7 - Statelessness

Abstract

• Nationality is the legal bond between a person and a state, indicating full and equal membership in the political community.

• In practice, not all nationals enjoy the same rights or security of status.

• Citizenship by birth is more secure compared to citizenship by naturalization.

• Citizens with dual or multiple nationalities face a greater risk of nationality revocation, particularly in the context of counter-terrorism.

• The article evaluates citizenship deprivation against contemporary international law standards and critiques the unequal application of these measures.

Introduction

• Forbes reported that France has the 'best' nationality for quality of life in 2018 based on various factors.

• There remains a significant inequality in the actual life chances associated with different nationalities.

• Shachar discusses how citizenship laws perpetuate global societal inequalities.

• The article will analyze unequal nationality status among citizens of the same political community and how it contradicts the premise of equality in liberal democracies.

Inequality of Citizenship

• Citizenship is fundamentally meant to provide equality of rights within a community. However, inequalities exist:

  • Restrictions on political rights for certain categories, e.g., dual citizens.

  • Disparities in rights to transmit citizenship.

• Security of legal nationality varies:

  • Citizenship by birth offers greater protection than that acquired through naturalization.

  • Mono citizens (single nationality) face less risk of nationality withdrawal than dual/multiple citizens.

• Legislation aimed at citizenship deprivation has been reinterpreted through counter-terrorism measures, which disproportionately affect certain groups.

Deprivation of Nationality as an Unequal Measure

• Laws worldwide allow for involuntary withdrawal of nationality, often distinguishing between loss (automatic) and deprivation (state discretion).

• The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness provides that withdrawal leading to statelessness is prohibited, underscoring the need for states to guide their legislation away from arbitrary deprivation.

• The historical context has seen nationality deprivation applied unevenly, often targeting naturalized citizens or those viewed as disloyal.

Contemporary Context of Citizenship Stripping

• States, amid terrorism threats, have amended laws allowing for more unilateral citizenship revocations, primarily targeting dual nationals.

• Examples include legislation in several countries to strip citizenship for reasons deemed 'conducive to the public good,' creating a new class of citizenship.

• The legitimacy of citizenship stripping as a security measure is questioned due to its discriminatory application, which erodes democratic values and creates societal divides.

International Law Standards

• International law has sought to regulate nationality policies to protect the right to a nationality and prevent statelessness.

• Provisions against arbitrary deprivation of nationality must also be considered, emphasizing non-discrimination in nationality laws.

• The article highlights the coexistence of norms which permit some forms of deprivation while disallowing others based on race, ethnicity, or religion.

• The inconsistent application leads to arbitrary enforcement and discrimination against racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.

Conclusion

• Citizenship stripping poses profound implications for society, creating divides along lines of nationality status, particularly between mono and dual nationals.

• Protecting citizens' rights equally and justly reinforces the integrity of society and democratic principles.

• The article advocates for a rights-based approach to nationality and critiques the policies that lead to unequal treatment under national laws.

Overview of Shamima Begum Case

• Shamima Begum, British citizen, fled to Syria as a schoolgirl to join Islamic State (Isis).

• In 2019, her UK citizenship was revoked by then home secretary Sajid Javid.

• The Supreme Court recently ruled that she cannot restore her citizenship or return to the UK.

Supreme Court Ruling

• The ruling came from the UK’s highest court on February 26, 2021.

• Unanimous decision against Begum on all counts.

• Begum remains detained in Syria and cannot fight her case in person.

• Lord Reed described the court's decision and emphasized national security.

Legal Context

• UK law allows for citizenship removal if deemed "conducive to the public good."

• It is illegal to revoke citizenship if it renders an individual stateless.

• Begum's parents are Bangladeshi citizens, but her potential eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship is under question.

Government's Position

• Current home secretary Priti Patel supports the court's decision, emphasizing national security.

• Maya Foa from Reprieve criticized the UK government's stance, advocating for repatriation of British detainees in Syria.

National Security Assessment

• MI5 categorizes Begum as a national security risk due to her association with Isis.

• Legal representatives argue her ability to communicate and present her case is severely restricted from detention.

Implications of the Ruling

• The Supreme Court suggested that there may be a possibility for Begum to appeal her citizenship status if she could adequately instruct lawyers.

• The court questioned the Court of Appeal's previous decision that seemed to prioritize Begum's right to a fair hearing over national security considerations.

Public Reaction

• There are varying opinions regarding the UK government's approach:

  • Some critics argue it is unjust and a way to avoid responsibility for its citizens.

  • Others believe the decision is just given her actions and associations.

• Public sentiment remains mixed, with debates around national security and justice ongoing.

Background on Shamima Begum

• At 15, Begum left the UK with two friends to join Isis.

• Married to an Isis fighter and has had three children, all of whom have died.

• Captured by Kurdish forces in 2019, she has been in detention since then.

• Statistics suggest that approximately 900 Britons traveled to Syria to join Isis, with many facing similar issues regarding citizenship.

State Terrorism and Revocation of Nationality

• Introduction

  • Citizenship is often taken for granted and forms a crucial part of identity.

  • Being stripped of nationality can lead to a state of statelessness, as experienced by the author, Jawad Fairooz.

  • The Bahraini government's citizenship revocation program has affected around 990 nationals since 2012.

Background and Statistics

• Citizenship Revocation Overview

  • Revocation of nationality often used as a political tool post-2011 pro-democracy uprising.

  • Initial revocations in 2012 included 31 citizens; subsequent revocations in 2015 and 2018 increased the total to approximately 990 citizens.

  • Statistically, this represents 0.15% of Bahrain's population.

  • For context, analogously, if a similar percentage were to occur in the US, it would affect nearly half a million people.

Justifications for Revocation

• Reasons Stated by Authorities

  • Government claims revocation is necessary for national security against extremism and terrorism.

  • Legislative backdrop includes an anti-terrorism law from August 2006, which permits this practice.

  • The 2013 amendments included revocation as a penalty for so-called "terrorist crimes."

• Ambiguity in Legal Definitions

  • Broad definitions of terrorism include non-violent actions like "disrupting public order" and “damaging national unity.”

  • The law has been misused to target peaceful dissidents, falling foul of international human rights law.

  • Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) protects the right to nationality.

Consequences of Citizenship Revocation

• Impact on Rights and Life

  • Loss of citizenship equates to loss of fundamental rights and social exclusion.

  • Affected individuals often experience arrest, detention, poverty, and mental health issues.

  • The ramifications extend to family members and future generations, leading to a cycle of statelessness.

Government Accountability and International Response

• Role of the Bahraini Government

  • The government uses citizenship revocation as a tool of repression, equating dissent with terrorism.

• International Community Reaction

  • The UN and NGOs have been slow to respond to issues of statelessness due to citizenship revocation, often overlooking Bahraini cases.

  • Recent events, like mass trials in 2019, sparked significant backlash, leading to the reinstatement of 551 individuals.

  • However, this reinstatement did not include key activists, indicating insufficient remedial efforts.

Recommendations for Change

• Ending the Practice

  • Sustained international pressure is necessary to reinstate citizenships and abolish the 2006 anti-terrorism law.

  • Suggested establishment of specific UN guidelines to address citizenship revocation.

  • Increased cooperation among international bodies needed to combat citizenship revocation effectively.

  • Emphasis on the principle that citizenship should not be a privilege subject to government discretion or power; it is a fundamental right protected by law.

Essay 2: Introduction

• Topic: Deprivation of Nationality

• Author: Laetitia van den Assum, a diplomat and international relations expert

• Context: Discussion on the duality of a rules-based international order and current global challenges.

• Challenges described:

  • Persistent conflict

  • Climate change

  • Growing human insecurity and population movements

Historical Context

• Post-World War II conditions:

  • Marked by chaos, trauma, and displacement.

  • Key treaties established:

    • 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

    • 1951 Refugee Convention

    • 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons

  • Necessitated by large-scale population movements.

Current Trends

• Evolving discussions since 9/11 influence current theories on nationality.

• Critical evaluation of nationality laws is essential for relevance and international relations.

• Tendency observed:

  • Domestic political acceptability prioritized over international norms.

Nationality and Citizenship

• Basic principles:

  • Nationality grants a state jurisdiction over individuals.

  • Protects individuals through the state.

• Emerging issues:

  • Increasing ambiguities regarding nationality status, especially pertaining to IS fighters.

  • Countries exhibiting differing repatriation policies based on fear and security concerns.

Implications of Nationality Deprivation

• Shifts citizenship perception:

  • Viewed as a privilege rather than a fundamental right.

• Consequences of deprivation include:

  • Increased risk of statelessness.

  • Lack of due process in deprivation cases raises significant legal and ethical concerns.

  • Neglect of protective duties towards children of nationals highlights systemic failures.

• Concerns for marginalized states that are burdened by returning individuals from conflict zones.

Global Initiatives

• UNHCR’s #IBelong campaign:

  • Aimed to end statelessness by 2024.

  • Progress includes increased awareness and proactive measures from various countries, such as Colombia and Kyrgyzstan.

• Warning against potential regressive trends towards increased statelessness.

Case Study: The Rohingya

• Largest stateless group today:

  • Gradual loss of Myanmar citizenship since the 1980s.

  • As of 2015, official rejection of citizenship status leads to over 1.1 million refugees in Bangladesh.

• Process of Othering:

  • Increasing alienation based on ethnicity and religion.

  • Dangerous implications of nationalism seen globally, particularly in India and Sri Lanka.

Conclusion

• Rise of Othering as a global issue linked to nationalism.

• Pressing need for a coherent rules-based system:

  • Prevention of arbitrary interpretations of citizenship rights.

  • Necessity of international collaboration to mitigate statelessness and ensure equitable treatment of individuals.

Statelessness and Its Impacts

• Stateless individuals face numerous negative practical impacts including:

  • Limited access to rights.

  • Restricted educational opportunities.

  • Reduced health care access.

  • Barriers to employment and legal resources.

• Beyond practical consequences, statelessness likely induces psychological effects akin to social ostracism.

Psychological Effects of Social Ostracism

• Research indicates that social ostracism results in:

  • Feelings of sadness and anger.

  • Threats to four fundamental human needs:

    • Belonging: Feelings of rejection and isolation.

    • Self-esteem: Reduced self-worth and value.

    • Control: Feelings of helplessness and lack of agency.

    • Meaningful existence: Perception of insignificance and invisibility.

• Individuals who experience ostracism feel disconnected and unworthy.

Research Findings

• Extensive studies involving over 10,000 participants show:

  • Ostracism diminishes self-clarity; individuals become uncertain about their identities.

  • Brain imaging research links ostracism to physical pain sensations.

  • Even minor ostracism experiences can have strong, lasting psychological impacts.

Comparisons to Statelessness

• Stateless individuals may face daily ostracism from society, compounding negative effects:

  • Continued awareness of their deprived citizenship threatens self-esteem and control.

  • Bureaucratic ambiguities complicate their engagement in public life.

• The condition of statelessness mirrors chronic social ostracism, leading to:

  • Depressive symptoms.

  • Feelings of alienation, worthlessness, and learned helplessness.

Aggression and Statelessness

• Ostracism can provoke aggressive responses as a means to regain control and acknowledgment.

• Individuals facing statelessness may express this aggression, which could undermine social cohesion.

• The absence of inclusive governance could lead to increased aggression within stateless populations.

Recruitment to Extreme Groups

• There is a potential link between chronic ostracism and susceptibility to recruitment by extreme groups:

  • Such groups can appear cohesive, supportive, and impactful, providing an illusion of belonging.

• The psychological effects of statelessness warrant further research to understand its impact on societal dynamics.

Statelessness and Nationality Deprivation

Introduction

• Concept of Deprivation of Nationality: Primarily a twentieth-century concept, largely irrelevant before World War I.

• Historical Context: Prior to 1918, nationality and statelessness were not recognized as significant; subjecthood and citizenship did not equate to guaranteed rights.

Historical Overview Before the 20th Century

• Meaning of Nationality:

  • Nationality was fluid and not strictly defined by territory, ethnicity, religion, or language.

  • Various communities (e.g., Indian, Armenian, Jewish) claimed British or Ottoman imperial subjecthood.

• Rights Associated with Nationality:

  • Nationality offered minimal political or civil rights.

  • Rights were primarily economic; denied rights typically resulted in material consequences (e.g., loss of property).

  • Civil death as a punishment limited a subject's rights due to criminal acts or religious conversions.

Impact of the First World War

• Emergence of Nation-States:

  • Collapse of four multinational empires (Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, Russian) transformed the political landscape.

  • New nation-states aligned ethnic identity with political borders.

• Consequences of Nation-State Formation:

  • Significant violence characterized the establishment of new boundaries, leading to mass deportations and killings.

  • Many people became categorised as minorities in majoritarian states, creating vulnerability outside national frameworks.

The Modern Refugee Problem

• Post-War Refugee Dynamics:

  • The First World War initiated a new approach to refugees framed within the global order of nation-states.

  • Refugees became central to defining the concept of nationality, highlighting the exclusionary nature of citizenship.

  • The League of Nations emerged post-war, promoting a narrative of international management primarily serving imperial interests.

• Institutionalisation of Refugee Camps:

  • Refugee camps became quasi-sovereign spaces, emphasizing national belonging as the basis for rights.

  • These arrangements showcased the commitment to national frameworks for political rights, limiting refugees' engagements in host countries.

The Right to Have Rights

• Hannah Arendt’s Notion:

  • The phrase reflects a reality where existence outside nationality equates to non-enjoyment of rights.

  • Allied powers prioritized exclusionary national identities, removing alternatives for accessing rights.

• United Nations and Human Rights:

  • The 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights recognized the "right to a nationality" as a fundamental human right.

  • This recognition pathologized statelessness, transforming it from a normative condition to a political issue.

Conclusion

• Historical Perspective on Nationality and Rights:

  • The problem of deprivation of nationality revolves around the significance versus absence of nationality itself.

  • This intricate relationship between nationality and rights influences millions who lack effective state protection.

• Nationality or citizenship is fundamental for human rights.

• The absence of nationality leads to pervasive and debilitating consequences, affecting economic, social, and cultural rights, and access to judicial and political processes.

• Statelessness is often overlooked concerning individual criminal responsibility for those causing it.

• Individual state sovereignty allows for nationality decisions but must adhere to international law.

Causes and Effects of Statelessness

• Discriminatory nationality laws are significant sources of statelessness; they target minorities and exclude populations by legislation.

• Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, language, or presumed national origin can result in severe rights violations.

• Statelessness can create inter-generational cumulative human rights violations, threatening the very existence of targeted groups.

  • Minority Rights Implications: Collectively, such acts can deny minority groups their cultural identity and rights, including language recognition and religious freedoms.

Legal Classification under International Criminal Law

• Potential International Crimes:

  • Arbitrary deprivation of nationality targeting minorities may be characterized as:

    • Apartheid: Systematic oppression by one racial group over another.

    • Persecution: Severe deprivation of a group’s fundamental rights on discriminatory grounds.

    • Other Inhumane Acts: Intentionally causing suffering or injury akin to crimes against humanity.

    • Element of Other Crimes: May relate to forcible transfer or deportation when it forces displacement; could even be considered genocide.

• Each classification underscores the serious implications of statelessness within international law frameworks.

Historical and Contemporary Examples

• Historical Example:

  • The persecution of Jews under Nazi Germany, where the Reich Citizenship Law stripped Jews of citizenship, was labeled as an international crime (persecution) at the Nuremberg Trials.

• Contemporary Example:

  • Rohingya in Myanmar, stripped of citizenship by a 1982 law, faced human rights abuses and genocide allegations amid state-led campaigns.

  • UN reports highlight the lack of citizenship as a cornerstone of their oppression, linking status deprivation to violent atrocities.

• Recent Concerns:

  • India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) posed risks of statelessness for approximately 1.9 million people, raising concerns about the potential targeting of Muslims under discriminatory practices.

Conclusion

• Nationality matters fall under state sovereignty but are constrained by international human rights law.

• Violations may not always lead to criminal responsibility, but situations of grave harm deserve scrutiny under international criminal law, particularly for policies that render vulnerable minorities stateless.

• Individual accountability for state officials responsible for perpetuating such practices should be examined due to the egregious harm caused to stateless populations.