discussed further below).18 11. Beyond this treaty framework, international governmental organisations have also repeatedly confirmed the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. The UN has regularly done so, including by way of resolutions of the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and its predecessor the UN Commission on Human Rights.19 The UN Secretary General has also issued multiple reports dedicated to the subject.20 The issue is regularly revisited given the UN’s deep concern that the arbitrary deprivation of nationality may impede an individual’s full enjoyment of their human rights.21 The prohibition has also been examined and upheld by the International Law Commission.22 E. The status of the prohibition 12. The UN Special Rapporteur considers that the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality encapsulated in Article 15(2) of the UDHR is a principle of CIL. As this Court will recall, CIL is a recognised source of international law derived from State practice and its acceptance as law (opinio juris).23 There are several indicators that this requirement is satisfied. 13. First, the relevant part of Article 15(2) of the UDHR was introduced by the UK and India on the basis that it was a “general principle” and a “fundamental right” (§9 above). It was unanimously adopted. Although non-binding, the UDHR’s “fundamental principles” (such as Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961) 989 UNTS 175, Article 8(1)-(4). Note that the UK made a declaration under both Article 8(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Convention, which does not, for the avoidance of doubt, qualify its due process obligations under Article 8(4): see UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Guidelines on Statelessness No. 5’ (May 2020), para. 73. 18 See, e.g., UNGA, Resolution 50/152, UN Doc. A/RES/50/152, 9 February 1996, para. 16; UN Commission on Human Rights, ‘Resolution on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’, 1997/36, 11 April 1997, preamble; see also para. 2; UN Commission on Human Rights, ‘Resolution on Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality, 2005/45, 19 April 2005, preamble; see also para. 2; UN HRC, ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/13/2, 24 March 2010, see generally; UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/20/5, 16 July 2012, see generally. 19 See, e.g., ‘Arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/34, 26 January 2009; ‘Human Rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the Secretary-General’, UN Doc. A/HRC/13/34, 14 December 2009; ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral’, UN Doc/ A/HRC/25/28, 19 December 2013. 20 See, e.g., UN HRC, ‘Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality’, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/20/5, 16 July 2012, para. 6. 21 ILC, ‘Draft Articles on Nationality of Natural Persons in relation to the Succession of States (with commentaries)’ (1999) II(2) YBILC, p. 37 (Article 16); ILC, ‘Draft Articles on the Expulsion of Aliens (with commentaries)’ (2014) II(2) YBILC, p. 32 (Article 8), commentary para. 1. 22 See R (Jiminez) v First-tier Tribunal [2019] EWCA Civ 51, [2019] 1 WLR 2956, para. 56 (“to establish the existence of a rule of customary international law it is necessary to demonstrate a general state practice that is accepted as law (opinio juris)”). See further ILC, ‘Draft conclusions on identification of customary international law (with commentaries)’ (2018) II(2) YBILC, pp. 124-125; Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(1)(b) (“international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law”). 23 5