status of the person . It follows that the determination of whether a person is recognized as a national should not be based on one State’s interpretation of another State’s nationality laws. When assessing whether a person would be rendered stateless through the deprivation of nationality, an examination must be made of both the letter of the law and of how the law is applied in practice by the other country in which the person (may) hold citizenship. In Pham v. UK, the determination of whether the individual would be rendered stateless by the deprivation order was made solely on the basis of the UK’s reading of Vietnamese law, disregarding the practical exercise of the law by Vietnam, which is a critical part of the assessment of statelessness. THE RELEVANCE OF THE RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE severe impact on other fundamental rights. The consequences of statelessness can range from destitution and denial of basic services to immigration detention, as well as a violation of the right to respect for private and family life. The violation of this latter right, established in Article 8 of the ECHR, is central to the case of Pham v. UK, that has now been brought before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). While this provision does not guarantee the right to acquire or retain a nationality, the Court interferences with a person’s right to a nationality may engage Article 8 because of the impact it has on the private life of the individual. “ WHETHER AN INDIVIDUAL WILL BE RENDERED STATELESS THROUGH WITHDRAWAL OF NATIONALITY IS A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL IS CURRENTLY RECOGNISED AS A NATIONAL BY ANY OTHER STATE, AND ACTUALLY HAS PROOF OF THAT NATIONALITY.” Patrícia Cabral In Genovese v. Malta, the ECtHR held that arbitrary denial of nationality could raise an issue under the right to private life as it is part of a person’s social identity. This was subsequently broadened by the Court in Ramadan v. Malta to include situations of arbitrary revocation of nationality, arguing that the loss of nationality already acquired can have a similar or even greater impact on the private and family life of a person. With regard to determining whether a violation of the above right exists, the Court held in K2 v. United Kingdom that not only the question of arbitrariness should be addressed, but that the impact of revocation for the person should also be considered. ARTICLE 8 ECHR – RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. “ THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEPRIVATION ORDER SHOULD […] ALWAYS CONSIDER WHETHER THE INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE RENDERED STATELESS BY THE DEPRIVATION, BUT IT SHOULD ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DERIVATIVE IMPACT ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF THE PERSON DEPRIVED OF NATIONALITY WHETHER THESE IMPACTS ARE DIRECT OR INDIRECT”. Alison Huyghe Rendering an individual stateless, can also have consequences that extend beyond the targeted individual. For instance, children of parents who are deprived of their nationality, even when the children themselves retain their on their right to private and family life. Moreover, given the severe consequences of statelessness, an examination of a potential violation of Article 8 ECHR through deprivation of nationality must always take into consideration whether the applicant was rendered stateless by such decision. This includes an analysis of the long-term repercussions and the restrictions on the enjoyment of the individual’s fundamental rights, as well as that of the person’s family members, that becoming stateless may cause. Thus far, ECHR jurisprudence has remained limited and taken a formalistic approach, primarily testing procedural rather than substantive issues. The case of Pham v. UK presents the Court with an opportunity to rule on whether Article 8 ECHR can in itself protect against deprivation when it results in statelessness given the severity of the consequences associated with it. FURTHER RESOURCES Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure (2020) Supreme Court Judgment in Pham v. UK (2015) Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954) UNHCR Handbook on Protection of Stateless Persons (2014) Nationality and the Prevention of Statelessness in Europe (2021)