416 L. van Waas, S. Jaghai 2 Deprivation of Nationality: An Unequal Measure? Across the world, states provide in their laws for the possibility of involuntary withdrawal of a citizen’s nationality. In some instances, a distinction is drawn between loss and deprivation of nationality.13 Loss then refers to a situation in which nationality is withdrawn automatically, by operation of law (i.e. without state interference). For example, in some states nationality can be automatically lost if a person resides abroad for a consecutive period determined by law.14 Once the conditions specified in law are fulfilled, the person’s nationality lapses automatically. Deprivation of nationality, in contrast, is non-automatic and requires the state to decide in each individual case whether citizenship should be revoked, in accordance with powers stipulated in national legislation. Often, the assigned state authority (e.g. Minister of Justice or a judge) has some discretion in determining whether a person’s behaviour should lead to denationalisation. Under the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961 Convention), different standards apply to specific forms of loss and of deprivation of nationality, however both modalities of withdrawal of citizenship are also subject to the broader human rights norm prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of nationality—i.e. no distinction between loss and deprivation of citizenship is made in human rights law.15 In practice, national legislation also does not always clearly distinguish between loss and deprivation of nationality and both lead to a person who was once a citizen being left without that status. In this article, the terms loss and deprivation of nationality will therefore be used interchangeably. The problematisation of nationality deprivation as an unequal measure has recently emerged as an area of debate in the context of contemporary counter-terrorism efforts which have heralded an increased use of this policy.16 Yet, deprivation clauses have been stipulated in most nationality laws since their inception. Historically, denationalisation was invoked against citizens who were disloyal towards the state, posed an imminent threat to national security or no longer had a bond with the state. For example, the 1892 Dutch Citizenship Act, Article 7(4) states: ‘[Nederlanderschap wordt verloren:] door zonder Ons verlof zich te begeven in vreemden krijgs- of staatsdienst’.17 In short, Dutch nationality will be lost by any Dutch citizen who joins a foreign military or public service. Being a citizen required having undivided allegiance towards your country, including the duty to support and defend it, and denationalisation was seen as a way to deal with disloyal and undesirable citizens. That nationality deprivation is a measure of unequal application is apparent already in early comparative studies of domestic legislation. In 1953, the 13 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness; UN Human Rights Council (2013), para. 3. For instance, Art. 15(1)(c) Rijkswet op het Nederlanderschap (Dutch Nationality Act). 15 UN Human Rights Council (2009), para. 23. See further also Sect. 4 of this article. 16 Choudhury (2017), p. 227; Macklin (2015a), p. 1. 17 A translation of the original nationality act reads as follows: Netherlands citizenship will be revoked if a person joins a military or public service without permission of the state. Wet van 12 December 1892 op het Nederlanderschap en het ingezetenschap, Staatsblad [Offical Gazette] 1892 no. 268. 14 123