Exploring Atypical Citizenship Deprivation and Spillover Effects Cases involving Taiwanese individuals, whether natural or legal persons, become intertwined with the contestation of statehood and citizenship. Liu v Poland gives another example of the hidden citizenship argument behind the prima facie legal issues. The case stresses that recognition of nationality does not only have a nominal meaning in these cases; it can also serve as a bridge towards the violation of other human rights. Citizenship is considered a gateway to other rights. Problems with citizenship can also lead to the breach of other rights. The ECtHR may unintentionally break this cycle in the case of Liu v Poland, although the core issue of recognising Taiwanese citizenship remains unaddressed. C Evaluating ECtHR decisions in Liu and Others v Norway and Liu v Poland The ECtHR’s decisions in these cases carry substantial implications for citizenship, even if the primary arguments do not surround it. The ECtHR may not want to address Taiwanese citizenship recognition, but it is challenging for the Court to avoid the contestation of Taiwanese citizenship. While Liu v Poland suggests that the Court may intervene when human rights concerns reach a threshold of torture or jeopardising a fair trial, or when they involve jus cogens norms in international law and fundamental principles of a legal system and severe human rights violations, 125 Liu and Others v Norway, a case focused on national identity recognition, was not even considered under the ECtHR.126 The two ECtHR cases have drawn attention to the dispute over Taiwanese citizenship on the international stage. The unresolved nature of Taiwanese sovereignty directly impacts the practice of citizenship recognition. However, the dispute takes on a new dimension when foreign governments, like Norway, align with Chinese authorities and categorise Taiwanese individuals as Chinese. This kind of action forces the nominal claim of the Chinese Government by naturalising Taiwanese people en masse without their consent, consequently turning it into an international practice to categorise them as Chinese. In other words, while Taiwanese citizenship may have a contested nature, it remains unsettled due to the sovereignty of Taiwan but should not be casually regarded as another form of citizenship or another state’s citizenship. This indefinite characterisation of contested citizenship (Taiwanese citizenship) runs counter to some international practices that conveniently classify Taiwanese people as Chinese. The issue of Taiwanese citizenship at the international level might be seen as an extended form of citizenship deprivation. By consistently denying Taiwanese citizenship within the international community and ignoring Taiwanese people’s claims in courts and on official platforms, these acts may be viewed as a unique form of citizenship deprivation. It is atypical because it is practiced by foreign authorities to undermine the citizenship of Taiwanese individuals. This does not necessarily result in passport revocation or denial of re-entry to Taiwan, but cases like Liu v Poland and other instances of forced deportation and extradition demonstrate that by deporting or extraditing Taiwanese individuals to China, Taiwanese sovereignty and the practice of Taiwanese citizenship are eroded. Such a deliberate misinterpretation of citizenship not only perpetuates a false understanding of one’s legal identity and status, but also replaces Taiwanese citizenship with Chinese citizenship within foreign legal systems. In essence, it 125 ibid [98]–[104]. 126 Liu and Others v Norway (n 8). 123