as set out above, all of these (and other factors) must be considered when assessing the proportionality and lawfulness of any decision to deprive nationality. The Principles refer to each of these standards, but do not address them with the same degree of comprehensiveness as the four central norms. This is partly because to do so would have made the Principles an unwieldly document, but mostly because there already exists, a rich body of jurisprudence, guidance, and study on each of these norms. Any effort to collate this together would have resulted in omissions. While the Draft Commentary provides an overview of some of the main standards related to each of these norms, this is not as robust as with the central norms. It serves to also point the reader in the direction of other resources, should they wish to learn more. Any omissions in the Draft Commentary in relation to these norms are therefore not indicative of a lack of relevance, but rather, stand as acknowledgement that there are far greater authorities on these related norms, which should be viewed as complementing this text. The third type of norm addressed in the Principles is procedural and relates to access to justice. These norms are directly relevant to the question of arbitrarinessand are therefore partially addressed within the principle on the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality (procedural safeguards Principle 7.6). However, they are also addressed separately through a closer analysis of the rights to a fair trial, effective remedy and reparation (Principle 8). The Draft Commentary also provides a closer look at the standards at play in relation to these procedural aspects. , Again, here the reader is advised to study other texts, particularly treaty specific texts, should they wish to look at how these rights and protections are approached and fulfilled in different systems. Principle 2 (definitions), Principle 10 (deprivation by proxy and proxy measures) and Principle 11 (international cooperation) are also further elaborated on in the Draft Commentary. The Basic Rule articulated in Principle 4, synthesises all relevant international standards, to conclude that “States shall not deprive persons of nationality for the purpose of safeguarding national security . It asserts that any exercise of an exception to this rule must be “interpreted and applied narrowly , and is further limited by the various norms set out above. The Draft Commentary provides an overview of the rationale behind the construction of the Basic Rule and demonstrates how the different norms drawn on in the Principles relate to it. Acknowledgements and commitment As a document which evolved organically, initially created to help understand the scope of the issue at play, subsequently revised to assist experts in the drafting of the Principles, and now finally as a Draft Commentary to the Principles, so many people have contributed to the development of this text, in so many ways, that it would be impossible to individually acknowledge all contributions. While the team at the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion took the lead in drafting the text, the research, review and drafting contributions of partner organisations Ashurst LLP, Open Society Justice Initiative and the Asser Institute are integrally woven into the fabric of this text. The expert review of numerous actors, including leading academics, UN independent experts, international organisations, and litigators, have enhanced this Draft. At a time when the institution of citizenship is increasingly under threat, the Principles and this Draft Commentary serve to remind us of the longstanding and strong international law framework that obligates States to respect, protect, promote and fulfil everyone’s right to a nationality; and which recognises the importance of doing so, in order to also protect other fundamental human rights. It is no 7