Sample laws and good practices In response to growing concerns about terrorism, a number of countries have recently expanded the powers of State authorities, or have made more active use of existing powers, to deprive their citizens of nationality. Many other States, however, have taken care to maintain or establish safeguards against statelessness. Canada provides one such example. Amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2014 introduced revocation of citizenship on grounds that included a conviction for terrorism.83 In June 2017, Canada’s Parliament voted to repeal many of the 2014 amendments, reverting to legislation passed in 1985 that allowed deprivation of nationality resulting in statelessness only in instances of misrepresentation, fraud or concealment of material facts in relation to the acquisition of nationality.84 The law on citizenship in Ukraine, last amended in 2016, sets out principles in Article 2, that include “prevention of statelessness” and “impossibility of Ukrainian citizens being deprived of Ukrainian citizenship”. Under Article 19, grounds for loss of nationality “shall not be applied if the Ukrainian citizen will become a stateless person as a result” (unofficial translation).85 The nationality law in Ukraine also provides that termination of marriage or loss of Ukrainian citizenship by a spouse shall not result in the automatic loss of Ukrainian nationality by the other spouse, consistent with best practices for gender equality in nationality laws (see section on gender equality beginning on p. 15).86 Indeed, without appropriate safeguards, deprivation of nationality can have downstream effects on the targeted individuals’ children and spouses. Some States have therefore adopted provisions in their nationality laws that specifically protect such family members from loss of nationality and/or statelessness. For example, under the nationality law of Madagascar, as reformed in 2017, a Malagasy citizen’s loss of nationality “does not extend to the children and the spouse of the sanctioned individual”.87 In application, laws on deprivation of nationality that contain safeguards against statelessness can inadvertently result in the creation of different classes of citizens. In some countries, deprivation on grounds of terrorist activity is reserved for dual nationals, whose second nationality ensures against statelessness. The experience in Canada with such differential treatment ultimately proved unacceptable: amendments adopted in 2014, allowing deprivation in the case of dual citizens convicted of terrorism offences, were ultimately repealed. A similar process unfolded in France, where proposed amendments 83 The 2014 Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act had introduced provisions allowing for Canadian citizens to be deprived of their nationality for a number of offences, including being convicted of terrorism, treason or espionage as defined in the Criminal Code. However, it had also barred revocation of citizenship resulting in statelessness: “Subsections 10(2) and 10.1(2) do not operate so as to authorize any decision, action or declaration that conflicts with any international human rights instrument regarding statelessness to which Canada is signatory” (Art. 10.4(1)). 84 Canadian Citizenship Act 1985, Art. 10(1). 85 www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/7179. 86 Ibid., Art. 2. 87 Loi n°2016-038 modifiant et complétant certaines dispositions de l’Ordonnance n° 60-064 du 22 juillet 1960 portant Code de la nationalité malagasy, 25 January 2017 (in force as of 8 May 2017), Art. 52, available at: http://docplayer.fr/46645663-Loi-n-modifiant-et-completantcertaines-dispositions-de-l-ordonnance-n-du-22-juillet-1960-portant-code-de-la-nationalite-malagasy.html. 31