140 COLUM. J. RACE & L. [Vol. 11:83 VI. TOWARD A PRINCIPLED INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 1(3) Racially discriminatory nationality laws and practices are often calculated to prevent a group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic, and cultural life of the country. Even when they do not discriminate explicitly and directly, nationality laws can discriminate against certain groups in effect and produce the same exclusionary result. Indeed, the application of racially discriminatory nationality laws to a significant segment of the population of a state is a quintessential example of systemic racial discrimination under the terms of international law. In order for Article 1(3) to conform to the principle of integration, it must be applied consistently with the peremptory prohibition against systemic racial discrimination. Article 1(3) must also, as is widely accepted, be read in light of the broad protection enshrined in Article 5 of ICERD of the right to nationality for everyone (and arguably together with other treaty expressions of the right to a nationality) 249 and the international prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of nationality.250 Application of the jus cogens norm against systemic racial discrimination to the more prominent and egregious instances of denationalization outlined in Part II is straightforward. 251 In each of those cases, there is a denial of the basic human right to a nationality to members of a racial group or groups, and a convincing argument could be made that the relevant measures leading to this outcome were calculated to prevent the racial group from participation in the political, social, economic, and cultural life of the country. Yet, even where denial or deprivation of nationality does not meet such a high bar, racialized nationality laws may nonetheless violate the jus cogens norm given that they will, in many cases, meet the definition of serious or systemic racial discrimination. However, does this mean that states can no longer maintain any discrimination in the content or application of nationality laws? In this regard, an important question to 249 UDHR, supra note 76, art. 15. 250 Id. See also CRPD, supra note 76, art. 18(1)(a). Article 18(1)(a) provides an explicit prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of nationality. The prohibition has also been acknowledged to constitute a rule of customary international law, and applies whether or not it results in statelessness. Brandvoll, supra note 75, at 194. 251 See discussion supra Part II.