deduce that nationality is a right that the Dioulas are laying claim to under the terms of the presumed obligation of the State of Côte d’Ivoire to recognize their legal status. Once this clarification is done, then one may have to understand Ivorian nationality; that is finding the definition for the notion of « Ivoirian », before determining whether the Dioulas have a valid claim to it. But, first of all, there is the need to clarify the concept of nationality. 98. The Commission believes that nationality stands for both a de facto and de jure notion. It must consequently be understood from the standpoint of both the socio-political meaning and its political significance. Under its legal aspect, nationality means a « legal affiliation of a person to the population constituting a State »14 or yet still « the quality of a person who belongs to a State due to political and legal links … ».15 This meaning of nationality is derived from the letter of provisions of Article 5 of the Charter relating to legal status and therefore to nationality. On the other hand, the sociological and political meaning of nationality extends beyond the legal dimension. It goes beyond the « link an individual has with a nation; that is a community of persons united by traditions, aspirations, sentiments or common interests ».16 From this perspective, nationality may be considered appropriately as the determination of existence as a nation of a human group whose members are united by ethnic, social and cultural traits ; this human group as long as it claims the right to exist as a nation or aspires to form a nation.17 99. While taking note of these conceptions on nationality, the Commission is of the opinion that nationality as an ethnic, social and cultural unit poses a fundamental problem in the African context since the demarcation of borders inherited from independence has caused a split of entities of nationalities that existed before colonization. This territorial carving which formed independent African States from the 1950’s therefore saw a regrouping, in a sudden and brutal manner, of erstwhile homogeneous ethnic and sociocultural entities to constitute groups of States totally heterogeneous.18 It can therefore be deduced that the new leaders of the independent African States then had to resolve a difficult socio-political and historical equation to form « imaginary- communities – or nationalities» from ethnic and cultural groups that existed already as communities. In short, it was up to the new sovereign African States to create national entities out of several entities dismantled by colonization and to redraw the borders. H Batiffol et P Lagarde op. cit., N°59, 60 Y Loussouarn et al Private International Law(2007) 790. 16 J Derruppé Private International Law (1988) 10. 17 See Derruppé op. cit. 18 See B Manby Nationality in Africa (2011) 17-25. 14 15 27