2025 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 7(2) connection between citizenship and its granting state, but also ignore international law orders: the genuine link test, or the compliance with customary international law such as the predominant nationality test seen in the Draft Articles. 53 The impact of these decisions on contested citizenship goes beyond a mere lack of recognition of citizenship and may lead to violations of other fundamental rights. In navigating this complex landscape, it is crucial to understand that the issue at hand is not just about citizenship and the right to identity. Rather, it represents a broader challenge — a unique form of citizenship deprivation imposed by foreign states within the international community. The atypical deprivation of citizenship in an international setting can be examined within Taiwanese examples. The discussion of deprivation of citizenship also applies the genuine link test in citizenship studies. Scholars use the genuine link test as a criterion to determine the deprivation of citizenship, as the loss of ties denotes the absence of a relationship between individuals and the state, and therefore the interdependence and the dependence of the jurisdiction are not established.54 Therefore, losing their ‘genuine link’ with the conferring state is seen as justifying the deprivation of citizenship from persons who do not maintain close connections with the state. However, the case of Taiwanese people is not that the native state deprives their citizenship. Instead, the predicament of Taiwanese individuals, wherein their genuine connections with Taiwan are consistently misattributed to China, presents a compelling case of what this paper calls ‘atypical deprivation of citizenship’. This situation not only challenges established principles of international law but also raises concerns about the arbitrary decisions made by foreign states in recognising contested citizenship. Where Taiwanese individuals face atypical citizenship deprivation, they encounter insufficient safeguards regarding this deprivation, given its atypical nature. The typical safeguard against citizenship deprivation in international law can be seen in several United Nations (‘UN’) legal instruments, for example art 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.55 The 1961 Convention is seen as the main establishment for individuals’ right to nationality to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of nationality by states.56 Even though the case of Taiwan is different in practice as it is an atypical citizenship deprivation by foreign states, it also results in the consequences of citizenship deprivation. Such atypical deprivation was not addressed by the Conventions aimed at preventing arbitrary deprivation, as the atypical deprivation imposes a false nationality on Taiwanese individuals. In addition, the loss of citizenship may lead to a subsequent loss of other rights attached to citizenship, for instance the right to reside.57 In the case of Taiwanese individuals, the residency requirements for ROC and PRC citizens often differ across various states. Some states tend to offer more relaxed 53 54 55 56 57 Draft Articles (n 43). Rainer Baubock and Vesco Paskalev, ‘Cutting Genuine Links: A Normative Analysis of Citizenship Deprivation’ (2015) 30(1) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 47; Honohan (n 10). Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res 217A (III), UN Doc A/810 (10 December 1948). Article 15 states: ‘(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.’ 1961 Convention (n 10) arts 5–7. See, eg, Shaw, The People in Question (n 6) 137, which discusses how the loss of Dutch citizenship has consequences on individuals’ rights to reside and work. 112