R (Begum) v SIAC; R (Begum) v SSHD; Begum v SSHD In addition, that appeal right may indeed be largely illusory in a case where a fair process cannot be provided with the affected individual abroad. 30 In the United Kingdom, the absence of a more exacting legal standard for deprivation of nationality seems likely to remain an issue of concern to many into the future. The present scheme affords a very high degree of latitude to the SSHD to judge whether deprivation is ‘conducive to the public good’. Further, and even beyond the limitations of the statutory appeal, there continues to be a relative paucity of broader standards against which deprivation decisions may be judged. Mere de jure nationality is not an effective proxy for security. If citizenship is still, in important senses, ‘the right to have rights’ as against the state in question, and particularly so when the individual is beyond the territorial reach of domestic laws (including those protecting human rights), then a case such as Ms Begum’s illustrates the imperfections of a statutory protection focused on protection from statelessness as defined in the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons art 1(1) (‘not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law’). The protective effect is limited given both that a state (here, Bangladesh) may be found to be a state of nationality even if it asserts that it is not, and that a state of nationality may be the locus for serious risks to that individual, including risks of actions incompatible with international human rights law. In the case at first instance, the SIAC had considered evidence of the Government of Bangladesh’s ‘strong stance … denying [Ms Begum’s] alleged citizenship in light of her alleged activities’.31 The Foreign Minister of Bangladesh had stated that Ms Begum had ‘nothing to do’ with Bangladesh and if found in that country would face execution under its terrorism laws, calling the decision of the SSHD to remove her nationality ‘human fly tipping — taking [the UK’s] problems and dumping them on other countries’.32 One effect of the decision may be to increase focus on the application of ECHR rights through the HRA 1998, regarding deprivation of nationality. The ECHR lacks any strong, specifically directed right to hold or retain nationality of the type stated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 art 15 and it has been very slow to develop substantial protections in this area by reference to more open-ended rights. However, its jurisprudence relating to the ECHR art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) has gradually come to bear more directly on questions of citizenship. In Ramadan v Malta, the Court held that although the right to citizenship is not as such guaranteed by the ECHR or its Protocols, it cannot be ruled out that an arbitrary revocation of citizenship might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under 30 31 32 The difficulties are well illustrated by the efforts of the SIAC and the parties, in this and other cases, to take stock of the issues (if any) that may be raised. Since the decision of the Court, these have led to a flurry of three successive case management/procedural decisions of the SIAC, dated 20 July, 19 October and 29 October 2021 respectively. At present, Ms Begum’s resumed SIAC appeal is listed for hearing in November 2022, but there is a substantial incentive to agree to stay the proceedings rather than press forward, because dismissal of an appeal pursued with Ms Begum unable to play an effective part would potentially hinder the bringing of a new appeal in the event of effective participation becoming possible in the future. See SIAC Determination (n 1) [70]–[72], [75]. ‘Shamima Begum: IS Bride “Would Face Death Penalty in Bangladesh”’, BBC News (online, 3 May 2019) <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48154781>; For an interesting parallel to the language of the Minister, see John Fischer Williams, ‘Denationalization’ (1927) 8 Brit YB Int’l L 45, 57: ‘[i]t is no longer possible simply to send undesirables abroad. Slops may be thrown out of the windows of a settler's hut on a prairie; in a town such a practice is inadmissible’. 173