The right of return is a principle in international law which guarantees everyone's right of return to, or re-entry to, their country of citizenship. The right of return is part of the broader human rights concept of freedom of movement and is also related to the legal concept of nationality. While many states afford their citizens the right of abode, the right of return is not restricted to citizenship or nationality in the formal sense. It allows stateless persons and for those born outside their country to return for the first time, so long as they have maintained—subject to the legal concept of laches—a "genuine and effective link".

The revocation of the Edict of Nantes and expulsion of the Huguenots had taken place more than a century earlier, and there were numerous Huguenot emigrants to other countries, where they often intermarried with the population of the host country (see Edict of Potsdam). Therefore, the law potentially conferred French citizenship on numerous Britons, Germans, South Africans and others – though only a fraction actually took advantage of it. This option for Huguenot descendants to gain French citizenship remained open until 1945, when it was abolished – since after the occupation of France, the French were unwilling to let Germans of Huguenot origin take advantage of it.

Schleswig plebiscites, 1920

In the aftermath of the Second Schleswig War of 1864, the previously Danish-ruled territory of Schleswig became part of Imperial Germany. A significant number of inhabitants, known as "optants", chose to retain their Danish citizenship and refused to take up a German one. Consequently, they were expelled from the area by Prussian authorities. Half a century later, following the German defeat in the First World War, a plebiscite was held in 1920 to determine the future of the area. The Danish government asked the Allied Powers to let these expelled ethnic Danes and their descendants return to Schleswig and take part in the plebiscite. This was granted, though many of the optants had in the meantime emigrated to the United States, and most of these did not actually come back.

The right of return principle has been codified in a number of international instruments, including:

Hague Regulations (HR), article 20:

It has been argued that if the HR require the repatriation of prisoners, then it is "obvious" that civilians displaced during conflict must also be allowed to repatriate.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), article 13:

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) article 12(4):

Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 5d(ii):

Some controversy exists among scholars on how these articles should be interpreted.

"His own country"

The landmark International Court of Justice case the Nottebohm case of 1955 is often cited as staking out more criteria as to what "one's country" should be. as to what "his own" and "his country" means in the ICCPR and UDHR. According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee's authoritative interpretation from 1999:

According to Agterhuis, the record of negotiations - the travaux préparatoires - of the ICCPR reveals that the wording of article 12(4) was changed from "the right to return to one's country" to "the right to enter one's country" was made in order to include nationals or citizens born outside the country and who have never lived therein.

Mass displacement

Some disagreement exists on whether the right of return is applicable to situations in which whole ethnic groups have been forcibly displaced. Ruth Lapidoth from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has argued, by citing Stig Jägerskiöld from his 1966 commentary of ICCPR, that the right was not intended to protect groups of displaced people:

Hurst Hannum has made a similar argument:

Austrian human rights lawyer Manfred Nowak has argued the opposite position, that the right of return applies "even if masses of people are claiming this right". Bracka has argued similarly: