Jules Lepoutre constitutional reform, refused this extension. Senators considered that a constitutional reform extending nationality revocation without any prohibition of statelessness was contrary to fundamental principles. As a matter of consequence, it amended the bill to add the prevention of full statelessness. The reform thus no longer achieved formal equality since nationals with only one nationality were protected from deprivation. Because of the inability of the two chambers to reach an agreement, President Hollande abandoned the reform.53 This shows the challenge that nationality revocation presents for contemporary liberal democracies. It is indeed impossible to prohibit statelessness while maintaining equality among citizens, as both principles are based on the same fundamental value. On the one hand, restricting revocation to the sole individuals with two (or more) nationalities represents an indirect discrimination based on national origin. On the other hand, authorising nationality revocation for all individuals, regardless of whether they have a single nationality, can lead to statelessness which is prohibited. This liberal impasse cannot be resolved, and every state that allows nationality revocation must make a choice between nondiscrimination and statelessness prevention. 3.2. Legislations of Member States 3.2.1. Possession of Another Nationality (1) International and European legal Framework International law has long regarded dual nationality as an evil of the same nature as statelessness. International and European treaties were therefore designed to authorise, if not encourage, the limitation of dual nationality, especially by providing for the involuntary loss of nationality when a foreign nationality is acquired. From the standpoint of statelessness prevention, this mode of loss is rather unproblematic, since the individual has acquired another nationality, which means that statelessness is in principle not at stake. In any event, the 1961 Convention on Statelessness Reduction clearly states in article 7(2) that “[a] national of a Contracting State who seeks naturalization in foreign country shall not lose his nationality unless he acquires or has been accorded assurance of acquiring the nationality of that foreign country.” The 1963 European Convention on the Reduction of Cases of Multiple Nationality even makes it an obligation for states, as article 1(1) stipulates that “Nationals of the Contracting Parties who are of full age and who acquire of their own free will, by means of naturalisation, option or recovery, the nationality of another Party shall lose their former nationality. They shall not be authorised to retain their former nationality.” Due to the liberal trend towards dual citizenship, the chapter which includes this article 1 has not been ratified or has been denounced by numerous Member States.54 More recently, the 1997 European Convention on Nationality authorises in article 7(1)(a) “voluntary acquisition of another nationality” as a mode of loss of nationality ex lege or by withdrawal (at the initiative of the state), but it cannot lead to statelessness. Moreover, in article 14(1), the Convention allows dual nationality in two instances: first, for children, in case of two nationalities acquired at birth (a); second, for adults, in case of a second nationality automatically acquired through marriage (b). To date, there is no international or European case law directly connected to the loss of nationality in case of voluntary acquisition of another nationality. 53 On the matter, see, e.g., Zalc, C. (2018). “La Déchéance de Nationalité: Éléments d’Histoire d’une Révision Constitutionnelle Ratée.” Pouvoirs, 166(3), 41-57. 54 Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden. Only Austria and the Netherlands are bound by the chapter one. 12 Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Papers