Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/7 Citizenship deprivation as an obstruction for states to respect the international law principles of nondiscrimination and the prohibition of statelessness: a case study of The Netherlands* Sangita Jaghai Statelessness Working Paper Series No. 2017/07 Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion December 2017 Author biography Sangita Jaghai is a PhD candidate at Tilburg University and a researcher at the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (the Institute). Her doctoral research focuses on deprivation of nationality and looks at when deprivation of nationality is arbitrary under international law and whether such deprivation has further implications for the constitutional concept of citizenship. Sangita’s work at the Institute focuses on deprivation of nationality in the context of national security and she coordinates human rights engagement activities. Sangita is one of the ‘Faces of Science’ appointed by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. Sangita has an LLM in International Human Rights Law from Tilburg University. Author email sangita.jaghai@institutesi.org / s.jaghai@tilburguniversity.edu Key words Deprivation—discrimination—equality—counter-terrorism—social cohesion. Abstract This is a reflection on how deprivation of citizenship can create different classes of citizenship and can (symbolically) destabilise social cohesion. The Netherlands is used as a case study to exemplify this. This paper critically analyses three aspects that can contribute to the erosion of equal and unconditional citizenship. First, tensions at state level in the implementation of international law principles of nondiscrimination and the prohibition of statelessness when regulating deprivation of citizenship. Both principles can be violated by national legislation on deprivation of nationality. Withdrawal of nationality can (un)intentionally result in statelessness under specific circumstances, leaving people without any nationality and subject to human rights violations. Other states limit deprivation of nationality to specific groups of citizens, resulting in differential treatment of citizens, which could be discriminatory. Second, challenges inherent to citizenship deprivation measures in the Netherlands in respect of ensuring equal and unconditional citizenship. Third, reflections on how political rhetoric on citizenship revocation, particularly in the case of terrorism, breeds fear in society, disrupts social cohesion and makes people believe that it is acceptable to make a distinction between groups of citizens. * The author would like to thank Laura van Waas and Caia Vlieks for looking at earlier versions of this paper. 3