Bücken and de Groot 45 where this is deemed to be ‘conducive to the public good’. The amendment was introduced in the context of a wider debate of measures against the foreign fighters’ phenomenon, and public polls continue to demonstrate strong support for even wider government powers for the deprivation of citizenship.31 Investigations carried out by the Investigative Bureau of Journalism showed that between 2010 and 2016, 33 individuals had been deprived of British nationality on terror-related grounds.32 This practice of depriving individuals convicted of terror offenses of their citizenship was recently upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in K2 v. The United Kingdom.33 Similar to the United Kingdom, Belgium revived the deprivation of citizenship for nationals sentenced to a non-suspended prison sentence of at least five years for terrorist offences.34 Ireland, Tunisia, and Georgia have not introduced new legislation providing for the deprivation of citizenship on the ground of terrorist offences and no public debate concerning such measures has been observed.35 However, these countries already include similar statutory offences. In New Zealand, the introduction of deprivation of citizenship for foreign fighters was controversially discussed in the public media and in the parliament, also in the context of similar measures being introduced in their neighbouring country, Australia.36 The New Zealand government ultimately opted not to introduce measures involving the deprivation of citizenship, but limited its power to the suspension of passports. 4. Legality and compliance of the declarations submitted under article 8(3) In this section, an analysis of the legality of the submitted declarations under Article 8(3) will be conducted. The scope of analysis includes the compliance of the declarations with the grounds listed in Article 8(3) and an evaluation of the corresponding provisions in national law. Article 8(3) of the 1961 Convention permits the deprivation of citizenship as follows, If at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time: 31. M. Holehouse, ‘Strip British jihadists of citizenship, demand public’, The Telegraph (2014), http://www.telegraph.co. uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11067321/Strip-British-jihadists-of-citizenship-demand-public.html. 32. V. Parsons, ‘Theresa May deprived 33 individuals of British citizenship in 2015’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (2016), https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2016-06-21/citizenship-stripping-new-figures-revealtheresa-may-has-deprived-33-individuals-of-british-citizenship. 33. ECtHR, K2 v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 9 March 2017, Application No. 42387/13. 34. Article 23(1) of the Belgian Nationality Code (Code de la Nationalite´ Belge); K. Roach, Comparative CounterTerrorism Law (Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 262-263. 35. Compare, Library of Congress, ‘Treatment of Foreign Fighters in Selected Jurisdictions: Country Surveys’, Library of Congress (2017). 36. Parliament of New Zealand, ‘Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill – Second Reading, Instruction to Committee, In Committee’, Parliament of New Zealand (2014), https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/ document/51HansD_20141209_00000016/countering-terrorist-fighters-legislation-bill-second, p. 1207; Australia adopted the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015 (Act No. 166) on 3 December 2015, introducing the automatic deprivation of citizenship, for dual nationals, on the grounds of engaging in conduct defined with reference to terrorism offences in the Criminal Code, or fighting for, or being in the service of, a specified terrorist organization.