The authority of states to determine their own citizens is a well-established principle in private international law, deriving from the sovereign right of states. Accordingly, states adopt regulations in this field based on their domestic laws. States employ various criteria for granting citizenship to applicants, including duration of residence, language proficiency, technical or cultural knowledge, financial capacity, and so forth. One type of criterion that has gained significant prominence in recent decades is the granting of citizenship through investment. In other words, an applicant's request for citizenship is accepted without regard to their prior residence, ties to, or proximity to that country. This practice is often the policy of states seeking to attract wealthy individuals and transform them into their citizens in order to benefit from their wealth. These schemes are enacted and implemented with the aim of attracting capital and stimulating the national economy. Although some Caribbean islands pioneered such an approach some time ago, citizenship-by-investment programs have grown significantly in recent decades. The acquisition of this type of citizenship by investors serves various purposes, including security, political, health-related objectives, and escaping punishment, among others. The implementation of these schemes by states has attracted considerable criticism. Should the acquisition of citizenship through investment amount to nothing more than a commercial transaction of buying and selling, detached from any factors of territorial or social linkage, the predominance of economic logic in this process would bring about a fundamental transformation in the very concept of citizenship. Conversely, where such investment is accompanied by conditions and requirements that emphasize the applicant’s genuine connection to, and integration with, the host society, it constitutes merely a new pathway for acquiring citizenship and represents an evolution in the modalities of its attainment rather than a substantive redefinition of the institution itself. Another significant problem arising from these schemes is that they provide a fertile ground for investors to circumvent the law. By obtaining rapid and new citizenship through such programs, applicants frequently seek to evade the application of their country of origin’s laws. This issue becomes particularly evident in family law disputes, where the connecting factor of nationality plays a crucial role in determining the applicable law.

Notable points of criticism include the creation of discrimination, the commodification of the concept of citizenship, facilitating the escape of economic criminals, the absence of a genuine link between the applicant and the host society, and the violation of sincere cooperation within the European Union. Most important among the aforementioned criticisms is the lack of a genuine link between the applicant and the host society, which is a fundamental issue. This debate arose following the Nottebohm Case in international law, which acknowledges that there must be a genuine connection and bond between a state's citizens and the state granting citizenship. This issue has a greater impact on other states within the European Union because, under EU law, citizens of any member state are Union citizens and enjoy various benefits, including the right to reside in those countries. Accepting individuals who have no ties to European societies and are attracted solely because of their wealth has been deemed contrary to the principle of sincere cooperation in the European Union, as referenced in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning Malta. Therefore, the absolute authority of states to determine their citizens has been fundamentally called into question, and discussions regarding its limits and boundaries have arisen.

This extensive criticism has led to it being ironically referred to as the "commercialization of citizenship". Given the increasing adoption of these schemes by states in recent decades, the existence of numerous criticisms on the one hand, and their profitability for states and societies on the other, underscores more than ever the necessity and importance of examining this issue and the need to reach a solution that balances these two aspects. No independent research has been conducted on this topic in Iran, and this article is innovative in this respect. This research, employing a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to answer the following questions: Can states be considered completely free in granting citizenship through investment? Is it possible to adopt regulations within these schemes to create a stronger link between the applicant and the host society? What regulations exist in Iran concerning these schemes? proponents of citizenship-by-investment schemes, rather than questioning the very foundation of such schemes, seek to remedy their potential shortcomings and, by engaging with the criticisms raised, pursue solutions to address the flaws of these schemes. They seek solutions to address the flaws by engaging with the criticisms raised. They believe that by offering certain solutions, the core concept can still be preserved through the enactment of regulations and it is not necessary to entirely delete the statement of the issue.

Consequently, by accepting applicants' capital in public benefit projects or entrepreneurial schemes, greater engagement between them and the host society can be established. By conducting criminal background checks or periodic financial monitoring of their activities in the host country, the admission of economic offenders through these schemes can be prevented. To prevent the circumvention of the law, states may authorize the revocation of citizenship upon the discovery of fraud, or impose a mandatory condition of physical residence for a specified period of time. Through such ex ante controls, it is possible to hinder attempts by non-compliant individuals to evade applicable legal obligations. Furthermore, by imposing a condition of residence and physical presence for several years alongside investment for citizenship, or by administering citizenship tests to applicants, a stronger bond between them and the host society can be created, thereby partially addressing the criticisms leveled against these schemes. Nevertheless, in Iran, the legislature has enacted numerous laws in recent years granting three- or five-year residence permits to foreign nationals in exchange for deposits or investments. However, no specific law has yet been adopted that directly confers citizenship on individuals in return for investment.