Albania that: “ … in some cases the revocation of the citizenship followed by expulsion may raise potential problems under Article of Protocol No. … .145 82. The right of a national “to live in his or her own country is commonly considered an essential element of the relationship between a State and its nationals .146 The duty of a State to (re)admit its own nationals is understood to constitute a “vital means of regulating the coexistence of sovereign entities while also being a necessary corollary thereof .147 It is a duty that the State does not owe to the individuals concerned, but rather “it is an international duty which it owes to its fellow-states .148 As such, the principle of non-expulsion of nationals is “indisputable in international law .149 For further explanation on the right to enter and remain in one’s own country, please refer to the commentary on Principle 9.1. 83. Depriving a person of their nationality for national security reasons may increase national security risks to the host State where that person resides and/or may shift the responsibility for ensuring the proper administration of justice to that State and the international community as a whole. This is contrary to UN Security Council Resolution 2178,150 as it undermines the principle of international cooperation in combatting terrorism and the State’s obligation to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences.151 “[Deprivation of nationality] can also make more difficult or impossible the monitoring and prosecution of [supposed terrorists]. Therefore, States neglect and escape their obligation to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences at the cost of a durable and worldwide security. National security is only protected in the short-term and the main threat is moved abroad, exposing local populations to violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.”152 67. Also, the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation Among States emphasizes the duty of States to cooperate with each other in 145 ECtHR, Naumov v Albania (2005), Application no. 10513/03, para 5. See also the case of Hadž Boudellaa et al v Bosnia and Herzegovina CH/02/8679, 192-3 (Human Rights Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina): The Chamber declared denationalisation a violation of the ECHR, Protocol , Article , if undertaken for the “sole purpose of expulsion. The Chamber reached this conclusion based on reading the absolute prohibition on the expulsion of nationals in conjunction with Art. ECHR. Otherwise, the Chamber argued, “if States could simply withdraw the citizenship of one of their citizens in order to expel him without being in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, then the protection of the right enshrined in that provision would be rendered illusory and meaningless . 146 International Law Commission, ‘Third report on the expulsion of aliens, by Mr. Maurice Kamto, Special Rapporteur’, A CN. April 2007), para 48. 147 Ibid, para 19. 148 Sir J. F. Williams, ‘Denationalization’ , British Yearbook of International Law , -6 (emphasis supplied) as cited in G. Goodwin-Gill, ‘Deprivation of Citizenship, Statelessness, and International Law’ May , available at: https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/gsgg%204-deprivationcitizenship-moreauthority.pdf, p. 4. 149A conclusion reached after canvassing treaty law, state practice, jurisprudence and doctrinal writings in International Law Commission, ‘Third report on the expulsion of aliens, by Mr. Maurice Kamto, Special Rapporteur’, A CN.4/581 (19 April 2007), para 39. 150 UN Doc S/RES/2178 (24 September 2014), paras 4, 6. 151 cf CoE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights AS Jur , ‘Withdrawing nationality as a measure to combat terrorism: a human rightscompatible approach? Report’, AS Jur , para . 152 cf CoE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights AS Jur , ‘Withdrawing nationality as a measure to combat terrorism: a human rightscompatible approach? Report’, AS Jur , para . See also, UNSC Res. , para. 2(f), in which the UNSC decided that all states shall “ a fford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts . 50