Latest Publication
Andrew Scott Mansfield, Esq., JD, MTS, BA, “The Constitutional Interpretation of Uruguayan Nationality According to the Uruguayan Constitutional Methodology,” 29 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 443 (2023).
Andrew Scott Mansfield, Esq., JD, MTS, BA, “La Interpretación Constitucional De La Nacionalidad Uruguaya De Acuerdo Con La Metodologia Constitucional Uruguaya,” 29 ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 551 (2023)
The National Directorate of Civil Identification (DNIC) of Uruguay today issues Uruguayan passports to legal Uruguayan citizens (naturalized citizens) but refuses to recognize them as nationals of Uruguay . In other words, legal Uruguayan citizens carry a passport that indicates that they are not nationals of Uruguay. The Uruguayan state claims that this results from an interpretation of the Uruguayan Constitution made in 2018. The interpretation is based only on secondary sources based on an opinion of an Uruguyan legal scholar, Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga, articulated clearly by 1946. Uruguay is the only country in the world to declare that it has no path to naturalization for any immigrant. Uruguay instead allows "legal citizens" to obtain permanent status in Uruguay and obtain Uruguayan passports. The denial of nationality to legal citizens causes tremendous problems when these Uruguayans travel, places in question whether they receive diplomatic protection, and creates two classes of Uruguayans.
This manuscript analyzes the opinion of Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga and other Uruguayan constitutional legal scholars by applying the constitutional interpretative method developed by Uruguayan legal scholars. This method, labelled within Uruguay as the logical-systematic-teleological method of constitutional interpretation, contains precise instructions on the steps and approaches to be taken in interpretating the Constitution.
The source of the confusion and the resulting unique position that Uruguay maintains in denying any process for naturalization for its immigrants results from a misinterpretation of Article 81 of the current Constitution. The predecessor this clause, Article 71, was added only in the 1934 Constitution, and the surprising conclusion that Uruguay's constitution disallows all naturalization is not based on the interpretation most compatible with the Uruguay Constitution nor does it follow the Uruguayan method of constitutional interpretation.
Uruguay often interprets its Constitution through positive law. The current law governing nationality, Law 16.021, is based solely on the misinterpretation of Article 81. Efforts to reform Uruguayan law have begun and Uruguay could easily provide an interpretation of its Constitution on these issues that comports with its own internal interpretative methodology, expands rights in accord with its tradition, and that is in accord with Uruguay's international convention obligations.
Publications
Thomas Nadelhoffer, Stephanos Bibas, Scott Grafton, Kent A. Kiehl, Andrew Mansfield, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Michael Gazzaniga, “Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage,” Neuroethics, 2012. Pages 67-99.
Andrew S. Mansfield, “Religious Arguments and the United States Supreme Court: A Review of Amicus Curiae Briefs Files by Religious Organizations," Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics, Spring 2009. Pages 343-394.
Andrew S. Mansfield, “E-Commerce and Alternative Dispute Resolution,” Korea Private International Law Journal, 2000. Pages 583-598.
Jennifer Angelini and Andrew Mansfield, “A Call for U.S. Ratification of the Protocol on Antarctic Environmental Protection,” Ecology Law Quarterly, 1994. Pages 163-241.
Jennifer Angelini, Andrew Mansfield, Edward Adams, “Implementation of the protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty into United States law and practice,” Berkeley, Calif.: University of California School of Law, 1993.