Exploring Atypical Citizenship Deprivation and Spillover Effects necessarily equate to citizenship as seen in many countries, nationality is commonly used in international law scholarship to denote ‘the legal status of individuals and the connection between individuals and states’. 6 That is, how international law scholars articulate nationality shapes how individuals’ rights and obligations vis-a-vis states are defined across various domains, such as diplomatic protection, armed conflict, state responsibility, jurisdiction, and extradition.7 This author uses ‘citizenship’ and ‘nationality’ interchangeably; however, when it concerns the relations between individuals and states, and the legal status on the international level, ‘nationality’ is used; and when it concerns rights in relation to other rights and the personal status encompassing civil, political and legal dimensions, ‘citizenship’ is used. The statehood of Taiwan has been under debate for decades. There are doubts whether Taiwan should be considered as a state and the following section will explain further on this point. This article adopts the narrative that while being independent and self-governing as a democracy, Taiwan holds a contested sovereignty the same as many other contested sovereignties such as Kosovo. The lack of formal diplomatic relations denotes that the Taiwanese Government may not be able to resolve citizens’ problems via formal diplomatic measures. Since Taiwanese people cannot necessarily rely on diplomatic resolutions to remedy denials of identity, some of them eventually turn to administrative remedies and judicial reviews by foreign authorities to seek redress. This article uses two recent cases to illustrate these points. The first case, Liu and Others v Norway in 2021,8 which eventually reached the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), discussed the legal discourse of overseas Taiwanese when raising the issue of Taiwanese identity in Norway. A second case, Liu v Poland in 2023,9 which also reached the ECtHR, focused on the arrest of Taiwanese individuals in Poland who were facing the risk of extradition to China. In Liu and Others v Norway, the ECtHR declared the application inadmissible; in Liu v Poland, the ECtHR ruled that extradition to China raised significant human rights concerns. The second case does not centre on Taiwanese citizenship, but its relevance emerges when the case is situated within the broader geopolitical context that shapes the contestation of Taiwanese sovereignty. The article’s conclusion explains Taiwanese citizenship by reference to the concepts of atypical citizenship deprivation and spillover effect. The spillover effect is introduced to describe the scenario in Liu v Poland, where contestation over citizenship or sovereignty becomes a core problem in an international lawsuit, even when the prima facie issue of the legal matter does not concern either status. While the granting or the deprivation of nationality is done under a state’s authority and is therefore a domestic matter, citizenship has an international dimension requiring compliance with the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of 6 7 8 9 Jo Shaw, The People in Question: Citizens and Constitutions in Uncertain Times (Bristol University Press 2020) 20 (‘Shaw, The People in Question’). Kristin Henrard, ‘The Shifting Parameters of Nationality’ (2018) 65 Netherlands International Law Review 269; Ivan Anthony Shearer, Starke’s International Law(Butterworths, 11th ed, 1994) 309. Liu and Others v Norway (European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’), Application No 24859/21, 15 July 2021) (‘Liu and Others v Norway’). Liu v Poland (ECtHR, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1006JUD003761018, 6 October 2022) (‘Liu v Poland’). 103