State in disregard of an express prohibiting by the Contracting State (Art. 8(3)(a)(i) 1961 Convention), or conducts “himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Art. 8(3)(a)(ii) 1961 Convention); When a “person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State or “given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State Art. 8(3)(b) 1961 Convention). Furthermore, the ECN also lists a number of legitimate purposes which could warrant the loss of nationality ex lege or at the initiative of a State Party in Article 7(1), which are largely similar to those listed in the 1961 Convention. However, it explicitly states that these should not result in statelessness, with the exception of acquisition of the nationality of a State Party by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant (Art. 7(3) ECN). 73. The Tunis Conclusions, interpreting the 1961 Convention and drawing from the travaux préparatoires, clarify that ‘legitimate purpose’ must be narrowly interpreted to mean that: 128 Conduct must threaten the foundations and organization of the State whose nationality is at issue; The individuals concerned have the capacity to impact negatively the State; “Vital interests sets a considerably higher threshold than “national interests ; Criminal offences of a general nature are not covered. 74. The Convention’s provisions on nationality deprivation in the context of loyalty and allegiance to the State are recognized to be mostly outdated. In relation to Article 8(3)(b), the Tunis Conclusions state that “this provision … has … been largely superseded by later developments in domestic nationality laws which increasingly place less importance on formal allegiance to the State, in particular due to the marked decline in compulsory military service and the increasing acceptance of dual nationality. 129 75. However, “depending on the domestic context, certain ‘terrorist acts’ may fall within the scope of Article 8(3)(a)(ii) . The threshold for this is very high. Denaturalization can only be based on conduct ‘seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State’. Attention to a State’s own national security interests alone may be insufficient when deprivation of nationality may affect the national security of another state and “mere membership in a terrorist group or the fact of receiving training from a terrorist group generally does not constitute a terrorist act. 130 76. In addition, the Explanatory Report to the ECN explains with regard to “conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party that it “ … notably includes treason and other activities directed against the vital interests of the State concerned (for example, work for a foreign secret service), but would not include criminal offences of a general nature, however serious they might be. 131 Below, different purposes for deprivation of nationality that cannot be considered as legitimate are considered in more depth. This is not an exhaustive list. 128 UNHCR, ’Tunis Conclusions‘ , para . UNHCR, ‘Tunis Conclusions’, , para . 130 UNHCR, ‘Guidelines No ’ , paras , . 131 Explanatory Report to the ECN, para 67. 129 47