2019 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 1(2) current form is mainly used as a counterterrorism tool. 108 This is reflected quite clearly not only in states’ legislation, but more particularly in the preparatory works. For example, the name of the 2015 Belgian legislative amendment to the CBN is called Visant à renforcer la lutte contre le terrorisme, in English: Act to Reinforce the Fight against Terrorism. 109 In the preparatory works, it reads that the act was adopted to ‘lutter plus efficacement contre le terrorisme’, which translates to ‘to fight more effectively against terrorism’. 110 From the perspective of national security, individuals born into a nationality, and individuals who acquire this later in life, seem to find themselves in a comparable situation. The argument that those who acquired nationality at birth pose less of a threat to their country than those who acquired nationality by naturalisation or conferral is questionable. Consequently, one can argue they are entitled to equal treatment, unless otherwise objectively justified. B Objective Justification Two cases are relevant when discussing the objective justification for the installed difference: Genovese v Malta 111 and Biao v Denmark. 112 Although the case of Genovese v Malta did not concern denationalisation as such, the ECtHR installed an important rule regarding the treatment of different types of nationals. The applicant was a child born out of wedlock of a British mother and a Maltese father. 113 The applicant’s mother filed a request for her son to be granted Maltese citizenship, after establishing with a paternity test that the said father was indeed the father of the child. 114 The application was rejected at first instance, because Maltese citizenship could not be granted to an illegitimate child whose mother was not Maltese. 115 A contrario, had the child been born in wedlock and would it thus not have been considered ‘illegitimate’, it would have acquired Maltese citizenship. 116 The Court ruled that such a law was discriminatory because the applicant was in a situation analogous to that of children born from married parents, one of whom was a foreigner. 117 The argument that children born in wedlock had a link with their parents resulting from the marriage, which supposedly was absent for children born out of wedlock, was put aside by the Court. However, it is precisely a distinction based on such a link which art 14 of the Convention protects against. The status of an illegitimate child derives from the fact that his or her parents were not married at the time of their child’s birth. It is therefore a distinction based on such a status which the Convention prohibits, unless it is otherwise objectively justified. 118 108 Zedner (n 1) 222. See, eg, the preparatory works of the 2015 legislative amendment to the 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 CBN (n 5), which was introduced immediately after the attacks on the headquarters of the satirical journal, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris on 7 January 2015: Act to Reinforce the Fight against Terrorism (n 5). See also (n 5). Act to Reinforce the Fight against Terrorism (n 5). ibid 4. Genovese v Malta (2014) 58 EHRR 25 (‘Genovese’). Biao (n 99). Genovese (n 111) 704 [8]. ibid. ibid 704 [14]. ibid. ibid 711 [45]. ibid 711 [46]. 278