The protection of the rights of the family in all of its diverse forms is critical to the protection and promotion of human rights. The effects of arbitrary deprivation of citizenship implicate human rights beyond the usual scope of analysis regarding national security policies, requiring attention to States’ legal obligations, including to protect the rights to private and family life, and the rights of the child. 23 The deprivation of citizenship for a family member has profound consequences for the integrity, functionality and vulnerability of the family as a whole. Where the family is the male head of household, his uncertain status or deportation can render the entire family as the object of suspicion and surveillance. The loss of a family member, particularly in households with highly stratified gender roles, may result in loss of income or, in countries with robust welfare infrastructure, loss of entitlement to assistance. 24 Removal of a family member to another jurisdiction undermines parentchild relationships and, as recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, limits children’s capabilities and opportunities in multiple ways. The fact that citizenship stripping can control and define on security grounds who may legally benefit from family membership reveals the deep connection being forged between family regulation and security policy. The removal of citizenship status from a family member based on assumptions or claims of radicalization, extremism or engagement in or support of terrorism and/or the failure to preserve family units affect the fundamental rights of all its members. 25 The lack of an internationally agreed definition of either radicalization or extremism underscores the accompanying legal uncertainty and potential for abuse. 26 The burden that a parent’s deprivation of nationality will inevitably have on children, even if their right to a nationality is not affected, must therefore be a key aspect of the proportionality assessment. This is particularly important as rights to family life and best interest of children can be skewed by undue reliance on the (little) information that security services may provide in such proceedings. In addition, deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive and effective means of achieving the stated legitimate purpose. 27 When there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous, having fully explored all other, less intrusive options. This assessment must always take into account the fact that deprivation is permanent, and therefore so must be the risk posed by the individual to the State’s vital interests. In our opinion, the possibility or the realisation, of other solutions, including criminal proceedings, place a significantly higher threshold to the proportionality test, particularly where the criminal prosecution is not seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State. Lastly, we would like to warn against the idea that even where the security risk is demonstrated, its displacement to their countries would positively benefit either national security or international security. 23 25 27 UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, A/HRC/46/36, paras. 18 and 21. 24 UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, A/HRC/46/36, para. 23. UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, A/HRC/46/36, para 23. 26 Ibid. Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure’, Principles 7.5.2. and 7.5.3. 6