Beyond Law: Alternative Mechanisms for Reigning in Weaponised Citizenship These works help illustrate how citizenship is used as a weapon, especially in the context of the “war on terror,” in ways that combine the domestic interests and foreign policy goals of states in two key domains of sovereignty — the monopolization over the legitimate use of violence (à la Weber, see Anter250) and the discretionary power to determine authorized residency and membership rights (Torpey).251 It is difficult to reign in weaponised citizenship when both national security and citizenship are key domains of discretionary or plenary power, even in advanced liberal democracies.252 Herein lies the central tension in the weaponised citizenship debate — it is difficult to determine what even constitutes “lawful” or “unlawful” practices in domains that are protected arenas of state sovereignty. The Opportunities and Costs of Leveraging International Law in the Domain of Citizenship The previous responses have explored whether there is a basis for regulating nationality under international law, and if so, how international law can be leveraged to contain oppressive nationality attribution. Knott cautions against creating blanket rules about what constitutes weaponised citizenship, calling for the need to identify the precise sequencing and timing of nationality attributions before determining whether that instance can be classified as oppressive.253 In response, Ganohariti provides strict criteria for determining whether a case qualifies as weaponised citizenship,254 focusing on three conditions: 1) whether the nationality attribution was conducted by a state to target people outside its de iure territory; 2) whether citizenship was attributed collectively and forcefully; and 3) whether the weaponisation occurred simultaneously with the attribution of citizenship. Other contributors express scepticism about whether the law is indeed the most fitting tool for reigning in weaponised citizenship practices because, as Džankić points out,255 in many cases the actions are ‘perfectly lawful’ under international law and, as Jacob-Owens cautions, codifying strict restrictions on this practice might curtail the ability of formerly colonized groups to advocate for reparative citizenship.256 Leverage and Power Politics: Alternative Mechanisms for Reigning in Weaponised Citizenship If not through that mantle of law, then what are additional ways for reigning in oppressive nationality practices? Existing studies in the field of International Relations may be instructive for identifying alternative avenues through which states, supranational, and inter-governmental entities have successfully changed the behaviour of other states (either by coercion or enticement), in realms that are considered protected domains of sovereign discretionary power. One possibility that has not been explored in previous submissions is whether regional mobility agreements and legal frameworks could be harnessed to reign in oppressive nationality practices. The literature on the European Union has documented a range of examples of how convergence criteria for entry into the union influenced the behaviour of prospective member-states, not only their economic policies,257 but also their commitment to fundamental human rights and the protection of minorities from discrimination.258 While citizenship matters fall under the domain of member-states, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) took steps to constrain arbitrary denaturalization in its 2010 Rottmann ruling.259 Aggressive extraterritorial citizenship policies like those of Hungary or Bulgaria have not yet been addressed at the EU-level. However, by asserting its jurisdiction in 250 Anter, A. (2019), 'The Modern State and Its Monopoly on Violence', in Hanke E., Scaff L., and Whimster S. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Max Weber, Oxford University Press. 251 Torpey, J. (1999), The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State, Cambridge University Press. 252 Johnson K. (1993), ‘Judicial Acquiescence to the Executive Branch's Pursuit of Foreign Policy and Domestic Agendas in Immigration Matters: The Case of the Haitian Asylum-Seekers’, Geo. Immigr. L.J. 7, 1. 253 Knott 2022. 254 Ganohariti 2022. 255 Džankić 2022. 256 Jacob-Owens 2022. 257 Afxentiou, P. C. (2000), ‘Convergence, the Maastricht criteria, and their benefits’, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 7(1), 245-[ii]. 258 Arnold R. (2016), The Convergence of the Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe, Springer Link. 259 Shaw J. (2011), The Convergence of the Fundamental Rights Protection in Europe, EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2011/62. European University Institute 44