2021 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 3(1) Although the current academic literature has clearly identified and criticised the flaws and discrimination in Syrian nationality law, 9 the impact of colonialism in creating such discrimination has been largely neglected. Yet, Syrian legislation on nationality — as we know it today — has been directly influenced by colonialism and imperialism. 10 French colonisation of Syria, which lasted from 1922 to 1946, 11 played a pivotal role in the development of Syrian citizenship. Nonetheless, the academic literature on this topic is relatively scarce partially because France refused to open its colonial archives until 1987. 12 Moreover, the Western academic scholarship on Syrian citizenship fails to take into consideration colonial legacies. This article fills this research gap by exploring the role of colonialism calls in shaping Syrian nationality laws and creating risks of statelessness. In doing so, it builds upon postcolonial scholarship and third world approaches to international law (‘TWAIL’). Through an anti-colonial analysis, this paper proceeds with a historico-legal analysis of Syrian citizenship rules and current situations of statelessness. Before French colonisation formally began in 1922, Syria lived under Ottoman rule for more than four centuries. 13 During World War I, the Allies needed the support of Arabic-speaking populations in order to defeat the Ottomans. Thereafter, Britain promised Arab leaders the creation of a sovereign and independent ‘Arab State’, in exchange of their military and political support against the Ottomans. 14 Arab leaders, who were looking to end four centuries of Ottoman occupation, accepted and fought alongside the Allies during World War 9 10 11 12 13 14 Zahra Albarazi, The Stateless Syrians (Report No 11/2013, Tilburg University 2013) (‘The Stateless Syrians’); David M Howard, ‘Analyzing the Causes of Statelessness in Syrian Refugee Children’ (2017) 52(1) Texas International Law Journal 221; Submission to the Human Rights Council at the 26th Session of the Universal Periodic Review (Report, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion and The Global Campaign for Equal Nationality Rights 24 March 2016) <https://equalnationalityrights.org/images/zdocs/ISI-GCENR---UPRSubmission-Syria---March-2016-Final.pdf>. Elizabeth F Thompson, Colonial Citizens: Republican Rights, Paternal Privilege, and Gender in French Syria and Lebanon (Columbia University Press 2000); The Stateless Syrians (n 9). Daniel Neep, Occupying Syria under the French Mandate (Cambridge University Press 2012) 3. Peter A Shambrook, French Imperialism in Syria, 1927–1936 (Ithaca Press 1998) preface. Ma'oz, Moshe, Yosef Ginat and Onn Winckler, Modern Syria: From Ottoman Rule to Pivotal Role in the Middle East (Sussex Academic Press, 1999); James L Gelvin, Divided Loyalties: Nationalism and Mass Politics in Syria at the Close of Empire (University of California Press, 1998). The Ottoman Empire ruled over Syria from 1516 to 1918. The period is referred to as the Ottoman ‘occupation’ and not ‘colonisation’ for a series of reasons. Firstly, major European colonial powers (such as Britain, France, Spain and Portugal) organised large-scale migrations by sending colonial settlers in their overseas territories. For instance, more than 1.6 million French citizens were living in Algeria before the country obtained independence. On the other hand, the Ottomans were not looking to ‘replace’ native populations. Secondly, behind European colonisation lies a discourse and policies of racial hierarchy and civilisation claims. European conquests justified their brutal rule and occupation on the basis that they had a duty to bring enlightenment to ‘the barbarians’. On the other hand, the Ottomans did not reproduce such ‘civilising discourse’ and recognised that that their conquests were solely motivated by economic/military ambitions. Thirdly, Ottoman rule was not an alien nonconsensual rule. The Ottomans did not try to impose their language and customs, did not seek to divide local populations and left a relative political autonomy to regions of the empire. Fourthly, European colonial powers forcibly enforced cultural conversions, language spread and religious change. A contrario, the Turks were not looking to impose any cultural or linguistic change. Finally, the Ottomans conquered and occupied territories that were adjacent to their homelands, in an effort to ‘expand’ their territory. Conversely, European colonial powers established settlements in lands scattered all over the world, including in America, Africa, Asia and Australia. Correspondence between Henry McMahon and Hussein ibn Ali, July 1915 – March 1916. 8