European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria Applying these standards to the European children detained in northern Syria, while it is difficult to argue that the right to enter one’s own country itself provides for an individual right to be actively repatriated by one’s own country, it does include at least the right to be issued identity and travel documents.355 Recalling the ECtHR’s grounding jurisprudence emphasizing the importance of interpretation and application of rights in a manner that renders them practical and effective, 356 European States have an obligation to ensure the effective protection of the right to return to one’s own country and cooperate to ensure that this right can be enforced.357 As the children are in de facto detention (see Section I on Factual Background) and most of them lack identity and travel documents, European States are required to provide necessary documents without undue delay and to work in cooperation with SDF authorities for the children’s return,358 as an effective right to enter one’s own country does not exist if there is no practical ability to return.359 This applies both to children and their primary caregivers who had their citizenship arbitrarily stripped to prevent their return, 360 as well as to children who were born abroad to European parents, or have never been in their countries of nationality. ii. International Law Moreover, States’ obligation to allow the return of their own nationals— including the facilitation thereof—goes beyond the individual, and can be 355 Alessandra Spadaro, “Repatriation of Family Members of Foreign Fighters: Individual Right or State Prerogative?”, Cambridge University Press, 2020, p. 264-265. 356 ECtHR, “Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom”, Application No. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, para. 74. See also: Daniel Rietiker, “The Principle of "Effectiveness" in the Recent Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: Its Different Dimensions and Its Consistency with Public International Law - No Need for the Concept of Treaty Sui Generis” Nordic Journal of International Law, 2010. 357 See: Peter Van Krieken, “Return and Responsibility”, Volume 38, Issue 4, 2000, p. 29. 358 UNHCR guidance on voluntary repatriation addressing the duty of country of origin to take affirmative action towards making his right actionable should be used by analogy: e.g. dialogue between the major parties must be established at the earliest possible stage, and return must be orderly and in safety and dignity. See: UNHCR, “Discussion Note on Protection Aspects of Voluntary Repatriation,” EC/1992/SCP/CRP.3, 1 April 1992; para. 8(c) and 8(d); UNHCR, “Handbook - Voluntary Repatriation: International Protection,” January 1996, 2.6 Responsibilities of the Country of Origin. 359 See: “In our view, this option is comparable to showing a detainee the key to his or her cell – after all, most of the people we are talking about are detained and cannot leave their detention facilities – and then telling the person he or she is entitled to this key, but keeping it out of grasp.” See: Tanya Mehra and Christophe Paulussen, “The Repatriation of Foreign Fighters and Their Families: Options, Obligations, Morality and Long-Term Thinking”, 2019; and Ana Luquerna, “The Children of ISIS: Statelessness and Eligibility for Asylum under International Law,” 2020, p. 176; Chrisje Sandelowsky-Bosman and Ton Liefaard “Children Trapped in Camps in Syria, Iraq and Turkey: Reflections on Jurisdiction and State Obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”, Nordic Journal of Human Rights, Volume 38, Issue 2, 2020, p. 153. 360 See: Naomi Wayne et al., “Shamima Begum Citizenship Decision Sets a Dangerous Precedent”, The Guardian, 21 February 2019. 63