statelessness and the importance of a legal basis for deprivation of nationality, but also ‘whether there were legitimate reasons for [the decision] to be taken given the totality of the circumstances’.78 The judicial response to individual deprivations on grounds of national security has, on the other hand, largely been one of deference to the executive, both at national and international levels. The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness does, moreover, permit deprivation creating statelessness in some circumstances in response to a threat to the ‘vital interests of the state’ or in cases of fraud.79 The British courts have been notably timid to challenge the particularly rapid expansion of deprivation powers in the United Kingdom (UK), following a highly legalistic interpretation of a person’s statelessness;80 although they have been prepared to order restoration of British citizenship on grounds of statelessness and to protect the rights of children.81 In France, the courts are also criticised for excessive legalism, and have largely accommodated an expansion of executive powers.82 But there are some stronger assertions of judicial oversight. The Australian High Court (the apex court for Australia) found in 2022 that the law governing deprivation of citizenship on grounds of involvement in terrorism improperly gave the Minister for Home Affairs ‘the exclusively judicial function of adjudging and punishing criminal guilt’, and restored the applicant’s citizenship.83 The Dutch Council of State reversed the decision of the Minister of Justice and Security to remove the nationality of a woman who had joined Islamic State in Syria, finding that the Minister had failed to apply the principle of the best interests of her child.84 In March 2025, a Dutch lower-level court refused the argument that a person’s presumed dual nationality enabled deprivation on national security grounds, finding that this amounted to impermissible racial discrimination.85 The ECtHR has followed a conservative line, declining on several occasions to admit national security deprivation cases for consideration, or finding in favour of the State. What it has been prepared to do, however, is to draw on the principles that it has established on due process in other matters86 in order to call for nationality deprivation decisions to have a clear legal basis under the relevant national law, for hearings and remedies consistent with procedural fairness, and for these procedures to consider the question of statelessness and proportionality.87 78 ‘Partial Award: Civilian Claims - Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23 and 27–32’ (2004) XXVI RIAA 195, para 60. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (n 23) art 8(2)–(3). 80 R Thwaites, ‘Proof of Foreign Nationality and Citizenship Deprivation: Pham and Competing Approaches to Proof in the British Courts’ (2022) 85 MLR 1301; F Webber, ‘The Racialisation of British Citizenship’ (2022) 64 Race & Class 75; E Fripp, ‘Case Note: R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission; R (Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7, [2021] AC 765’, (2022) 4 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 169. For a survey of UK deprivation cases, see CJ McKinney, M Gower and T McGuinness, ‘Deprivation of British Citizenship and Withdrawal of Passports’ (House of Commons Library, 2025). 81 See e.g. S Lenegan, ‘Supreme Court Adopts “Nuanced” Approach in Deprivation of Citizenship Appeal’ (Free Movement, 3 March 2025) <https://freemovement.org.uk/supreme-court-adopts-nuanced-approach-indeprivation-of-citizenship-appeal>, commenting on N3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6. 82 R Pougnet, ‘La déchéance déchaînée : record de déchéances de nationalité sous la Ve République’ (AOC (Analyse, Opinion, Critique), 13 January 2025) <https://aoc.media/analyse/2025/01/12/la-decheance-dechaineerecord-de-decheances-de-nationalite-sous-la-ve-republique/>. 83 Alexander v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 19 (High Court of Australia) 84 Uitspraak 202006910/1/V1 en 202006913/1/V6 ECLI:NL:RVS:2022:1722. See Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, ‘Courts in Australia and the Netherlands Reverse Governments’ Nationality Deprivation Decisions’ (4 July 2022) <https://www.institutesi.org/news/courts-reverse-nationality-deprivation-decisions-australianetherlands>. 85 Case No AMS 23/6089 ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1849 (Amsterdam District Court) para 17.1. 86 ECtHR, ‘Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a Fair Trial (Civil Limb)’ (2025); See also Venice Commission, ‘Rule of Law Checklist’ (Council of Europe, 2016). 87 K2 v United Kingdom App No 42387/13 (ECtHR, 7 February 2017; Johansen v Denmark App No 27801/19 (ECtHR, 1 February 2022); Johansen v Denmark App No 27801/19 (ECtHR, 1 February 2022); Ghoumid v France 79