Rendering services to or receiving emoluments from another State (1961 Convention, Article 8(3)(a)(i)) With respect to services rendered to or emoluments received from another State, “services” include civil and military services, and “emoluments” refer to any kind of reward, including monetary rewards and other types of benefits.53 Receipt of such emoluments is only relevant where emoluments are received by an individual in contravention of his/her duty of loyalty to the Contracting State. In addition, an individual being deprived of nationality on this ground would have had to have acted “in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State.”54 As a matter of good practice, an express prohibition made under Article 8(3)(a)(i) should be an individual notice, directed towards the person concerned. 55 In addition, Contracting States seeking to deprive an individual of nationality under Article 8(3)(a)(i) should issue a warning to this effect which enables the individual to cease or amend their behaviour in order to avoid facing the consequence of deprivation of nationality. The individual should then be given a fair and reasonable time to respond to such a warning. Services rendered to or emoluments received from an entity which does not constitute a State, such as a non-State armed actor (whether in a person’s country of nationality or another country), an intergovernmental organization, a nongovernmental organization or a business entity would not fall under the scope of Article 8(3)(a)(i). This is in line with how a State is defined under international law.56 Conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the Contracting State (1961 Convention, Article 8(3(a)(ii)) Article 8(3)(a)(ii) establishes a very high threshold for deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness. The ordinary meaning of the terms “seriously prejudicial” and “vital interests” indicate that the conduct covered by this exception must threaten the foundations and organization of the State whose nationality is at issue. The term “seriously prejudicial” requires that the individual in question has the capacity to negatively impact the State. The conduct triggering deprivation of nationality under Article 8(3)(a)(ii) must not be incidental to the harm to be caused but rather fundamentally related to it. Conduct that involves remote support that does not materially affect whether or not the harm in question would occur is not “seriously prejudicial.” 53 UN Conference on the Elimination or Reduction of Future Statelessness, Summary Records, 20th meeting of the Committee of the Whole, 24 April 1961, A/C0NF.9/SR.20, p. 7. 54 1961 Convention, Article 8(3). 55 See e.g., Human Rights Council, Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality: Report of the SecretaryGeneral, 19 December 2013, A/HRC/25/28, para. 14. 56 Convention on Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States, 165 LNTS 19, (Montevideo Convention), Article 1. UNHCR > GUIDELINES ON STATELESSNESS NO.5 18