European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria Introduction Using primarily a child’s rights perspective, this legal briefing paper provides an overview of European and international legal standards that can be invoked by litigators and advocates to argue for the proactive repatriation of all children detained in the camps in northeast Syria, whose parents are European citizens, together with their primary caregivers. The focus is on European States’ obligations because children of one or more European nationals represent one of the largest groups of foreign nationals in the camps.2 In addition, while the level of responsiveness to this issue varies across states, European States3 seem to be particularly reluctant to repatriate their child nationals.4 Nevertheless, the international law arguments presented in this paper could also be used to argue for the repatriation of “non-European” children to their countries of nationality.5 States’ obligations to repatriate the adults detained in the camps, independently from the children, is beyond the scope of this briefing paper and deserves separate analysis. However, some of the arguments listed below may be relevant to their situation as well, particularly regarding the children’s primary caregivers. European States’ failure to repatriate the children and women from the camps in northeast Syria is embedded within a system of structurally discriminatory policies, laws, and practices, which often results in deprivation of nationality and discriminatory effects regarding the respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights. While recognizing that context, this legal briefing aims to provide a practical legal toolkit for the litigators and advocates on the ground, focusing on European States’ obligations under international and European law to repatriate their child nationals. 2 3 4 5 6 See Rights & Security International (“RSI”), “Europe’s Guantanamo: The Indefinite Detention of European Women and Children in North East Syria,” 2020, para. 3. Alongside Canada and Australia, see: Human Rights Watch, ““Bring Me Back to Canada” Plight of Canadians Held in Northeast Syria for Alleged ISIS Links,” 29 June 2020; Human Rights Watch, “Australia: Bring Home Children of Fighters in Syria Dozens of Australian Children Held in Camps in Dire Conditions,” 29 September 2019. Since 2017, 85% of repatriations accounted are accounted by Uzbekistan, Kosovo, Russia and Kazakhstan; see: Letta Tayler and Alison Huyghe, “Foreign ISIS Suspects, Families: Why a Single “R” Word Matters at the UN,” Just Security, 17 June 2021. The terms “citizen” and “national” are used interchangeably, to indicate a legal connection between an individual and a state. Where relevant, the terms may take on different meanings, as will be indicated in the text and notes. The term “denationalization” covers multiple forms of involuntary loss of nationality, including denaturalization (loss of citizenship acquired by naturalization) and deprivation of citizenship acquired at birth. See: Open Society Justice Initiative, “Unmaking Americans: Insecure Citizenship in the United States,” 2019, endnote 1.