FIG 3.2 DEPRIVATION OF NATIONALITY ON GROUNDS OF DISLOYALTY: SCOPE OF APPLICATION, 2022 no deprivation ground deprivation based on disloyalty or treason 56 countries 134 countries 36 45 guards against statelessness, such that the citizenship of mono nationals is secure while that of dual nationals is not. The targeting of dual nationals is also contentious because of the effect of passing responsibility for someone who may pose a security risk to the 'other' country of nationality – as demonstrated by the response of Canada in the case of Jack Letts15 and New Zealand in the case of Suhayra Aden.16 3.3. HOW ARE POWERS FRAMED AND HOW MUCH ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION IS THERE? A qualitative analysis of the legislative provisions relating to deprivation of nationality for ‘disloyalty’, using various explorative text analyses, provides a clearer picture of the breadth and scope of these deprivation powers. It reveals, in particular, how the terminology employed by states in defining deprivation powers relating to disloyalty regularly relies on vague language. Such vagueness may pertain directly to the concept of 'disloyalty' or to other elements present in the framing of many of the legislative provisions, such as the notions of 'acts against state security', 'harmful to (vital) state interests', or 'conducive to the public good'. Nearly half of the countries with deprivation powers relating to disloyalty refer in rather general terms to acts against national security in their provisions (62 countries), with the majority failing to specify what precisely encompasses such acts. For example, the 1954 Jordanian citizenship law, provides that: (2) The Council of Ministers may, with the approval of “ His Majesty, declare that a Jordanian has lost Jordanian nationality if: […] (c) He commits or attempts to commit an act deemed to endanger the peace and security of the State".17 The language of “vital state interests” is similarly prevalent – slightly over half of countries make at least one reference to this notion (69 countries). Here too, an issue of specification arises. The 2005 Norwegian Citizenship Act, for instance, provides in Article 26(b), that “the Ministry may, for reasons of fundamental 98 89 34% 66% generally applies only applies to naturalised citizens national interests, make a decision on the loss of citizenship for a person who also has another citizenship, and who has exhibited conduct which may indicate that he or she will severely damage such interests”.18 Any indication as to the nature of the conduct remains absent. In contrast, the citizenship law of Slovenia also provides for deprivation of nationality if a citizen’s “activities are harmful to the international or other interests of the Republic of Slovenia”, but it goes on to define a list of activities that fall within the scope of this deprivation clause.19 In 27 countries – approximately one-fifth of those studied – the notion of ‘conducive to the public good’ is contained in provisions on deprivation of citizenship, but remains similarly undefined and is typically subject to an element of discretion. This is the case, for instance, in the United Kingdom, where Article 40(4A)(b) of the 1981 British Nationality Act20 provides that nationality may be deprived if: Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation “ …the is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory …” In this instance, the determination of what is conducive to the public good and what encompasses conduct that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state is left to the Secretary of State and whether or not they are ‘satisfied’ that this is the case. Where terms remain undefined and their content is left to the discretion of the authority charged with taking deprivation decisions, questions may arise as to whether the law provides enough specificity to ensure legal certainty – which can otherwise render the deprivation of nationality arbitrary under international law.21 There is also greater scope for the powers to be ‘stretched’ or used abusively, as illustrated by the case study of Bahrain. BAHRAIN: TARGETING OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS WITH NATIONALITY REVOCATION FOR ‘SECURITY’ REASONS The case of Bahrain represents a powerful example of how legislation introduced under the pretext of national security and counterterrorism, can be weaponised against political opponents, dissidents and human rights defenders leading to their arbitrary denial of citizenship. In 2011, during the height of the Arab Spring in the Middle East, protests erupted in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Deeming these demonstrations to be a national security threat, the government reacted with a set of regressive reforms. It progressively expanded the grounds for nationality deprivation and consolidated the power to deprive Bahrainis of nationality at the behest of the Minister of Interior. 18