened with respect to citizens of Uzbekistan acquiring the citizenship of other states. In this case, they will loss this citizenship immediately after the exposure of the fact of obtaining the citizenship of another state.

2.3 Findings

The data collected by me make it possible to calculate the Citizenship Policies Index and make profiles of the citizenship policy of the post-Soviet countries. The results of the CPI change over the three time moments (1995, 2005 and 2018) are shown in Fig. 1. In more detail, the components of the index for all three time periods are reflected in Appendixes II-IV.

Fig. 1. The Citizenship Policy Index (changes 1995 - 2018, not to scale).

Such changes of CPI show that post-Soviet countries have visible institutional inertia in the transformation of citizenship policies. Countries that have improved their indicators, or worsened them, or kept them in an unchanged over time are distributed in roughly equal proportion. At the same time, most countries in each of the periods demonstrate the moderate scores of the index - they are not clearly restrictive, but they are not highly inclusive. Most countries have index scores ??in the range of 0.8 to 2 points. Among the stable leaders are Armenia (the first country that reaches the score of 3 points), Moldova and Georgia. Russia is losing its positions after the adoption of new legislation on citizenship in the early 2000s. The Baltic states are among the obvious outsiders are.

For a clearer presentation, let me also consider regional variations in CPI change schedules. They are presented in Fig. 2. These graphs show that, as a rule, regional groups differ slightly from each other according to the average level and the overall variability of CPI scores. The only exception is the Baltic states. All three countries in this region show the worst CPI indicators among all other post-Soviet countries in all time periods.



Fig. 2. Regional variations of CPI (1995 - 2018).

Thus, the citizenship policy in the post-Soviet countries does not demonstrate such diversity that can be observed in the European context. Now I can try to test several associations between the CPI scores and the variables of interest to test the hypotheses.

First, it is necessary to verify whether a more inclusive citizenship policy (a higher indicator) of CPI will be observed in democratic states. To do this, I will try to calculate correlation of the CPI with one of the indicators of democracy. As such an indicator, I choose the liberal democracy index, calculated by the team of the project Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem). I chose this indicator because it takes into account not only such formal aspects of democracy as the level of electoral competition, honesty and transparency of elections, etc., but also such important aspects as the constitutional protection of civil liberties, rule of law, limits of executive power and some other key issues. A graphic representation of this relationship can be seen in Fig. 3.



Fig.3. The association between Democracy and CPI.

Paradoxically, this relationship turns out to be negative, which disproves the hypothesis of positive association. The correlation coefficient between the variables is -0.572 for 1995, -0.555 for 2005, and -0.251 for 2018. Only in the last period the situation begins to improve, and democratic countries improve their CPI scores. On the other hand, even among the more authoritarian states, high CPI rates can be detected only in Armenia and Tajikistan. The Baltic states, being liberal democracies, show the least indicators of the CPI index. This situation differs from the European one, where Eastern European countries with a communist past demonstrate a more restrictive citizenship policy, unlike Western European states, and may be an indirect evidence of the pragmatic approach of post-Soviet states to the implementation of the citizenship policy.

The second hypothesis that I would like to test is the assertion that there may be a more inclusive citizenship policy in countries with a higher degree of ethnic homogeneity. To test this hypothesis, I will use the index of ethnolinguistic fragmentation (ELF index) for the early period, and the proportion of the largest ethnic group in the population of the country for the last period. For the formation of the second indicator, I use census data and estimates of the ethnic composition of the population for the period from 2009 to 2017. It is important to note that ELF index shows a higher degree of homogeneity at low values, and the share of the largest ethical group shows a higher degree of homogeneity at high values. Accordingly, the orientation of the associations in the case of these variables should be reversed within the same context. I'm considering the associations between these variables and the CPI. In graphical form they are presented in Fig. 4.

Fig.4. The association between ethnic homogeneity and CPI.

In both cases, one can observe a weakly expressed relationship between the variables. In the first case, it turns out to be negative, and in the second case it is positive. The correlation coefficient in the first case is -0.181. In the last period, the correlation coefficient is 0.429. At the same time, a fairly high level of indicators of ethnic heterogeneity is demonstrated by Armenia. Considering that this country is one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world, I will try to remove it from my data set and conduct the correlation test anew. As a result, in the first case, the correlation coefficient is positive and equal to 0.029. For the year 2018, the correlation coefficient is 0.154. Thus, it is impossible to assert that there is a significant association between ethnic homogeneity and the existence of a more inclusive citizenship policy, as well as the reverse situation.

The collection of data on the main models of the policy of citizenship allowed me to express the profiles of post-Soviet states on the mechanisms for aqusition and loss of citizenship. A detailed description of the encoding of these profiles is provided in Appendices V-VI. The profiles are presented in Appendices VII-VIII.

At the same time, there is a common set of models that remain unchanged throughout the development of the citizenship policy in the post-Soviet states. All post-Soviet states allow acquiring citizenship on the basis of the principle of jus sanguinis and voluntarily citizenship renunciation. In all post-Soviet states there is a possibility of citizenship loss due to false information or fraud in the procedure of acquisition of nationality, and due to non-compliance with conditions for the acquisition of nationality.

In all the post-Soviet countries there is no possibility of automatic resignation of citizenship due to loss of citizenship by spouse, and due to annulment of paternity / maternity of a national (including annulment of adoption). No post-Soviet country introduces a full spousal extension (extension of acquisition to spouses of foreign nationals who acquire nationality of this country), and extension of acquisition to other relatives of foreign nationals who acquire citizenship of this country. Also, the factor coding the granting of citizenship of the country A to the inhabitants of country B in the post-Soviet countries is absent in all three time periods. It is typical for the situation of postcolonial states (the former metropolitan countries) that grant preferential treatment for citizenship to residents of one of their former colonies (for example, the Netherlands and Suriname).

It is interesting that all post-Soviet states refuse succession with the Soviet republics, recognizing the state continuity with pre-Soviet regimes and extending the citizenship to citizens of the USSR residing on their territory. Such a policy avoided the appearance of a large number of stateless persons (which was typical for the same period of instability in the 1920s), but at the same time formed numerous external homelands that were likely to lead to international tension and military conflicts.

Among the long-term trends of legislative changes, it is possible to outline the trend to bring the legislation on citizenship in line with the recommendations of international organizations. For example, at present, all the post-Soviet states allow for a special procedure to obtain citizenship for stateless persons or persons born in the country, who would otherwise be stateless. Also great attention was paid to the rights of children and their ability to preserve citizenship after the changes of status of their parents.



Conclusion

The results of the institutional divergence of the ethnic diversity management's mechanisms for are closely linked with the strategies of state- and nation-building adopted in specific countries. Citizenship policies are a very important part of ethnic diversity management.

My analysis shows that democratization with the adoption of modern liberal standards of the protection of national minorities and naturalization is combined with high level of legislative stability. In this respect, there is no significant difference between autocracies and democracies.

Structural factors that make each case unique are also important. Among them one can identify the demographic changes, the processes in world politics, the specific of economic development and regional cooperation etc. Many post-Soviet countries share similar patterns of state- and nation-building in similar structural conditions. However, there are important differences in the citizenship policies. It can be argued that the citizenship policy is highly inertial both in European conditions of gradual convergence of legal systems within the European integration process, and in the conditions of a diversified post-Soviet space, united solely by the common starting point of institutional transformations. At the same time, a long stay within one imperial state and the lack of similar experience with Western European countries did not prevent the post-Soviet states from forming the same wide variety of citizenship policies (albeit more biased towards a “restrictive” pole).

The main limitation of my analysis is that I haven't taken into account the agency, concentrated only on structural transformations. However, some aspect of the development of citizenship policies can be determined by the activity of political actors, which have their own goals (such as provision of some sort of preferences towards certain ethnic group, clientelistic strategies, regime survival etc.). Nevertheless, for macro-analysis of institutional transformations such approach is justified, and elements of agency can be further examined through a close study of specific manifestations of state- and nation-building, effectiveness of law enforcement in the field of citizenship policy and the actions of political elites.

The results of the analysis show that in the post-Soviet context there is no clear opposition between liberal and restrictive models of citizenship policies, since authoritarian states may have more inclusive models than democracies. Relative normalization of the situation occurs only in the long term. By the middle of 2010 authoritarian countries began to toughen their legislation on citizenship, while democratic states are increasingly liberalizing. However, at the moment it is related mostly to multiple citizenship and/or introduction of new conditions of naturalization. Such fundamental things as the introduction of the principles of jus soli or the creation of supranational standards for the policy of citizenship do not occur in the post-Soviet space.

At the same time, the influence of the Soviet citizenship policy on the policy of citizenship of the post-Soviet states is very moderate, since they were more oriented toward introduction of their own laws. Relative continuity to Soviet legislation was preserved only in individual countries (for example, Tajikistan), mainly on the level of wording and the presence of non-specified conditions of naturalization.