or remained substantively similar. Three of these countries (Israel, Nauru and Switzerland) also now explicitly tie nationality deprivation and terrorism. As shown in Figure 4.3, Europe emerges as the epicentre of expanding powers, accounting for almost half of all countries globally that amended their legislation to that effect. 18 European states expanded their powers since the year 2000: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania and the United Kingdom. Notably, over half of these countries added terrorism as an explicit ground in their laws, directly linking new deprivation powers to national security and counter-terrorism measures.35 In absolute terms, the second largest set of expanded deprivation powers can be found in the MENA region, where eight countries amended their laws. In relative terms, the MENA region actually saw the highest prevalence of reforms – 44% of countries in the region saw an expansion of deprivation powers in this period.36 Here, again, involvement in terrorism was added as a specific ground for deprivation of nationality in a number of these countries – including in the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and Bahrain. Other countries introducing deprivation powers were geographically scattered, including Fiji, Honduras, Seychelles, South Korea, and Tonga. It should be noted that in some cases, these newly introduced powers employ broad language and offer significant scope for discretion. For example, Honduras amended its legislation in 2003 to enable deprivation of nationality from “[t]he naturalized Honduran citizen …[who] becomes unworthy of Honduran nationality”.37 In September 2014, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2178 to counter the threat posed by “foreign terrorist fighters” – formally introducing this language into the UN system and catalysing the adoption of a broad array of policy measures and action plans by states to tackle this phenomenon. The resolution explicitly reaffirms that states’ counter-terrorism policies and actions must be consistent with international human rights law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law. However, as noted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, “some of the measures taken under the scope of Security Council resolution 2178 may have a negative impact, for example, on the right […] be protected against arbitrary deprivation of nationality” (A/HRC/28/28). The analysis undertaken for this report shows that, indeed, since resolution 2178 was adopted, 15 countries have introduced or expanded citizenship stripping powers, the majority linking deprivation specifically to involvement with terrorist or extremist groups. Moreover, resolution 2178 determines that states must “ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice” and the subsequent UN Security Council Resolution 2396 (2017) calls for strengthened judicial cooperation and for prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration of 'foreign terrorist fighters' and their accompanying family members. Yet, states undermine commitments to international cooperation when they strip a person of nationality, expel them to a third country or subject them to removal proceedings, thereby exporting the potential security risk and failing to take responsibility for their own nationals. Looking more closely at the timing and substance of these law reforms, a clear correlation emerges between the expansion of deprivation powers and the rise of global terrorism. There has been an acceleration of countries reforming their legislation to introduce or expand these powers between 2016-2022. This was clearly directly linked to the question of how to deal with ISIS returnees – a challenge with which the international community as a whole was grappling, including through the UN Security Council, as discussed in the boxed text. Between 2006-2010, of the nine countries that added or expanded grounds for deprivation, five of them specifically added terrorism as a ground for deprivation. From 2011 to 2015, a further six countries added or expanded grounds for deprivation – three of which added terrorism as a ground, while one country added the ground of joining an armed conflict abroad. However, between 2016-2022, a period undoubtedly marked by the declining influence of ISIS and the challenge of how to deal with the return of ISIS fighters, there was a significant increase in countries expanding or introducing new deprivation powers. Of the 14 countries that took those steps in this period,38 nine countries added terrorism as a ground for deprivation and three countries added armed conflict abroad demonstrating a concerted effort to block the return of ISIS returnees and using citizenship stripping as a tool to do so. Moreover, several of the countries that had already introduced or expanded their powers during one of the earlier periods passed further reforms between 2016 and 2022, extending the scope of those powers significantly in some cases – such as in Australia, Denmark and the Netherlands. Belgium provides another example of a country which greatly expanded the grounds on which one can be deprived of nationality. According to Belgian law, only those born to nonBelgian parents can be deprived of their nationality. In the year 2000, persons in this category could lose Belgian nationality if they “seriously fail in their duties as Belgian citizens”39. Successive amendments in 2006 and 2012 significantly expanded the ground on which nationality could be deprived. Consequently, any person not born to Belgian parents who had been “sentenced, as perpetrator, co-perpetrator or accomplice, to at least five years imprisonment for specified offenses” or for “an offense the commission of which was manifestly facilitated by the possession of Belgian nationality”, could be stripped of nationality. While procedural safeguards were incorporated into the amendment, the scope of the provisions are extremely broad and encompass a multitude of actions. Given also that deprivation of nationality on these grounds is limited to those who are not born to Belgian parents, there is an inherent inequality in the application of these provisions. As mentioned, the broadening of deprivation power over the last two decades has been most prevalent in Europe. In 2000, Estonia’s deprivation grounds were relatively straightforward, but also unequal in application. There, only those who acquired nationality otherwise than by birth could be stripped of it, and this could only occur where a person joined the intelligence or security service of a foreign state, or an armed organisation of such a state, or attempted to change the constitutional order of The heavy influence of political debates on counter-terrorism and how to deal with citizens who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS have left their mark in other European states as well, prompting some to include deprivation grounds for which it is not necessary for a person to be convicted. Rather, it is sufficient that the individual “actively participates in fighting by a terror organization abroad” (Germany)40 or “voluntarily takes an active part in combat operations abroad on behalf of an organized armed group Estonia by force. In 2021 however, these grounds were expanded to include multiple other grounds such as treason, espionage or crimes against international security, including terrorism. Notably, the expanded grounds did incorporate procedural safeguards, including allowing for deprivation only after a conviction. 27