Milena Tripkovic 3. De facto statelessness. The example of this category is the case of Nigeria (especially in the case of returnees abducted by the Boko Haram). Equal enjoyment of the status is significantly undermined at the local level through the application of indigeneity rules – and while the state formally considers them citizens, the exercise of power by the local government results in a denial of rights and entitlements. Such statelessness is not visible to the outside, but unlike in the previous case, on the inside it is visible more to local communities and less to the rest of the state. 4. Invisible statelessness. Policies of European countries (both those in the EU and outside),2 follow a similarly worrying pattern: although in most countries (apart from Italy and the UK) prohibition of statelessness presents an obstacle to citizenship revocation, when countries denationalise, they fail to notice that many of those who have another citizenship have little or no use of it. Their other country of citizenship is often merely a country of their ancestry with which they have no active relationship, or there may be other reasons which prevent the person from living there (war, conflict, discrimination). Their statelessness is visible neither from the inside or outside (because they are formally not stateless), but their links with any polity are broken and they effectively become global non-citizens. Statelessness is therefore merely a piece of a complex patchwork woven together by systematic denial of personhood to communities distinguishable by religion, race, ethnicity, sex, ancestry and other grounds. Pathways to statelessness illustrate different methods and manners of reaching the ultimate goal of elimination – symbolic, psychological or physical – of those who are perceived as not belonging. One cannot escape an alarming sense of similarity between many of the policies employed in countries under examination and Gregory Stanton’s ’Ten stages of genocide’.3 Recognizing that genocide is not merely an event, but a process, allows us to perceive the stages that precede it: classification (‘them and us’); symbolisation (‘labelling’ of those who do not belong); discrimination (denial of rights); dehumanisation (denial of humanity); organisation (prohibited acts against the group); polarisation (similarities are downplayed, differences emphasized); preparation; persecution; extermination; denial. While most of the cases currently seem to be far removed from the latter stages, the International Criminal Court has in November 2019 commenced investigation into the situation in Myanmar, citing possible perpetration of atrocity crimes, including genocide.4 Past policies of Myanmar resemble current policies in India, Nigeria and Syria: and it is not difficult to imagine how Myanmar’s current situation may become the future of these countries. Therefore, pathways to statelessness can easily become pathways to serious breaches of human rights, and appreciating the relevance of such citizenshiprestricting policies thus becomes essential in understanding their potential long-term effects. A final point concerns the uses of statelessness: are countries simply content with the knowledge that they have stripped those who are undesirable of their status and show no interest in their further destinies, or is the creation of statelessness a tool to achieve some other, even more sinister goals? The above recognition of shades of statelessness, as well as the discussion of its place within a wider project of elimination of outsider groups seem to suggest that statelessness can be used to further other deplorable aims. The way in which this is carried out, however, differs and a distinction must be drawn between countries that allow their former citizens to remain in the territory of the state (statelessness visible from the ‘inside’) and those who expel their former citizens (statelessness visible from the ‘outside’). In the first situation, as exemplified by particular practices employed in India, Nigeria, and Syria, statelessness serves to distinguish and separate stateless groups from the rest of the community, which works towards 2 Tripkovic, M. (2021), ‘Trancending the boundaries of punishment: On the nature of citizenship deprivation’, British Journal of Criminology (forthcoming). 3 Genocide Watch (2020), The ten stages of genocide. https://www.genocidewatch.com/tenstages (consulted: November 23rd, 2020). 4 International Criminal Court (2019), Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, following judicial authorisation to commence an investigation into the Situation in Bangladesh/Myanmar. https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/item.aspx?name=20191122-otp-statement-bangladesh-myanmar (consulted November 23rd, 2020). 42 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Papers