One in five countries globally have introduced or expanded the power to deprive citizens of their nationality “on the grounds of disloyalty, national security or terrorism”.
Europe is at the epicentre of renewed interest in citizenship stripping: 18 of the 37 countries that expanded their powers are in this region. Among these 18 countries we have several EU countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, but also Norway and the United Kingdom.(1)
This trend is not limited to European countries (2), other notable examples are Nicaragua, Israel, Egypt, Bahrain, Tanzania, Latin American countries, U.S.A., Qatar, Syria, Myanmar, Dominican Republic, Canada, Turkey, India.
States can use the powwer to revoke citizenship not only for legitimate purposes but as discriminatory measure (an example is the individual and mass denationalization by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s) or for contrasting political opponents under the pretext of national security (the most recent examples are “citizenship stripping” against dissidents in the Gulf States, particularly since the Arab Spring).
In 2023 Nicaragua has stripped 94 political opponents of their citizenship, including prominent writers, activists and journalists. The 94 people were “traitors” and would have their properties confiscated.
Recently, the Cuban parliament approved the Citizenship Law, which, among other things, allows the regime to revoke the citizenship of those who engage in “acts contrary” to the country’s political “interests.” The approved law empowers the president of Cuba to strip citizenship by decree from those who enlist “in any type of armed organization with the aim of attacking” the country or its citizens, and from those who engage in “acts contrary to the high political, economic, and social interests” of the island.
Belarus Government is drawing up legislation that would allow it to revoke the citizenship of emigre political opponents who are involved in “extremist” activity.
The military regime in Myanmar has announced the termination of citizenship of 33 high-profile dissidents, a move critics have described as an abuse of human rights and a breach of international law. Those targeted include diplomats refusing to work for the military, members of a parallel government set up in opposition to last year’s coup, outspoken celebrities and prominent activists.
Under some circumstances and subject to certain conditions, loss and deprivation of nationality — which is provided for in most States’ national legislations — can be legitimate also under international law.
Loss or deprivation of nationality is considered arbitrary and therefore prohibited if it does not serve a legitimate aim, or is not proportionate.
Art. 8, para 1 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Stateless provides for that
“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless”. Para 2 provides however some exceptions to this rule. In particular, an individual can be deprived of his nationality where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud and where, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person
(i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or
(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;
(iii) has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.
From a legal standpoint, it must be distinguished the cases of citizenship “loss” and “deprivation”(which is the term utilized by the 1961 Convention).
LOSS is the automatic lapse of nationality, ex lege and without State interference, while DEPRIVATION (or revocation, as it often referred to) are administrative and judicial acts of competent national authorities invoking a stipulation of the nationality law to withdraw nationality.
International human rights law explicitly provides for the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. The right of States to decide who their nationals are is not absolute. (5)
In particular, States must comply with their human rights obligations concerning the granting and loss of nationality. In order to comply with international law (5) and not to be considered arbitrary, deprivation of nationality must
To ensure that nationality regulations are not applied arbitrarily and relevant safeguards against statelessness are implemented effectively, States should ensure that adequate procedural standards are in place. In particular, decisions relating to nationality should be “issued in writing and open to effective administrative or judicial review. In addition to providing for the possibility to appeal and related due process guarantees, States should ensure that there is an effective remedy available where a decision on nationality is found to be unlawful or arbitrary.(5)
The right of every individual to a nationality is clearly recognized and regulated in international human rights law. States can set their own rules to regulate the acquisition or loss of nationality but under international law, nationality deprivation that does not serve a legitimate aim, or is not proportionate, is arbitrary and therefore prohibited. Deprivation that leads to statelessness has a severe impact on the individuals’ life. Accordingly,
the consequences of any withdrawal of nationality must therefore be carefully weighed against the gravity of the behavior or offence for which the withdrawal of nationality is prescribed.
States must also demonstrate that the loss or deprivation of nationality is proportionate. Even where loss or deprivation of nationality does not lead to statelessness, States must weigh the consequences of loss or deprivation of nationality against the interest that it is seeking to protect, and consider alternative measures that could be imposed.
_________________
Relevant sources:
(1) Instrumentalising_Citizenship_Global_Trends_Report.pdf (institutesi.org)
(2) For more detailed information about different ways in which citizenship can be acquired and lost across the world GLOBALCIT Citizenship Law Dataset, v2.0, Country-Year-Mode Data ([Acquisition]/[Loss]). Global Citizenship Observatory, https://hdl.handle.net/1814/73190
(3) https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/POL4073492017ENGLISH.pdf
(4) Relevant international standards: (i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality” (Article 15); (ii) 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, which defines a stateless person and establishes minimum standards of treatment. The Convention only applies to de jure stateless people (which occurs at birth because a child does not acquire an original nationality due to domestic law or because they lose their nationality without acquiring a new one). It does not apply to de facto stateless persons who are unable to prove their nationality; (iii) 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which deals with conferral and non-withdrawal of citizenship, and establishes a framework to ensure that everyone has a nationality. Articles 1–4 provide principles for granting nationality at birth. Articles 5–7 require that loss or renunciation of nationality be conditional on acquiring another nationality. Articles 8–9 state that deprivation of nationality should not happen if it leads to statelessness. Article 10 says that statelessness should be avoided in cases of transfer of territory. Although the 1961 Convention prohibits statelessness occurring at birth, it does not expressly prohibit states revoking nationality or provide that citizenship should be retroactively granted to all stateless people; (iv) 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which makes clear that all states parties must grant women equal rights with men to acquire, change or retain their nationality, and equal rights with respect to the nationality of their children (Article 9); (v) 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides the right to be registered immediately after birth and the right to acquire nationality (Article 24(2–3)). It also provides protection against arbitrary expulsion and for equality before the law (Articles 13 and 26).
(5) Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality : (un.org)
Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality : (un.org)
Attorney at law.
One of the leading corporate immigration lawyers in Italy. Admitted to the Milan Bar Association (1988) and to the Taipei Bar Association (2016), a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and an accredited partner of Invest in Tuscany.
Related posts:
