based on false information was only valid if done promptly, within a maximum of five years after the nationality had been granted.315 In recognition of the disproportionality between the impact of loss of nationality and the standard procedural protections afforded in civil cases, the US Supreme Court has emphasised the importance of access to a court before deportation (in the context of deprivation of naturalised citizenship, for example on grounds of having committed a serious criminal offence).316 Deprivation on grounds of national security In recent years, a number of governments have made increasing use of powers to deprive a person of nationality on national security grounds. While the legal frameworks vary, the use of these powers is sometimes highly secretive, making challenging the power more difficult.317 Deprivation of nationality on such grounds is permitted by the 1961 Convention, but only in case of “conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Contracting State” (Article 8[3][a][ii]). This condition establishes, as UNHCR notes, “a very high threshold for deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness.”318 National courts have generally been hesitant to challenge executive discretion in these cases, including if a person deprived of nationality appears to have been rendered stateless. (u section 7.1 The definition of stateless person and the determination that a person is stateless). However, there are cases where national apex courts have restored nationality that was deprived on national security grounds:  In 2022, Australia’s High Court issued a landmark ruling that found to be unconstitutional the powers given to the Minister for Home Affairs under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to revoke citizenship on grounds that the person’s acts demonstrated “repudiation of allegiance to Australia.” The central argument of the judgment was that the law improperly gave the minister “the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt.” The court restored the Australian citizenship of the plaintiff in the case, which had been revoked in 2017 on grounds that he had travelled to Syria to fight with Islamic State.319  Also in 2022, the Dutch Council of State reversed the decision of the Minister of Justice and Security to remove the Dutch nationality of a woman who had joined Islamic State in Syria. Central to the case was the consequential impact of nationality deprivation for her children. The court found that the Minister had failed to apply the best interests of the child principle in this case, as protected under the European Convention of Human Rights.320 A handful of national security cases have reached the European Court of Human Rights, which has proved reluctant to challenge the decisions and procedures of national authorities. Although the Court considers that arbitrary denial or revocation of nationality might in some circumstances raise an issue under Article 8 of the Convention, it has refused to consider cases against the United Kingdom and Denmark on grounds that they were “manifestly unfounded”.321 In a deprivation case involving naturalised French citizens who were dual nationals, the court found no violation of Article 8, because the consequences for their private life were not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and they were not made stateless.322 However, the court has taken a stand in the more egregious cases. Judgment 5 C 32/07, German Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 30 June 2008. Case summary at: https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/ caselaw/germany-federal-administrative-court-judgment-5-c-3207. 315 Laura Bingham and Natasha Arnpriester, Unmaking Americans: Insecure Citizenship in the United States (Open Society Justice Initiative, 2019), pp.88-89, https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/unmaking-americans. 316 Instrumentalising Citizenship in the Fight Against Terrorism: How Have Deprivation Powers Evolved since 9/11? (Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion & GLOBALCIT, 2022), https://files.institutesi.org/Instrumentalising_Citizenship_Global_Trends_Report.pdf. 317 318 UNHCR, Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5, supra n 103, para. 61 et seq. The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion led the process of developing Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure, accompanied by commentary that provides additional guidance on legal arguments that could be made before national or international courts and other fora—especially, but not only, in a national security context. “Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure” (Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, 2020), https://files.institutesi.org/PRINCIPLES.pdf; “Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure” (Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, 2022), https://files.institutesi.org/Principles_COMMENTARY.pdf. Alexander v. Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19, Judgment of 8 June 2022, S103/2021, https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2022/HCA/19 . See also Rayner Thwaites, “Citizenship deprivation as banishment: The High Court of Australia in Alexander’s case” (blogpost), GLOBALCIT, 11 July 2022, https:// globalcit.eu/citizenship-deprivation-as-banishment-the-high-court-of-australia-in-alexanders-case/. Australia case also summarised with the Netherlands case by the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion at: https://www.institutesi.org/news/courts-reverse-nationality-deprivation-decisions-australia-netherlands. 319 AB Raad van State 29 juni 2022, Uitspraak 202006910/1/V1 & 202006913/1/V6 ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1722, https://www.raadvanstate.nl/actueel/nieuws/@131779/202006910-1-v1-en-202006913-1-v6/. See case summary at https://caselaw.statelessness.eu/caselaw/netherlands-ab-council-state-raadvan-state. 320 321 K2 v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 42387/13, European Court of Human Rights, 7 February 2017 (decision on admissibility); Johansen v. Denmark, Application no. 27801/19, European Court of Human Rights, 1 February 2022 (decision on admissibility) Case summaries in: ”Factsheet–Deprivation of Citizenship,’ ECHR, March 2022, https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_citizenship_deprivation_eng.pdf. 322 Ghoumid and Others v. France, Application nos. 52273/16, 52285/16, 52290/16, 52294/16 and 52302/16 (consolidated), European Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 25 June 2020. U N H C R | L I T I G AT I N G T H E R I G H T T O A N AT I O N A L I T Y: A G U I D E F O R P R AC T I T I O N E R S 75