CChapter 3: Comparative analysis of nationality laws Zionist”.158 Such an act is also likely to amount to the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, resting as it does on political grounds159 and again, formulated in a vague manner such that it is unclear under which circumstances exactly it could or would be invoked. In Qatar and Libya, the articles in the law which regulate deprivation of nationality create a different kind of challenge. Rather than authorising deprivation on what would be considered a prohibited ground under international law, they appear to effectively give the competent authorities carte blanche in determining when to withdraw a person’s nationality. Under Qatari law, the Minister has the discretion to withdraw nationality from anyone “if it is in the public interest”.160 In Libya, nationality can be deprived in any situation where the decision is “justified” by General Security.161 Under international law, the withdrawal of nationality must have a clear legal basis if it is not to be deemed arbitrary (and therefore prohibited).162 It can be questioned whether such broadly formulated powers of deprivation would satisfy this, given the absence of legal security on the 158 - Article 16(7), Law No. 26 concerning Egyptian Nationality, 1975. 159 - See, for instance, article 9 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 160 - Articles 11 and 12, Qatari Nationality Law No. 2, 1961. 161 - Article 14, Law Number 24 on the Libyan Nationality, 2010. 162 - See, among others, article 29(1) of the Arab Charter of Human Rights. 121