European States’ Obligations to Repatriate the Children Detained in Camps in Northeast Syria targets those of minority and migrant heritage and, therefore, is likely to be discriminatory on grounds such as race, ethnicity, religion, political or other opinion, and national origin.276 There is also no evidence to support the use of such measures as an effective means of protecting national security, and there is growing concern that such actions may actually be counterproductive.277 Moreover, there are significant concerns related to the permanent nature of deprivation of nationality, its disproportionate impact on individuals, families, and communities, and the detrimental impact on other fundamental human rights. 278 In particular, blanket provisions in European States’ legislation constitute arbitrary deprivation of nationality because the proportionality and necessity of deprivation of nationality must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the risk of statelessness, the principle of non-discrimination, the right to a fair trial, and other international legal standards. 279 In addition, international law clearly prohibits States from depriving an individual of nationality so as to arbitrarily prevent their return;280 and European governments have made no secret of their intention to prevent their nationals from returning to Europe by depriving them of their nationality, 281 and of “using revocation as a modern form of exile or banishment”282 Finally, the practice of revocation of nationality as a national security measure, in particular when coupled with the refusal to repatriate and the imposition of entry bans, runs counter to the States’ duty to cooperate with each other and to act responsibly and in accordance with international law to maintain international peace and security and to promote and encourage respect for human rights and 276 Ibid. 277 Ibid.; OSCE/ODIHR, “Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighters’ within a Human Rights Framework”, 2018, pp. 50-51. Meghan Benton and Natalia BanulescuBogdan, “Foreign Fighters: Will Revoking Citizenship Mitigate the Threat?”, Migration Policy Institute, 3 April 2019. 278 OSJI/ISI, Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a Security Measure, 2020, Introduction, p. 2. 279 Ibid., Principle 4.3; OSCE/ODIHR, “Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of ‘Foreign Terrorist Fighters’ within a Human Rights Framework”, 2018, pp. 49-51; Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship (ILEC), “Guidelines Involuntary Loss of European Citizenship”, 2015, p. 4. 280 HRComm, “General Comment No. 27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement)”, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, 1 November 1999, para. 21. 281 Meghan Benton and Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan, “Foreign Fighters: Will Revoking Citizenship Mitigate the Threat?”, Migration Policy Institute, 3 April 2019. For example, Prime Minister of Denmark clearly stated that this piece of legislation was meant to target disloyal citizens who “are unwanted in Denmark” and that “[t]he government will therefore do everything possible, to prevent them from returning to Denmark,” see: Reuters, “Denmark to Strip Foreign Fighters of Danish Citizenship,” 14 October 2019. 282 Jules Lepoutre, “Citizenship Loss and Deprivation in the European Union (27 + 1)”, EUI Working Paper RSCAS2020/29, May 2020, p .8; Audrey Macklin, “The Return of Banishment: Do the New Denationalisation Policies Weaken Citizenship?” in “Debating Transformations of National Citizenship, IMISCOE Research Series,” Bauböck R. (eds). Springer, 2018, p. 172. 50