Exploring Atypical Citizenship Deprivation and Spillover Effects shows how the Norwegian Government should have applied the genuine link to determine the citizenship of Taiwanese people to avoid arbitrary decisions regarding the recognition of citizenship. Turning to the Liu v Poland case, the applicant, who was involved in an international telecommunications fraud syndicate, faced extradition to China. Despite the domestic court ruling in favour of extradition, the ECtHR expressed concerns about the human rights violations concerning torture and right to a fair trial. The case also touches upon consular rights and the challenges faced by Taiwan, which is not a party to the Vienna Convention due to its contested statehood; the denial of consular rights and recognition of Taiwanese citizenship on the international stage may subsequently result in mistreatment of Taiwanese people. Ultimately, the legal discourse of Liu v Poland may not address Taiwanese sovereignty, but the outcomes significantly impact Taiwanese sovereignty and citizenship, showcasing the intricate interplay of legal disputes, human rights and geopolitical considerations, as well as the spillover effects of the contested citizenship. The cases of Liu v Poland and Liu and Others v Norway shed light on the complex and unresolved issue of Taiwanese citizenship in the international arena. The ambiguous nature of Taiwanese sovereignty directly impacts the recognition of Taiwanese citizenship. When foreign governments such as Norway categorise Taiwanese individuals as Chinese, it not only challenges the legitimacy of Taiwanese citizenship but also sets a troubling international precedent. This practice aligns with Chinese authorities’ attempts to naturalise Taiwanese people as Chinese without their consent, eroding the distinctiveness of Taiwanese citizenship and classifying them incorrectly within foreign legal systems. This mis-recognition of citizenship carries serious consequences. Forced deportations and extraditions of Taiwanese individuals to China not only violate human rights but also undermine the sovereignty of Taiwan and the practice of Taiwanese citizenship. It replaces Taiwanese citizenship with Chinese citizenship within foreign legal frameworks, exposing Taiwanese people to new risks associated with Chinese citizenship. While the denial of Taiwanese citizenship on the international stage may not always render it ineffective in most cases, it has the potential to lead to severe human rights violations due to the misclassification of Taiwanese citizenship. The mis-recognition ignores the examination of genuine links between states and citizens, becoming an atypical deprivation of one’s original citizenship by replacing it with a forced citizenship which is attributed to the political needs and ignorance of the foreign authorities. Liu v Poland also points out that even though the primary legal arguments in these cases revolve around human rights abuses and extradition, the status of Taiwanese citizenship plays a crucial role in the broader context and brings in spillover effects to the case. These cases highlight the need for international recognition of the unique status of Taiwanese citizenship and the importance of protecting the rights and identity of Taiwanese individuals in the face of diplomatic challenges. In summary, the cases of Liu v Poland and Liu and Others v Norway underscore the intertwined nature of contested citizenship and human rights concerns, highlighting that the recognition of citizenship is not just a nominal concept but also a gateway to other fundamental rights, while the mis-recognition of citizenship may result in scenarios similar to a faulty atypical citizenship deprivation. 125