Colonial Legacies in Syrian Nationality Law CONCLUSION Western academic literature has traditionally identified contemporary causes of statelessness as principally stemming from discriminatory state policies and has largely ignored the legacies and heritage of colonialism in post-coloniality. This paper aimed to fill this research gap by demonstrating how, in the Syrian context, colonial legacies have played a decisive role in creating discrimination in nationality laws, which has resulted in mass statelessness. By relying on a TWAIL methodology that focuses on the historical formation of the law, this analysis has sought to uncover the hidden colonial legacies at the root causes of discrimination in Syrian citizenship and resulting cases of statelessness. Firstly, this article has demonstrated how European colonial policies in the Middle East have created a mismatch between identity and nationality. The creation of artificial borders in the Sykes–Picot Agreements, motivated by the desire to divide colonised populations, is one of the roots of statelessness in modern Syria. This paper has, secondly, demonstrated how the dislocation of the Ottoman Empire by European colonial powers and the creation of artificial states has impacted upon the formation of new state citizenries and the emergence of stateless populations, including the Kurds and the Palestinians. Both communities were denied the right to self-sovereignty by colonial powers, on the basis of racialist hierarchies. Thirdly, the transposition of gender-based discrimination by French colonial power during the occupation has created patriarchal citizenship rules that have increased the risk of statelessness. Gender inequality in Syrian citizenship is not the result of a backward culture or religion, but results from French colonial rule. In fact, this historical analysis has revealed that Syrian women enjoyed more rights regarding citizenship before French colonial rule. A similar provision, stripping women of their right to pass on their citizenship to their children, was introduced by British colonisers in other territories. Fourthly and finally, this paper ended by critically reflecting upon the arbitrary processes of naturalisation and denationalisation, largely inspired by Western practices. Overall, this analysis has challenged the idea that discriminatory practices in Syrian citizenship are the result of ‘lawlessness’ or an ‘uncivilised’ culture. It, rather, bears the legacy of the devasting impacts of European colonialism. The present analysis has demonstrated that, far from bringing ‘civilisation’ or ‘modernity’, colonialism has brought nothing more than division, discrimination and stripped populations off their right to self-determination. Notably, genderbased discriminatory provisions in Syrian nationality law were introduced by the French colonial administration, stripping Syrian women of a right they previously enjoyed under Ottoman rule. As a result, current patriarchal laws cannot be attributed to the supposedly ‘backwardness’ and sexism inherent to Arab culture. Likewise, nationality provisions that favour Arab citizens were shaped by anticolonial struggles and cannot be read as a simple translation of ethnic-based discrimination. Overall, colonial legacies remain at the heart of current discrimination in Syrian nationality rules. Whilst it does not justify that the Syrian legislator is still maintaining such discrimination, it does offer a colonial explanation. Beyond the Syrian case, this paper revealed the central role played by colonialism in creating statelessness and discrimination in citizenship. Mainstream narratives presuppose that statelessness is the result of current 31