Koroitamana v The Commonwealth

The applicants, children born in Australia to parents who were neither Australian citizens nor permanent residents, sought to establish that they were not "aliens" within the meaning of section 51(xix) of the Australian Constitution. They argued that if they were not Australian nationals, they would be stateless, and that international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, reflects an abhorrence of statelessness and a right to nationality. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicants, despite being born in Australia, could be considered "aliens" for constitutional purposes, thereby subjecting them to detention and removal from Australia. This required the Court to determine the meaning of "aliens" in section 51(xix) of the Constitution and whether the applicants, by virtue of their birth in Australia and entitlement to acquire foreign citizenship by registration, were nationals of Australia. The Court also considered the relevance of international law, particularly principles concerning statelessness and the right to a nationality, to the interpretation of these constitutional concepts.

The High Court reasoned that, in the absence of clear textual obstacles, the interpretation of Australian constitutional concepts of alienage and nationality should be compatible with fundamental principles of international law, especially those relating to human rights. The Court noted that the applicants' argument that they owed allegiance only to Australia and were therefore not aliens was factually distinguishable from the precedent case of *Singh*. In *Singh*, it was assumed that the applicant was a citizen of India by descent, thus presenting a case of competing allegiance. However, the Court observed that amendments to Indian citizenship law might have placed Ms Singh in a similar position to the present applicants, where foreign citizenship was acquired by registration. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the constitutional validity of laws concerning the detention and removal of non-citizens.