nationality without giving them notice in certain circumstances (at present, written notice is required under Section 40 (5) BNA). F. Key concerns 33. Having looked at the impact of depriving someone of nationality and the evolution of the UK’s legislative powers to deprive people of nationality, this section turns to four fundamental ways in which the UK’s nationality deprivation powers and their implementation violate international law.49 Prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality 34. It is our view that international law prohibits arbitrary deprivation of nationality (see Article 17 ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary interference with private life; see also Article 15 (2) UDHR; and Article 18 (1) CRPD among others). As articulated by the UN Secretary General: ‘deprivation of nationality must meet certain conditions in order to comply with international law, in particular the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality. These conditions include serving a legitimate purpose, being the least intrusive instrument to achieve the desired result and being proportional to the interest to be protected.’50 A thorough analysis of international standards confirms that any deprivation of nationality must be (a) provided for by a law which is sufficiently clear and precise so that people can reasonably foresee the consequences of actions that could trigger a loss of nationality 51; (b) carried out in pursuance of a legitimate purpose; (c) necessary; (d) proportionate 52; and (e) in accordance with procedural safeguards.53 Principle of legality 35. We are concerned that the UK’s existing nationality deprivation legislation is insufficiently clear and precise, contrary to the principle of legality. 36. In particular, we are concerned that the ‘conducive to the public good’ criterion gives the HS a strikingly broad and subjective discretion to determine whether, when and why to deprive a person of nationality. The UK’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concern about the absence of a ‘requirement for the Secretary of State to show that there [are] objectively reasonable grounds’ for the deprivation decision and stated that the ‘conducive to the public good’ test contains ‘insufficient guarantees against arbitrariness’. 54 Legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality 37. We are also concerned that the UK’s existing legislation permitting nationality deprivation on national security grounds, is not necessary or proportionate to a legitimate aim. 38. Principle 7.2 of the Deprivation Principles identifies the following purposes as illegitimate: (a) administering sanction or punishment, (b) facilitating expulsion or preventing entry, (c) exporting 49 Those who wish to study the international law basis of each of these areas are encouraged to look at the Commentary to the Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure, available at: https://files.institutesi.org/Principles_COMMENTARY.pdf. 50 UN Human Rights Council, ’Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral’, A/HRC/25/28 (2013), para 4. 51 UNHCHR Guidelines [92], available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/5ec5640c4.html. 52 Pham v UK ([2015] UKSC 19, available at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0150-judgment.pdf. 53 See pages 51 – 76 of the Commentary to the Principles on Deprivaiton of Nationality as a National Security Measure, for a detailed overview of the different standards at play. available at: https://files.institutesi.org/Principles_COMMENTARY.pdf. 54 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Third report of 2005-06, available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/75/7507.htm#n153, paras 161, 164. 8