A/HRC/25/28 crimes against national security or in the public interest, or have made more active use of existing powers.29 The margin of discretion enjoyed by State authorities in the interpretation of the law and readiness to deprive individuals of their nationality varies. In some instances, national authorities enjoy broad discretion in determining when to deprive a person of nationality. In these cases, there is a risk that international standards prohibiting arbitrary deprivation of nationality may not be respected. For instance, some nationality laws explicitly allow for the deprivation of nationality for a show of disloyalty “by act or speech”.30 States must avoid applying such provisions in a manner which would infringe other human rights norms and standards, such as freedom of expression.31 Services to a foreign government or military 14. The rendering of services to a foreign government or military force is also generally acknowledged to be a legitimate ground for the deprivation of nationality, although there are restrictions to its use where statelessness results. The European Convention on Nationality does not allow deprivation on this ground if it would lead to statelessness. The 1961 Convention provides that States may, upon accession, declare that they will maintain the following narrowly construed ground for deprivation of nationality in their laws, even if it results in statelessness, where a person “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.”32 As with the other exceptions where the 1961 Convention permits a person to be left stateless, this provision must be interpreted narrowly. The “express prohibition” must be an individual notice, directed towards the person concerned, and it is not sufficient for the law to generally prohibit the rendering of such services. 15. The phrasing of this ground for deprivation in national law varies. Some States formulate it narrowly, for example, as the rendering of support to an “enemy” State. Many allow for deprivation of nationality even if statelessness results. A number of countries provide for a “warning” to first be issued to the individual concerned, and deprivation of nationality is pursued only if the person ignores an explicit request to cease rendering services to a foreign State. This is a welcome safeguard, for it ensures that the State’s action is predictable, gives the individual the opportunity to amend his or her behaviour in order to avoid this severe legal consequence and is also in keeping with the 1961 Convention.33 29 30 31 32 33 8 For instance, the submission from Asylum Aid describes the expansion of denationalization powers in the United Kingdom (although it also notes that the safeguard against statelessness remains intact). Morocco has amended its legislation to explicitly include conviction for an act of terrorism as a separate ground for deprivation of nationality, see EUDO Citizenship Observatory (D. Perrin), Country Report: Morocco, October 2011. Emphasis added. See, for instance, submissions from Grenada and Nigeria. In the context of the Arab Spring, a number of concrete cases arose in which States invoked their authority to deprive nationality in response to a purported security threat. This was criticized by human rights organizations as an illegitimate use of this power. See, for example, the response from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to cases of deprivation of nationality in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2012, available from http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/uae/report2012; http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/08/bahrain-don-t-arbitrarily-revoke-citizenship; http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/bahraini-opposition-figures-stripped-nationality-frighteningdevelopment-2012-11-07. 1961 Convention, art. 8, para. 3(a)(i). Ibid.