QUESTIONS TO GUIDE VIEWEING - ANSWERS 1. In what way did the 1966 Covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) fail to live up to the promise to protect the right to a nationality, as explained by Martin Scheinin? Neither the Covenant on Economic Social Rights (ICESCR) nor the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) have a provision that gives effect to the Universal Declaration’s right to citizenship. The exception is the ICCPR clause concerning the right of children to acquire a nationality. This was in turn covered by the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. 2. Why is liberalisation towards allowing dual citizenship paradoxical in relation to citizenship stripping? What are the possible effects of citizenship stripping for a dual national according to Martin Scheinin? Many countries have liberalized their law and policy, to the effect that dual or multiple citizenship is often allowed. Paradoxically, this may widen the scope for permissible citizenship stripping, because stripping a dual national of their citizenship does not lead to statelessness. Nevertheless, a state cannot know or determine whether its citizen is also a citizen of another state, thus deprivation of nationality may lead to statelessness due to the faulty assessment of foreign law and citizenship status of a person. Moreover, in the context of the EU, being stripped of an EU Member State’s nationality also results in the person losing their EU citizenship and the associated rights, including diplomatic protection. 3. Name three reasons why (national) security as a legitimate aim is not enough to justify citizenship stripping. Three of the following: For citizenship stripping to be a justified measure to protect national security, there must be: • A legal basis that meets the ‘quality of the law’ test. • A proven benefit towards meeting the legitimate aim. • A necessity to use this particular measure instead of another equally beneficial but less intrusive measure. • Proportionality between the benefit obtained and the necessity tested harm to the individual: concrete weighing instead of abstract ‘balancing’. • No breach of other international obligations. 4. Why does barring entry to the country through citizenship stripping represent a limited view of the concept of national security according to Christophe Paulussen? Assuming that barring entry to the country through citizenship stripping will ensure the safety of the territory is dangerous and constitutes a narrow understanding of national security, which does not account for the current hyper-connectedness of the world, as well as the bordercrossing nature of terrorism. Additionally, seeing that this measure results in countries losing track of (alleged) terrorists, the measure can lead to further radicalisation abroad, constituting a threat to the territory in which the person resides but also to the country who conducted the citizenship stripping. 5. According to Christophe Paulussen, why is nationality deprivation still resorted to in politics? When it comes to countering terrorism, emotion often trumps common sense. Politicians want to showcase a strong response towards terroristic threats and are therefore opting for as many measures as possible in the hope that some are successful, or at least to show to the public that something is being done to combat the problem. Nationality deprivation is a highly symbolic measure and is used in order to communicate that certain behaviour will not be tolerated, even though that message can also be communicated through criminal prosecution or less far-going administrative measures. 6. Overall, according to both Martin Scheinin and Christophe Paulussen, why can citizenship stripping be a counter-productive measure for national security? The rule of ‘Aut dedere aut judicare’ (prosecute or extradite) is a central rule of international criminal law, which requires an assessment of what best serves the national security of a country also on an international basis. In many cases, the citizenship of a country where the person has lived may be the only effective jurisdictional link to successful prosecution. If a person is stripped of their citizenship, it may be that no other country has ground for jurisdiction, or that the only other country that is able to prosecute is unable or unwilling to do so. Thus, because responsibility for prosecution of a criminal is put on another country, citizenship stripping can result in impunity, which makes the measure counter-productive.